#of course George never intended to replace John but it happened in a way. or at least John saw it that way

[georgeharrisonsmiling]

Another funny thing is reading how many people wanted Lennon&Dylan to be a new team, especially John. Not only that didn't happen but Dylarrison became a thing instead, making John feel both rejected and replaced.

[whatdoesshedotothem]

Monday 26.. October 1835

8 ½

11 10

No kiss rainy windy rough morning - ready in 50 minutes - no workmen here - Mr Husband came for the model of Northgate and Frank took it to Northgate - the model to be enlarged so as to take in the intended shops the Northgate chapel part of Broad street and Northgate [near] to Mr Atkinson’s in North parade - F47° at 9 25 at which hour breakfast in ½ hour - ½ hour with my father and Marian - the latter says Mrs Bewley is not a respectable person Marian would not have any friend of her (Marian’s) in her (Mrs B-‘s) house - said I had never liked her - mentioned her giving Miss Bagshaw brandy and water - talk about the Misses Bagshaw and Mrs Henry Belcombe - Miss B- takes too much at parties - one night all an officer could do to get her downstairs - Marian thinks they both tumbled one on the other - Mrs HSB-  most disrespectfully talked of about Mr Gilbert - said that I had long been backing out quietly - mentioned Mrs Lawton’s being now in York - had, in this case, passed the house (Shibden) twice - Marian struck with the folly of the thing - said she might have gone by Huddersfield from Manchester - sometime in the stable - A- off to Cliff Hill at 11 ¼ in spite of wind and driving rain - wrote the above of this morning till 11 ½ - had Joseph Mann before dinner to see about horse geer to replace that stone last week - and had John in the afternoon to ask what was to be done about the Spiggs loose - the water bursting out from near the old engine pit in Mr Carr’s field and spoiling ½ DW. of land - sent John to shew Frank how to let it off into the brook - John said a column of water 14in. thick and very cankery and thick quite different from that in the engine pit was running out of the drain end under Wellroyde - John thought the water must be washing away the puddle from about the sluice or must have found itself a new course someway - sent him to Holt’s to tell Holt to come the 1st thing tomorrow morning and John to see about buying 2nd hand horse geer  at Halifax

 SH:7/ML/E/18/0119

 A- back from Cliff Hill at 1 20 (had gone at 11 ¼) - between 2 and 3 sometime talking to George in the stable except this and having had Joseph Mann and John Booth, was from 11 ½ to 5 ¾ making extracts from the London Heralds and looking at maps and siding newspapers - much interested with an article in the Herald copied from Journal des Debates respecting the navigation of the Danube - examining the localities etc - dinner at 6 ¼ - 10 minutes with my father and Marian then coffee and came upstairs at 7 35 - A- wrong about something I know not what she has a queer stupid temper we shall never continue long together I happened to mention that something ought to be settled about Mr Speed when she said she should have gone over to Leeds today if she had had carriage and servant of her own I quietly said she had two of each I was very sorry I had prevented her but really on such a day I did not think it fit  to go I said no more but came upstairs keeping my temper beautifully as I must say for myself I always have done to her I see we shall part by and by she brought me a letter in from π- and looked as if coming round I asked if she was not sorry what for said she if you do not know I need not tell you said she said very well no I replied it is not very well I will not prevent you another time and you must do your own way and be responsible for the consequences and if you are not sorry now perhaps you may be so sometime I see there will be a struggle for the upperhand I shall not give way come what may - I know Lord that thy judgments are right (25th evening of the month)  - Letter this evening from M- 3 pages and ends and under the seal and the 1st page crossed - arrived in York on Tuesday last - she looked out in passing - she was sad but ‘only sad for myself’ - .... thought Halifax improved ‘is your plan of an Inn there brought to maturity - and is it you who are going to build on the foundation I see already made, tell me all about it, I like to know all you do, and you tell me nothing. I cannot bear to fancy I am mixt up with your common acquaintance’ ..... wonders I should be persuaded she would rather wait for a long letter than a few lines earlier - she observed the opening into my new road ‘and the blocks of stone there appeared to me also a good deal of new wood about the house as if for building - I should like to see what you have been doing, and it would be an unspeakable relief to me to have done so but..... I could quote a well remembered sentence - your own mind will supply it, Freddy, I have not moral courage enough - yet it would be’ (difficult to know whether the yet is the last word of the last sentence or the 1st word of this) ‘a melancholy pleasure to me to wander about the place alone, and some day I may do so, this is the utmost of which I feel capable’ - Mr Robinson has orders to fit up the house in Petergate for N-s but no timed fixed for its being wanted - Mrs Duffin called on M- the day after her M’s arrival -‘she talked much of you and Adney - wondered I should pass without seeing you, hoped it was not for want of asking - I answered to all as I thought you would best like - and she ended by saying ‘well Mariana I am sure you will be pleased to know’ that dear Miss L- says she never was so happy in all her life’ - my lips might and probably did say yes, but I felt my cheek blanch a little, for I felt, that I could endure to think Miss L- was as happy as she had ever been, but that it would be hard and painful to believe, Freddy was happier than she had ever been - but Mrs D- knew not what she said and I did not tell her’ - found Percy much improved in health - Steph irresolute but knew she ought not to stay in York and M- settled all -‘she goes to Torquay’  and M- is to take her - ‘400 miles there the same back!’ - M- in bed with a cold all Friday and part of yesterday if well enough will commence the journey on Thursday - asks if she can do anything for me in London - ‘If I had decided on offering Steph the money on condition of paying it back, as he best could you must believe that I had no idea of troubling you with the concern - no, no, my Fred I am not so unreasonable - I know - I feel you would do all you could for me, but beyond this I will never tax you even in thought and with regard to myself and for myself as little as I can help, yet somehow it is a pleasure to think you have anything belonging to me or anything to do with me - This last link once broken, and I think I should be very miserable but you shall always do as you like - my present plan is this, to take fifty pounds a year for her education and make up the rest out of my own purse, I calculate that I can do this and leave two hundred untouched for her to receive when she comes of age of this arrangement I say nothing to anyone but shall be glad to hear you think it better than offering it to Steph - I have money now for the journey but will have fifty pounds at Xmas if it suits you’ - Could have got me six weeks ago a good lady’s maid now gone to Lady Charlotte Wilbraham - ‘must I try to help you to what in truth cannot be found at every ‘street corner’ - Poor π- as to all she says about my happiness what is it? Wrote all but the 1st 12 lines of today till 8 ½ - then till 9 40 wrote 3 pages to M- then 20 minutes with my aunt till 10 - tolerable tonight - I had Matty Pollard just before dinner to say that Luke Greenwood’s widow said it was all right - she would get a house as soon as she could - much obliged to me for giving her 10/ for the oven + 10/. for the set stones + 10/. for the things in the garden + 10/. over = 40/. told Matty no to say anything but that if a few shillings more were wanting to apply to me -  Rainy windy rough day - pretty fair in the afternoon at least chiefly small rain in the evening between 9 and 10 - F54° now at 10 5 pm -  Holt is ill - had broken some ribs - my cousin very slightly just before getting into bed.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 23, 2020

Heather Cox Richardson

Today Americans were roiled by an article in The Atlantic, detailing the method by which the Trump campaign is planning to steal the 2020 election. The article was slated for The Atlantic’s November issue, but the editor decided to release it early because of its importance.

The article’s author, Barton Gellman, explains that Trump will not accept losing the 2020 election. If he cannot win it, he plans to steal it. We already know he is trying to suppress voting and his hand-picked Postmaster General is working to hinder the delivery of mail-in ballots. Now Trump’s teams are recruiting 50,000 volunteers in 15 states to challenge voters at polling places; this will, of course, intimidate Democrats and likely keep them from showing up.

But if those plans don’t manage to depress the Democratic vote enough to let him declare victory, he intends to insist on calling a winner in the election on November 3. His legal teams will challenge later mail-in ballots, which tend to swing Democratic, on the grounds that they are fraudulent, and they will try to silence local election officials by attacking them as agents of antifa or George Soros. The president and his team will continue to insist that the Democrats are refusing to honor the results of the election.

Gellman warns that the Trump team is already exploring a way to work around the vote counts in battleground states. Rather than appointing Democratic electors chosen by voters, a state legislature could conclude that the vote was tainted and appoint a Republican slate instead. A Trump legal advisor who spoke to Trump explained they would insist they were protecting the will of the people from those who were trying to rig an election. “The state legislatures will say, ‘All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power. We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state,’ ” the adviser explained. The election would then go to Congress, where there would be two sets of electoral votes to fight over… and things would devolve from there.

They would likely end up at the Supreme Court, to which Trump this morning said he was in a hurry to confirm a new justice so there would be a solid majority to rule in his favor on the election results. “I think this will end up in the Supreme Court and I think it’s very important that we have nine justices, and I think the system’s going to go very quickly,” he said. "Having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation."

Amidst the flurry of concern over The Atlantic piece, a reporter this afternoon asked Trump if he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the election. "Well, we’re going to have to see what happens," Trump said. "You know that I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots and the ballots are a disaster." He went on to say: "Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very — we’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer frankly, there’ll be a continuation."

In response to this shocking rejection of the basic principles of our government, Adam Schiff (D-CA), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, tweeted, “This is how democracy dies.” He said: “This is a moment that I would say to any republican of good conscience working in the administration, it is time for you to resign.” But only one Republican, Mitt Romney (R-UT), condemned Trump’s comments as “both unthinkable and unacceptable.”

On Facebook, veteran journalist Dan Rather wrote of living through the Depression, World War Two, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Kennedy, Watergate, and 9-11, then said: “This is a moment of reckoning unlike any I have seen in my lifetime…. What Donald Trump said today are the words of a dictator. To telegraph that he would consider becoming the first president in American history not to accept the peaceful transfer of power is not a throw-away line. It's not a joke. He doesn't joke. And it is not prospective. The words are already seeding a threat of violence and illegitimacy into our electoral process.”

There is no doubt that Trump’s statement today was a watershed moment. Another watershed event is the fact that Republicans are not condemning it.

But there are two significant tells in Trump’s statement. First of all, his signature act is to grab headlines away from stories he does not want us to read. Two new polls today put Biden up by ten points nationally. Fifty-eight percent of Americans do not approve of the way Trump is doing his job. Only 38% approve of how he is handling the coronavirus. Voters see Biden as more honest, intelligent, caring, and level-headed than Trump. They think Biden is a better leader.

Trump’s headline grabs keep attention from Biden’s clear and detailed plans, first for combatting coronavirus and rebuilding the economy, and then for reordering the country. The Republicans didn’t bother to write a platform this year, simply saying they supported Trump, but Trump has not been able to articulate why he wants a second term.

In contrast, Biden took his cue from Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and has released detailed and clear plans for a Biden presidency. Focusing on four areas, Biden has called for returning critical supply chains to America and rebuilding union jobs in manufacturing and technology; investing in infrastructure and clean energy; and supporting the long-ignored caregiving sector of the economy by increasing training and pay for those workers who care for children, elderly Americans, and people with disabilities. He has a detailed plan for leveling the playing field between Black and Brown people and whites, beginning by focusing on economic opportunity, but also addressing society’s systemic racial biases. Biden’s plans get little attention so long as the media is focused on Trump.

The president’s antics also overshadow the reality that many prominent Republicans are abandoning him. Yesterday, Arizona Senator John McCain’s widow Cindy endorsed Biden. “My husband John lived by a code: country first. We are Republicans, yes, but Americans foremost. There's only one candidate in this race who stands up for our values as a nation, and that is [Biden].” She added “Joe… is a good and honest man. He will lead us with dignity. He will be a commander in chief that the finest fighting force in the history of the world can depend on, because he knows what it is like to send a child off to fight."

McCain is only the latest of many prominent Republicans to endorse Biden, and her endorsement stings. She could help Biden in the crucial state of Arizona, especially with women. "I'm hoping that I can encourage suburban women to take another look, women that are particularly on the fence and are unhappy with what’s going on right now but also are not sure they want to cross the line and vote for Joe. I hope they’ll take a look at what I believe and will move forward and come with me and join team Biden," McCain said.

That McCain’s endorsement stung showed in Trump’s tweeted response: “I hardly know Cindy McCain other than having put her on a Committee at her husband’s request. Joe Biden was John McCain’s lapdog…. Never a fan of John. Cindy can have Sleepy Joe!”

And, of course, Trump’s declaration has taken the focus off the Republican senators’ abrupt about-face on confirming a Supreme Court justice in an election year. The ploy laid bare their determination to cement their power at all costs, and it is not popular. Sixty-two percent of Americans, including 50% of Republicans, think the next president should name Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement.

The second tell in Trump’s statement is that Trump’s lawyers confirmed to Gellman that their strategy is to leverage their power in the system to steal the election. Surely, they would want to keep that plan quiet… unless they are hoping to convince voters that the game is so fully rigged there is no point in showing up to vote.

Trump’s statement is abhorrent, and we must certainly be prepared for chaos surrounding this election. But never forget that Trump’s campaign, which-- according to our intelligence agencies-- is being helped by Russian disinformation, is keen on convincing Americans that our system doesn’t work, our democracy is over, and there is no point in participating in it. If you believe them, their disinformation is a self-fulfilling prophecy, despite the fact that a strong majority of Americans prefers Biden to Trump.

Trump’s statement is abhorrent, indeed; but the future remains unwritten.

—-

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

Heather Cox Richardson

[sebeth]

Crisis On Infinite Earths #1

Warning, Spoilers Ahead…

  I loathe reboots. That said, Crisis on Infinite Earths is my all-time favorite “big event” comic book series. The art, the writing, the character moments, the long term-impact - no other “big event” from any company has come close to achieving the levels of success of Crisis.

I re-read this series annually.  And I continue to love it.  Each re-read seems to add more detail to the story.

Let’s dive into DC’s original Multiverse.

We begin with a recap of the creation of the Mutliverse: “In the beginning there was only one. A single black infinitude. But the light grew, and the infinitude shuddered and the darkness finally screamed, as much in pain as in relief. For in that instant, a Multiverse was born. A Multiverse of worlds vibrating and replicating…and a Multiverse that should have been one, became many.”

We switch to Pariah - possibly the most emo, pessimistic character in comics.

“How longer must I suffer for my sins…before I may be spared the witnessing of these horrors?”  - You were an extremely naughty boy if your punishment is to witness death and destruction over and over.

Earth-3, the home of the Crime Syndicate, is in its final death throes.  The Crime Syndicate, despite being villains, are doing their best to halt the destruction.  

Ultraman is fierce in these pages: “I’ve changed the course of mighty oceans, don’t tell me my super-strength can’t save my adopted planet.”

The above-quote proves that while Ultraman may be a villain, he is still a Superman.

Alexander Luthor, the sole super hero on this planet, is also attempting to save the planet.  Alexander witnesses the death of Superwoman. Luthor heads home to spend his final moments with Lois Lane.  

Lois: “Alexander, I think I can die peacefully, knowing I’m with you. But our son is so young. He’s been cheated of living and knowing love. Alex, must he perish too?”

Luthor and Lois send their infant son to Earth-1.   The Luthor baby’s ship is very similar in appearance to the rocket that transported baby Kal-El to earth.

“This is a prototype, large enough for only one. We will die, but our son shall live.”

Power Ring and Ultraman are the final remaining members of the Crime Syndicate. The duo realizes there is nothing left to do.  

Ultraman goes out like a boss: “What I have done all my life.  I fight to the very end!”

Once again proof that, at his core, Ultraman was a Superman.

Lois and Alexander share a final embrace: “Lois, our time together has been all too brief, but you’ve given me a love this old scientist never thought he’d know.”

“And you’ve given me more love than I had any right to expect. My husband. I love you!”

 Luthor’s son lands on the abandoned satellite headquarters of the Justice League.

The Monitor wants the Luthor child.  Good thing Alexander sent him to Earth-1 instead of letting him die on Earth-3.

The Monitor sends the Harbinger to assemble his team:  King Solovar of Earth-1′s Gorilla City, Dawnstar from the 30th century, Firebrand from 1940′s Earth 2, Blue Beetle from the Charlton Earth, Psycho-Pirate from present day Earth 2, Arion of Atlantis from 45,000 years ago, and Firestorm and Killer Frost from present day Earth 1.    

An few notes during the search:

The Harbinger duplicate searching for Arion is possessed by a shadowy figure.

Harbinger approaches Roger Hayden, the current Psycho-Pirate, in an asylum: Hayden urges Harbinger to “Find Halstead – the first Psycho-Pirate. He was better’n me. He knew how to handle all those emotions…Why don’t you just leave me alone? I don’t want to. You’ll give me those headaches all over again. You don’t know what it’s like, do you? The psycho-pirate affects emotions in others but those emotions hurt me. Please, go away…I’m not well.”

Harbinger slaps the Medusa Mask on Hayden and spirits him out of the institution.

All of Harbinger’s “recruitment” scenes were essentially abductions but the Psycho-Pirate’s is noteworthy because you have a mentally ill man being kidnapped over his protests.

One last note of the recruitment scenes – Firestorm and Killer Frost are enemies. The Psycho-Pirate uses his abilities to cause Killer Frost to fall in love with Firestorm so she will accompany the group: “You feel love now, Killer Frost, don’t you? Love for man, love for earth, and especially love for your enemy.”

Firestorm is uncomfortable with the situation. Me too.

We go to the Monitor’s headquarters where the above-mentioned figures are waiting.  Also in residence are Earth 1′s Geo-Force, Cyborg, Psimon, Doctor Polaris, Green Lantern (John Stewart) along with present day Earth-2′s Superman and Obsidian.  I’m assuming these guys were recruited during “Crisis” tie-in issues.

This is a very odd group. It’s easy to see why some were chosen - Arion, Superman, Green Lantern, and Firestorm are obvious for their power levels, Dawnstar is the best tracker in the DC Universe, and Obsidian’s abilities give him an edge against the Anti-Monitor’s shadow demons.  The others are not so obvious at first glance.  

Monitor ruminates to himself: “Already another Earth has perished and five heroes I needed are gone. Thus I’ve dispatched your replicants to seek out others as replacements.”

We’re never told the name of the Earth or of the five deceased heroes.  There is no editor’s footnote telling us to check out “issue #” so I don’t think it happened in a tie-in.  Crisis happened in the 1980’s and editors were all over footnotes urging you to buy “Issue # of Title X” to discover the full details of an event.

The five deceased heroes remain a mystery – who died and who were the replacements?

I’m fairly confident in stating Dawnstar was an original intended recipient – the depth and scope of her tracking abilities is unique in the DC universe. As for the others…who knows?

The heroes and villains await on the station.  Most are keeping to themselves with a few exceptions. Killer Frost is lovey-dovey with Firestorm much to his dismay. Geo-Force and Cyborg are standing next to each other.

Superman and Obsidian are conversing. Both heroes are from the same Earth. Firebrand is also from Earth 2 but originates in the World War II era: “I know Obsidian. The Squadron recently met him and his friends but Superman looks so old, hardly the Man of Steel I know so well. Well, I guess everybody ages.”

I love Obsidian staying close to Superman. Not only is Clark from Obsidian’s home planet, but Clark began his heroic career shortly before World War II and has worked for decades with Obsidian’s father, the original Green Lantern. It makes logical sense for Obsidian to be glued to Superman’s side.

Psimon attempts a truce with his “dear friends” Cyborg and Geo-Force. Cyborg tells him to shove it.

King Solivar keeps to himself: “The humans stare at me then turn away. My presence here is uncomforting to them. Unlike us apes, they have not yet learned to look beyond the form to the soul that lives inside.”

Solivar’s must be feeling insecure. Dawnstar is from the 31st century and John Stewart is a Green Lantern – diverse life forms are nothing new to them. Superman’s been around the block and seen many unusual life forms. Cyborg has a teammate that can turn into any alien form so I don’t see Victor being phased by a sentient ape.

Psimon warns of an impending attack – cue the shadow demons and a big fight at the Monitor’s base.  A few heroes have a bit of luck against the demons but are on the ropes until the Monitor releases an extremely intense light burst.  

Solivar saves Dawnstar and Dawny responds with “You’re an ape, but you can talk!”

This is the one bit that felt out of character.  Dawnstar wouldn’t be fazed by a talking ape. 31st Century people – she’s seen way more unusual things than a talking ape.

“And now, let me properly introduce myself.  I am…the Monitor.  And I have summoned you here because your universes are about to die!” - What a drama queen!

Final thoughts:

Nice set-up issue.  It achieved what would take 3 to 6 issues in modern times.

Gorgeous art by George Perez.

Pariah is annoying.

I loved that the Crime Syndicate (of all people) went out as heroes.

Harbinger was much more powerful in her debut.  Compare this to the Superman/Batman issue where she’s killed off-panel by a Doomsday clone.

Considering light is the Shadow Demon’s main weakness, I’m surprised the Monitor didn’t recruit the first Dr. Light.  Light is scum but that didn’t stop the Monitor from recruiting Psimon, Killer Frost, the Psycho-Pirate and Doctor Polaris.

I really miss pre-New 52 DC. Firebrand!  All-Star Squadron!  Obsidian!  Older Earth-2 Superman!\

Rest In Peace:

Earth-3

The Crime Syndicate

Alexander Luthor

Lois Lane Luthor

[ladytp]

Merry Post-Christmas to all -  especially @lenny9987 !

Here is the 2nd chapter of my gift to her in the Outlander Secret Santa 2017, “In the Quiet of the Night, Candour”. (First chapter here, both chapters now also posted in AO3).

Chapter 2 – Things Needed To Be  Said

 There was no question about getting any sleep, at least not for Lord John. The pain in his ankle had changed from a raw jolt to a dull but insistent throbbing, and he was cold, so cold. Jamie had been right; staying alone without the ability to move about freely to stave off the cold would have been his undoing. Even now, lying side by side so that their bodies touched at length so that he could feel warmth emanating from Jamie, John was shivering. He tried to subdue it as to not disturb his companion, but there was only so much he has control over his body.

“Ye rattle and shake like a wee rabbit in a fox hole. Are ye very cold?” A low voice so close to his ear startled John and he drew in an involuntary breath.

“I’ll live,” he muttered.

“Would it help if we laid closer, maybe on our sides?” The suggestion was tempting; spooning would increase the touch points of their bodies and preserve the precious body heat even more effectively than the soggy layers of cloth on top them. But how? John couldn’t imagine Jamie turning his back on him, but equally how would he feel pressing against John’s back?

Without waiting for an answer Jamie turned, his chest towards John.

“Aye?”

Submitting to his fate – and only slightly disturbed by the notion - John rolled on his side and felt Jamie pressing against his back.

And sensed the moment when Jamie’s whole body became rigid, hardly suppressed tension of his every muscle vibrating through the thin layers of cloth between them. His breathing changed too; withheld breath, air through his nostrils, then another moment of stillness. Without seeing his face John could imagine it; clenched jaw, furrowed brow.

Jamie’s left arm was draped on top of John’s shoulder, and it trembled slightly.

The relief of his warmth was immediate, but was soon replaced by discomfort. Why Jamie was doing this for himself when it was clear that his whole being was repulsed by it, John wondered, getting annoyed. Whatever was at the root of Jamie’s anxiety had nothing to do with him – why should he feel guilty about it?

Without stopping to think John blurted out his irritation.

“Really Jamie, if you believe that in this situation, our lives hanging on by the thread, I could think of anything else but survival, you are simply flattering yourself.”

Jamie stiffened.

“I canna help it. It’s nought to do it with ye,” he murmured, and immediately shame and regret flushed over John. It was abundantly clear that Jamie has suffered something so traumatic that even his iron will couldn’t overcome it, and he felt ashamed of challenging him on it.

Again, without consciously planning to, the question that had been lurking at the back of his mind for a long time dropped from the tip of his tongue.

“What happened to you? Who made you react this way?”

Long silence ensued and another wave of regret for John. It was not for him to be privy of Jamie’s personal tragedies; why would he imagine being entitled to them and cross the boundaries they had set on the limits of their friendship already a long time ago?

As John was trying to find words to take his question back, Jamie inhaled loudly.

“A redcoat. Captain of His Majesty's Eighth Dragoons in the army of King George I.” His voice raised hardly above whisper, his words low, cold, menacing. “Captain Jonathan Wolverton Randall, Esq.”

It was Johns turn to stiffen. It was one thing to suspect something, another to have it confirmed.

A redcoat. No wonder his reactions towards Lord John had been so visceral, especially at times when he had been still carrying his uniform, proudly.

That Jamie knew the name implied that it had not been a random attack, not like his own experience all those years ago. The memory of it still came back to him every now and then, but John had made his peace with the incident long time ago including a conclusion that it was probably for the best that he had never learned the identity of his assailant.

He regretted bringing the matter up – the last thing he wanted was to bring Jamie’s nightmares from the past back – especially in this time and place. Hoping to close the matter swiftly he faltered to find the words.

“I do apologise sincerely for asking - I shouldn’t have done it. It is not for me to know your private matters.”

A slight relaxation in Jamie’s posture, a huff of warm air past his ear.

“And…I am sorry. So sorry,” John added, quieter.

“Dinna fash. Maybe ye should know, should have known earlier. To see why it was so hard for me to accept ye as ye were. Are. Although I ken that ye are nothing like him.”

“This man…he took you against your will?” Since it appeared that the door had been opened and Jamie was not in a hurry to bang it shut again, John was curious to know more. A captain of Dragoons – must have been at the time of the Rising. After Culloden, perhaps, before Ardsmuir?

“In a way, aye, and in a way, no. I was to be hangit in the morning and he had Claire too in his grip. He threatened to…” Jamie swallowed, the motion of his throat against the back of Johns head, “…so I told him that if he lets her go, I wasna going to resist. And I dinna. Even though he made me do things…” Rest of the sentence was inaudible and John was glad of it.

God’s grief! To be forcibly coerced was one thing, but at least one had the comfort of knowing that one wasn’t playing any part in one’s own humiliation. But to be forced to act? To willingly submit oneself to machinations of a madman?

“But you were not hanged after all?” What a foolish question it was, of course he hadn’t been! John winced. But how long had he been…

“Aye. Claire came back to me that morning – with my kinsmen and a herd of Highland kine.  They took me out of there and I lived.” Once again Jamie’s voice lowered almost to a whisper. “I dinna want to, at first. But Claire dinna let me go. She can be stubborn like that.” A hint of smile creeped into his voice. Lord John could imagine; if Jamie was unremitting with his love for his wife, Claire Fraser was his equal. Neither of them would let the other one go, not without a fight.

Momentarily Lord John wondered if he would ever know a love like that.

“And that one night did the damage? To your soul, to your whole self?”

“It wasna just that night. That demon had been after me for years. He was the one who did my back – over hundred lashes, two times, hardly a few days in between. And then he had the gall to admire his handiwork when he had me at my word.” The hate and venom dripping at every word Jamie spoke was unnerving and despite his shivering having subsided Lord John felt a cold chill at the back of his spine.

“What happened to him?”

“I killed him. At Culloden.’

Jamie spoke matter-of-factly and if John had felt a chill before, now he realised that he had been much closer to death than he could have ever imagined that day in Ardsmuir, all those years ago at a game of chess.

“I am glad you did. I am so sorry it happened to you.” There was not much else he could say, nothing would change what had been done to Jamie and what scars he had been carrying in his soul ever since.

“The worst thing was that I reacted to it.“ Now that Jamie had started talking it seemed he wanted to get it all out. John recognised it for what it is; the burden of holding something buried deep inside one’s chest for years, then finally letting it go. It could sweep a man on its path, so irresistible was its pull.

“He conjured my wife into that cell with us, and I was being delirious of the pain of my hand – he had broken my fingers with a hammer and driven a nail through my palm,” Jamie offered as nonchalantly as if he had spoken about a casual meeting over a tables of cards. “And he touched me and I… I reacted.’

Oh. John had heard of that shame. Men having been forced to have sex blaming themselves for the way their bodies had reacted as if it meant that they had been willing in the act. The life of men like him was not without its darker side and without the protection of law, bad things happened.

“You know it was not you, do you? It was just your flesh reacting. The same as if you stick your fingers down your throat and vomit – it is just a reaction that has nothing to do whether you feel nauseous or not.” If he could provide this little bit of comfort to Jamie, even after all these years, he wanted to do his best.

“A flesh reacting? But isn’t mind the master of one’s flesh?”

“Not always. Like now; if my mind could tell me not to shiver I would stop doing it. But it can’t, and I shan’t.”

“Hmmm.” An added Scottish noise at the back of his throat suggested that Jamie was not prone to take John’s word for it. “How would ye ken such a thing?”

“In my social circles I hear things,” John said dryly. “Take it from me, you are not the only one.”

“You too?” A tone of surprise.

In the face of Jamie’s confession John had no option but to be totally honest.

“Once. Years ago. I was young, newly joined the army. It was nothing like what happened to you; just a quick fumble in the dark, by force - I never knew who it was. From thereon I went nowhere without a dagger.”

“You dinna like it then?”

Dear Gods! Sometimes thickness of men made John want to weep. Even Jamie, as educated and sophisticated man as he was, could be such a dullard at times.

“Would you like it if a woman would take you by force, submit you to her desires and under her power, and there was nothing you could do about it? If the autonomy of your body would be stripped away from you and you had no bargaining power, no choice - not whatsoever?” A flash of anger spiced his words with harshness he had not intended, but – really?!

John knew that there had been something sinister behind Willies conception. He had never had an impression that it would have been an act of true love, or that Jamie would have taken advantage of Geneva and seduced her by his own free will. Some kind of coercion must have had taken place, and knowing Geneva John had no doubts where it had originated. Yet she couldn’t have taken him by force – so whatever it had been, it couldn’t have been an experience tinged with forced submission and utter sense of powerlessness.

Still huffing his righteous indignation John felt more than heard Jamie’s act of contrition; a swift squeeze on his shoulder, a muttered apology.

“Nay, I canna say I would enjoy it. I havena. That wasna verra kind thing to say, I am sorry.”

John’s irritation left him as soon as it had arrived and his mind returned back to Jamie’s confession. A captain in His Majesty’s army, clearly prone to sadism and manipulation, pursuing a Scottish laird for his own nefarious purposes – and Jamie being forced to give his word to submit to him. “…he made me do things…,” Jamie had said and suddenly John felt bile rising at the back of his throat.

He was as familiar as any with the dark underbelly of the world he and his kind inhabited, and how the rejection by the civilised society encouraged dark men and dark deeds, fully aware how their wickedness could often lead to no repercussions because of the stigma of shame and lawlessness. And Jamie, still surprisingly naïve about the ways of human reactions…

“Surely your wife told you that you can’t blame yourself for any of it?”

“Aye she did. But she wasna there, in that cell. She didna have to…”

“I am sorry but I beg to differ - she is a very wise woman and a healer and I am convinced her knowledge is superior to yours about how human body works. And for what it’s worth, I am telling you the same thing. And I know some things she may not.” John tried to deliver his words as convincingly as he could, knowing how self-doubt and self-hate could eat even the strongest man from the inside. He himself hadn’t been immune to their effects either – if not exactly on the same matter, there had been enough mornings when he had looked at himself in the mirror and hated everything he saw.

Jamie had finally seemed to let go some of his tension; the long limbs pressing against him might not have been exactly fully relaxed, but some of the earlier rigidity was gone. John didn’t dare to move, afraid to break the precious moment. He tried not to think of the shape of Jamie’s thighs or the swell of his shoulders, both much too close to him in a way that could not be described as anything else but intimate. He tried not to think of things that he had schooled himself over the many years to shut out of his mind. Yet every shift and every slight movement steered his thoughts to those forbidden paths, edged him closer to the precipice – and he welcomed it, and he hated himself for it.

What kind of a sick mind can do such a thing, after hearing that?

Silence followed but somehow John didn’t think the conversation was over yet. The restlessness of the man behind him was palpable, the tossing and turning in their confined conditions. He didn’t press on it though – sometimes things took their time and words were hard to come by. If Jamie still had something to say, he would do it in his own, good time.

“Ye ken, I could never understand what is it in ye that makes ye wanna… ye ken?” There was no accusation in Jamie’s voice, only genuine puzzlement. Yet the fact that he seemed to be willing to discuss the matter John knew to be an anathema to his faith and disgust him in a way that went deeper than the ordinary kind of revulsion common with other people, touched him.

John remembered the argument they had once had about the nature of the Sacred Band of Thebes – a band of Greek warriors consisting of pairs of male lovers – and the revulsion Jamie had shown then towards the whole notion that such relationships could be anything more but feeble indecency of cowardly men to relieve their lust.

“I don’t know either – all I know is that I can’t help it. It is not a choice – I wish it was, as surely I would have chosen differently to make my life easier.” John chose his words carefully, tiptoeing around the subject as if walking on a field of shards of glass.

“Hmmph,” was Jamie’s eloquent response.

Well, at least it was better than a tirade how only men who lacked the ability to possess a woman or were cowards who feared them, or an outright denial of John’s true self.

John had accepted a long time ago that his feelings for Jamie were always going to be one-sided and in an odd way had still gained comfort from the simple existence of them – better to have loved and not loved back than not to have loved at all, and all that. He had accepted that the most he could expect from the object of his affections was friendship and respect and turning of a blind eye to his failures as a human being – and on most days that was more than enough and he was happy to have it.

And yet every now and then he found himself wishing he would someday get more; an open-eyed acceptance of himself as he truly was, warts and all. Suddenly an urgent need pushed itself forward and compelled by it to act John turned slightly to face Jamie.

“It is who I am. It is who I have always been – and I dare say, will be until the day I die. I am sorry if it doesn’t suit your views of the world or the teachings of your God, but I can’t lie to you. Oh, I know, I have lied most of my life; to my family, my friends, my comrades in arms, everyone. I must, as otherwise I will be doomed.”

Jaime stared at him, his eyes narrowed. Moonlight illuminating the landscape was just enough to outline his features and a glint of his eyes.

“But I refuse to lie to you,” John finished, sucking his cheeks in defiantly. Part of him felt a bit ridiculous – maybe not the best idea to lay down ultimatums in such a gregarious situation.

Jamie didn’t let go his scrutiny, his eyes sweeping over John’s face. They trapped him �� those slanted eyes, dark pools in the feeble light.

“Aye, there is honesty between us and I’ll not want to see it change.” Jamie finally said, slowly. “I see you, I hear you. I canna say I understand any of it – but there are other things in this world I canna work out and I accept them all the same.”

“I being what I am does not mean that I would be like some other men – like that captain from your past. I hope you give me the courtesy of believing that.” John’s moment of defiance was draining in the face of cold and hunger and throbbing pain and most of all, Jamie’s silent acknowledgment of its righteousness, and suddenly he felt tired, so very tired.

“I ken. I ken that well. I am sorry if I have ever given you to believe otherwise.” Jamie lifted his hand and squeezed John’s shoulder, a cumbersome move but sincere.

“I am sorry too. And now that I know what is behind it – not that I wouldn’t have figured out that it must have been something horrid – I am twice as sorry for ever putting you through it.”

John rolled back on his side, staring ahead at the edge of their crudely constructed resting place, broken roots of plants sticking out of bare earth in front of his face. Jamie scooted a little closer, pressing his whole body flush against his. John felt warm, he felt protected, he felt all kinds of ridiculous things a man of his age and stature should have left behind to his youthful years.

“Try to sleep, a charaid. Time goes faster that way.” With that muffled expression against John’s neck Jamie sighed deeply and relaxed – this time genuinely.

Charaid. Friend.

Lord John didn’t find sleep for a long time, too busy cradling the small expanse of unbearable tenderness and contentment inside his chest. It ebbed and flowed at Jamie’s every breath against his neck, and those of his own, taking on the same rhythm. Yet eventually his eyes grew heavy and he slipped into a deep sleep.

And that was how Claire found them in the morning, still in the same position, only parts of their faces peering under the garments that had frozen stiff.

[schpiedehl]

Reasons I hate the Hamilton fandom

Disclaimer: I’m a mod of one Hamilton fb group, an admin of another much smaller group, have seen the show twice, and a huge fan of many of the actors and creatives, not just the original cast. I am entrenched in the Hamilton fandom and have been for nearly 2 years so all of this comes from personal experiences with the fandom. I do not hate the actual musical and having talked to many folks and made friends through this fandom, I can confirm that it has had a positive effect on many people, especially aspiring actors of color. I had criticisms of the actual musical (reductive view of American history, perpetrates American exceptionalism, bootstraps narrative, not as feminist as fans insist, etc) but I’m mostly just addressing the issues within the fandom not within the media. The problems with the fandom is nebulous and manifold so I’m gonna try to be as thorough as possible here: - for those that don’t know, Hamilton is a show made by POC creatives for actors of color. The casting is not “color blind” it is racially conscious. All leads always, aside from the silly, villainous King George, are intended to be played by actors of color and the much of the fandom absolutely REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS. It ranges from the benign-seeing assertions that Hamilton is colorblind and therefore race of the actor doesn’t matter as much as talent (false, with the underlying belief that a white actor will somehow be better suited/more talented in a role that is literally not written for them) to petulant assertions that one white fan or another will be the first white actor to play x role, to erasing the racial identities of light-skinned black, latinx, and asian actors to fit the manufactured narrative that white actors can and have played principal roles and the show is therefore colorblind. Fans are quick to point out the ambiguous wording of “America then told by America now,” intended to subtly indicate POC, as meaning white folk, despite the continuous assertions by the creatives that this is simply not the case. - whitewashing in fan art. Hand in hand with the refusal by many white fans to acknowledge the fact that Hamilton the Musical is intended for POC, white fan artist almost universally draw the actors-as-characters with lighter skin, lighter eyes, and more typically European features. Lin, who played Hamilton in the original cast, is a Latino man of mixed race heritage with tan skin, black hair, and dark eyes yet fan art of him as Hamilton is nearly always pale, red haired, and sometimes even blue-eyed. Artists will defend this as interpretation and some will even indicate that Hamilton was white irl so this is more accurate but Hamilton irl and Lin were nothing alike and he presence of a goatee in Hamilton Fan art is an indisputable sign that the artist is drawing Lin, not the real life, baby faced Hamilton. Dark skinned actors like Okieriete Onaodowan (Hercules Mulligan in the original cast) are rarely drawn and when they are they tend to be heavily lightened. - characters deemed queer by the fandom - notably John Laurens who was thought to be gay or bi in real life by many historians - is often heavily feminized in fan art, despite the fact neither the character nor the actual figure are ever noted as being particularly effeminate. This is of course fetishization symptomatic of applying heteronormativity to gay relationships. - fans often reject and demonize female characters. This is not universal but many fans have negative reactions to Hamilton’s wife, Eliza (and ignore and/or demonize her in regards to the gay ship of Hamilton/Laurens, despite Laurens having died shortly after Hamilton married Eliza. Hamilton fans believe almost universally that Hamilton was bi irl, which is supported by historical consensus, but the notion of him actually being with a woman repulses much of the fandom. - basically standard biphobia). Fans are also extremely gross about Maria Reynolds. - a separate part of the fandom refuses to acknowledge both the historical consensus of the Hamilton/Laurens relationship and the fact that that musical contains several intentional references to it. I’ve been told many times to keep that “gay shit” out of the fandom. - shipping wars of course. - blind worship of the characters either without regard to their historical counterparts or including their historical counterparts. - slavery apologism. Comparing slaves to modern consumer items and/or farm animals to demonstrate the ubiquity of slavery and/or people’s mindset regarding it. While it is true that people are the product of their time, “everyone owned slaves” and “you cannot judge them by the Norms of our culture” are common silencing/apologist techniques which both lack nuance and perpetuate racist ideals. It also erases the fact that abolitionism and moral opposition to slavery existed not only in post-revolution society but also within the very people who owned slaves. Thomas Jefferson wrote that slavery was the worst evil while simultaneously owning and raping slaves. - I’ve encountered at least one person with a bona fide slavery fetish. That’s not the fandom as a whole but it is worth noting. - abhorrent beliefs are common re: Thomas Jefferson’s relationship with Sally Hemings. - this has basically been covered above but rampant racism is not uncommon in this fandom. You get the distinct feeling that a sizeable portion has never once interacted with a person of color before, based on the ways they claim ownership over the actors, portray the characters, talk about racial issues, etc - speaking of the actors: fans are very gross toward the actors in a variety of different ways. - fans fetishize the fuck out of Daveed Diggs, who played Jefferson in the original cast. Diggs, for reference is a biracial black Jewish man, a rapper, actor, and activist best known outside of Hamilton for his work with clipping., which includes an extremely politically charged afrofuturist space rap opera. Fans tend to do a couple things in regards to Diggs. One, they conflate him with irl Jefferson leading so some really and truly bizarre headcanons and fan interpretations. Diggs himself has no love for irl Jefferson and has - along with the rest of the cast - cautioned fans against romanticizing the real figures, apparently to limited success. More heinously, however, I have seen people claiming ownership of Digg’s body and hair (claiming they would be upset if his cut it, or would stop being his fan even), made comments about keeping him as a sex slave, fetishizing his ethnic features, or even denying his blackness in favor of fetishizing his white, Jewish heritage. I’ve even seen a white woman comment that she wanted to kill diggs’ black girlfriend, skin her, and wear her as a suit to attract Diggs. No fucking joke. Diggs work as a musician is loved by many fans but others reject it as “scary black music.” - this happens with other actors tho not as much as Diggs. Fans have made plenty of comments about Okieriete Onaodowan’s “big black spy on the inside,” for instance, showing further capacity to fetishize black bodies. - for many fans, the original cast can do no wrong. They will go out of their way to justify and forgive anything that can be seen as problematic rather than acknowledging that they can still like a person that has problematic aspects. - or conversely, they gang up on actors on twitter, or tag them in hate/undeservedly negative critique. - replacements and non-OBC casts are largely ignored and several of the actors have been trolled or sent hate simply because they are not the originals. There is also the mindset that no one could ever be better than the original and the show is not worth seeing without the originals which is extremely disrespectful toward the replacement actors. - a large portion of the fandom claims that Hamilton is the only rap they like, or that they don’t like hip hop at all. When the Hamilton mixtape - and album featuring inspired-bys and covers of Hamilton songs by contemporary singers and rappers, was released fans HATED IT, many pointed out that they hated the hip hop sound and the “bastardization” of the music. Many of the songs on the Mixtape were by artists which inspired Hamilton in the first place. - a lot of the fans are just plain cringey. Bad head canons which become more ubiquitous than the actual canon portrayals, extremely forceful when it comes to trying to “convert” people, extremely adverse to any kind of criticism of the musical, history, or the actors, obnoxious at cons, etc. - art theft is rampant - extreme classism re: bootlegs especially - older fans have a tendency to be extremely abusive toward younger fans. Not all young fans are bad but bad memes and stupid references are met with extreme, quick, and unwarranted vitriol.

[sustainpunch]

12 Unusual and Weird Guitar Designs

Unusual guitar designs never get old, they do, however, get more creative and a lot stranger.

From the bigfoot guitar to guitars built from Legos, and steampunk to Star Wars guitars, maybe not all of them sound great but they are definitely fun to look at.

What do you think of weird, crazy designs when it comes to your axe? Would you play a guitar that doubles as a sword?

There are hundreds of unusual designs for guitars throughout history, some play nicely, some never intended to actually been strummed yet all were a vision of an artist and we can appreciate that.

These are just a few of our favorites in no particular order that we think you will Enjoy!

Real Lego Guitar

The black Lego guitar is actually a fully functioning instrument with the complete case made out of the favorite childhood building blocks.

You can jam out with your friends, and if a block of the guitar falls off, just snap it back together.

The Lego guitar comes complete including pick-ups, bridge, and all of the functioning parts, all this beauty needs are some strings.

Seeing how Legos have been around for many decades I’m sure you have some in the attic so why not build your own?

Star Wars Guitars

While we’re on the subject of toys from childhood, how about some Star Wars guitars?

Designers and fans of the epic saga have found a way to incorporate Star Wars into just about anything, so guitars should come as no surprise. And we have to admit, they are kind of awesome.

Depending if you choose to play your (han) solo, or just rip off some C (3PO) cords there is no doubt you’ll be a force to be reckoned with.

Ultimate Steampunk Guitar

Steampunk is still as popular these days as the 1960s and 1970s, so it’s not surprising to find a few guitars out there made in this style.

These can get pretty elaborate, and they look great. Thunder Eagle guitars made a fun looking guitar from copper pipes and gears.

Complete with pipes and gauges and beautiful gears – the Thunder Eagle amazingly it sounds as good as it looks.

The creator modified a Rhodes Jackson V, using copper plating, some pickups, re-facing the gauge, and adding some wonderful paint effects.

Bigfoot Guitar

From the famous guitar maker George Marlin comes the magnificent BigFoot guitar, which he displayed at the Miami Beach Guitar Festival.

This original Sasquatch sound box is actually just the foot of Bigfoot.

An earlier attempt by Marlin at a full size Bigfoot guitar, was found to be too difficult to hold (at 10 feet long) and it was apparently scaring off the neighborhood kids as well.

Not sure how it sounds, but in rock n’ roll, image is most of the show and this guitar looks pretty freakin’ gnarly.

Swiss Guitar

Ron Thal, aka Bumblefoot, is famous for his stint with Guns N’ Roses. His custom Vigier double-neck better known as Double Foot and of course the Vigier Flying Foot guitar.

But it was his Ibanez Roadster Swiss Cheese Guitar that first gained him fame as an iconic designer.

Vigier even did a limited edition of replica “Swiss Cheese Guitars” which sold out quickly, even if it was a bit “cheesy”

Sword Guitar

Many guitars have taken a ‘stab’ at being designed around the concept of a sword. One of our favorites is the VLINE.

The unique VLINE ‘SWORD’ was made by Vincent Berton, a French Avant garde luthier in the early 1980s, who worked on the famous Paris guitar road – the Rue De Douai.

It looks like something from out of the Excalibur days. Can you imagine if King Arthur pulled this bad boy out of the stone and ripped off some riffs? 

Mermaid Guitar

This one also happens to be a beautifully crafted guitar.

Andy Mason, the artist and musician responsible for this gorgeous yet completely bizarre, fully-functional guitar in the shape of a mermaid, built his first guitar in 1967 using whatever materials he was able to find in his father’s garage.

Ever since, the incredibly talented craftsman has made everything from lutes to mandolins—as well as a series of guitars for John Paul Jones and Jimmy Page.

A few of which, were of the elegantly double-necked variety that Page was especially well-known for playing.

Not exactly for Ariel fans, Mason’s life-sized “Mermaid” guitar took three years to build and is comprised of nineteen different types of wood.

And, according to Mason requires a guitarist with “sensuous posture” to be successfully played.

Prince Guitars

If you stop and think about musicians with the weirdest guitars, it probably won’t take too long until you get to this famous guy.

Not only was Prince a truly talented musician, he also happened to like playing weird, cool guitars.

Prince played a variety of unique guitars from his custom-built purple guitar, shaped like the symbol he once replaced his name with, to the Cloud Guitar and what is known as Purple Special, his final guitar.

Map Guitar

Now, this is where Gibson got really, really weird. Gibson’s Map guitar is shaped like the map of the United States of America.

Yes, somebody actually had that idea in mind. Although it was produced by Gibson, the original builder of this guitar was James Hutchins, and it was first sold under the Epiphone brand.

Surprisingly enough, it actually sold well. And after witnessing its success, Gibson decided to put their name on the headstock.

Aside from its non-ergonomic shape, the guitar has classic features, like two volume and two tone knobs, and two humbuckers.

There were, however, certain versions with three knobs. These were produced back in 1983 and 1984 and featured mahogany bodies and maple necks.

I guess if you’re touring the country and get lost you can just check your instrument for directions to your next gig.

Reverse Flying V

A Gibson classic, made in 2007 and 2008, the Reverse Flying V was manufactured in honor of the Flying V’s 50th anniversary.

Despite the odd shape, the guitar was a rather successful seller. After the initial series of 400 guitars, Gibson made an additional 900 pieces in 2008, 300 each in: Classic White, Natural, and Ebony Black.

The guitar’s headstock was “borrowed” from the old Futura/Explorer design conceived back in the late 1950s; it somehow went well with the reverse V shape.

The rest of the features are the same as the classic V, although there were some minor differences between the 2007 and 2008 series.

The Pikasso Guitar

Talk about a piece of art! Four necks. Two sound holes. 42 strings. Two access doors; one on the upper player’s side and one at the tail block.

Created by luthier Linda Manzer for guitarist Pat Metheny, the instrument took 2 years to build (approximately 1000 hours).

When the 42 strings are strung up to high tension, the Pikasso is under approximately 1000 lbs of pressure. It weighs 6.7 kg or 14 3/4 lbs.

The Pikasso Guitar was specially built for jazz fusion virtuoso Pat Metheny, who can play that stringed Escher painting better than the rest of us can do most things.

The body is tapered so that the side closest to the player is thinner than the side that rests on the player’s knee, thus leaning the top, back towards the player for a more aerial view. This is also more comfortable under the player’s arm.

The instrument is outfitted with a complete state of the art piezo pickup system. This included a hexaphonic pickup on the 6 string section.

This feature allowed Metheny to access his Syclavier computer system thus triggering any sound in the system, including sampled sounds.

Two mounting holes are placed on the treble side (knee side) so that the guitar can be mounted on internal brass insets and attached to a stand, leaving hands free for playing or viewing.

The Multi-Neck Guitar

Cheap Trick’s lead guitarist Rick Nielsen looks at your feeble double-neck guitar with its puny, two little necks, and just shakes his head.

Now we’ve seen multi-neck guitars before, but this one takes the cake.

Not sure any of us mortals could actually jam on this guy but we know Rick could play it or maybe it’s made for an octopus.

Conclusion

We realize that thousands of unusual guitars have been created and this is a small sample of what is out there and who is known for the weird guitars they played but our goal was to entice you to dig deeper into the realm of oddities out there and what is possible to turn into a jamming axe that is uniquely your own.

What is your favorite weird guitar out there and who plays it? Let us know in the comments below. 

The post 12 Unusual and Weird Guitar Designs appeared first on Sustain Punch.

source https://www.sustainpunch.com/unusual-guitars/

[dvddggs]

To the Four of Us (Part Twenty Six)

premise: modern AU chronicling the squad as they make their way through college and deal with general life things. words: 3,185 warnings: i think just swearing all chapters: x tags: @heythereitsloey @anitheunicorn @newyorkyoucanbeanew @lafbagxette @justafangirlwithanavy @iamgrayfox @ordinaryornate @schuylerjoon @angelica-peggy-eliza @trashyperson101 @crazydragon15 @but-if-you-had-to-choose @geespilots @marvelous-hamilfan @mynameisalexanderhammyham @panda-powers @lafeyettegunsandships @schokoobananaa @allthegoodurlshavebeentaken @aphboi @hell-yes-puns-and-ships @aham-threw-his-shot-away @hesitantcat @nonstopspook @hamrevolution @writethewayout @alexander-did-you-know @allthegoodurlshavebeentaken @sun-tree @angelizaandpeggy @isis278 @idk-destiel @engulfedinstars @hamiltrashuniverse @ahrupe @just-me-an-asshole @readfizz @skeletonmelodies @gum-and-chips @iminwaytoomanyfandoms @hadleyelizabethuley @fictionalboyfriends @ridiculousn3ssfangirl @pleuxvoir @liallow @kanadianwithashippingproblem @bucket-of-kittens @welcometohamilton @forth-schuyler-sister

a/n: lol can’t wait for ur responses. ALSO, sorry it took me so long to upload but you’re all seriously the BEST like you’re so supportive and lovely, ur all wonderful humans ok dedication: @awkwardfortuneteller for their dedication to that piece of art for me AAAAA im so excited ur a lovely person

It felt strange to be back at school. It felt strange to no longer have wires binding his jaw shut. It felt strange to not talk to his best friends.

It felt strange to not be with John.

It was all so strange.

After the funeral, John had abandoned his plans of staying with Alexander for the rest of winter break. Instead he headed back to New York to stay at Hercules’ house with Lafayette. Throughout that week, Alexander had only spoken with Hercules once, and all he had said was that they made it back home safely. Other than that, his friends had all been silent.

Alexander had been pretty quiet too—he hadn’t even told his father what happened. Although when John went back to New York, it was pretty obvious. Whenever George tried to bring up the subject, Alexander would stomp up to his room and slam the door.

He hung out with Aaron, the only person he’d told about the breakup, to take his mind off things before he went back to school. It was obvious that Aaron thought Alexander had screwed things up, but he didn’t press the issue and Alexander appreciated that.

But when Alexander was alone, his brain didn’t stop. He told himself over and over all the ways he had messed up. He told himself how it was all his fault—how if he could have just shut up for two seconds, he and John would still be together. All he wanted was to be alone, and yet whenever he was, he felt like shit. As much as he didn’t want to he blamed himself, and being alone only amplified the relentless thoughts that pounded through his brain telling him that he was a piece of shit. He didn’t deserve John. As much as he wanted him back, he knew that he didn’t deserve him. John, who deserved all the world’s happiness, could do so much better than Alexander…

But, god, Alexander missed him. He missed falling asleep with him and waking up beside him and his random texts and his kisses…the smell of the jacket he usually refused to wear…his constant warmth…

If Alexander could go back in time…

But there he was. Sitting in his father’s car in front of his residence building. There was no more avoiding what he’d done, there was no more distracting himself, there was no more hiding. He sat in the front seat staring straight ahead with his arms folded over his chest, trying to stall. He knew his friends would already be back and he wasn't ready to face them.

“Alex, I still have to drive home,” George said gently, a hint for his son to speed up.

That was the thing about his father—no matter what Alexander did, George was understanding. Even if he disagreed, he still offered his son a gentle and welcoming shoulder to cry on. Sure, he lectured him and he was stern sometimes, but when Alexander knew what he’d done—how he’d messed up—his father knew to lay off.

Alexander sighed and got out of the car to grab his bag, slamming the trunk shut harder than he intended to.

“Bye, Dad,” he said quickly, not wanting to drag things out.

“See you soon, Alex. I love you.”

After a quick hug, Alexander watched his father wave as he drove away. He sighed heavily and dragged his feet into his second home.

The lobby was familiar and somewhat comforting. It brought up memories of being drunk with his friends, laughing as they tried to unlock the security door. It was often where he and John drunkenly made out, not a care in the world about who saw them. It was where he met his friends every morning for breakfast. Even if they were hungover to the point of throwing up, they didn’t miss their standing breakfast meet-up.

Alexander climbed the stairs instead of taking the sketchy elevator, stalling as much as possible. Too soon, however, he was standing in front of his door looking at the attached whiteboard that said:

Alex Ham John, if it’s after 2AM, GO AWAY. I’m sleeping!!

He’d written it back in September, when John made a habit of padding up to his room in the middle of the night to talk about whatever was on his mind because Lafayette yelled whenever John woke him up. Alexander sighed at the memory and rubbed his fist over the message, leaving a streaky, blurred mess in his wake.

Alexander unlocked his door and turned the light on, throwing his bag onto the floor and staring at the room. It felt so long ago that he was last here even though it had only been a couple of weeks; so much had happened since then.

“Alex?” Hercules called through the attached bathroom. He popped his head into Alexander’s room and shot a small, close-lipped smile at his roommate. “Hey.”

Alexander nodded stiffly, unsmiling, and unzipped his bag to put his clothes away.

“Alex,” Hercules prompted, letting himself fully into Alexander’s room and sitting down on the bed. “How are you?”

Alexander shrugged without looking up. The (one sided) conversation made him sad—his room felt so tense and uncomfortable with Hercules and he wasn’t used to that. Normally in a situation like this, he would have immediately gone into Herc’s room, flopped down on his bed, and chatted easily with him for hours.

“He misses you,” Hercules said quietly.

At this Alexander stopped and looked up. He felt a lump rise in his throat. Until that point, he’d avoided his feelings pretty well. The mention of John, however, made his eyes burn with tears.

“H-he does?” Alexander whispered.

“Of course he does. He still loves you.”

“He does?” he repeated.

Hercules bit his lip, nodding. Alexander dropped the shirt that was in his hands and sat on his knees on the floor, drawing a shuddery breath.

“Hey—Lex?” —Alexander looked up— “I’m…I’m really sorry. I’m sorry that we all teamed up on you. I know you were dealing with a lot. We should have been more understanding. Y-you shouldn’t’ve even gone to the funeral. I’m just—really sorry.”

Midway through his friend’s apology, Alexander felt the tears that burned his eyes start to fall freely. He’d never considered that perspective and he felt a massive weight lift off his shoulders that he wasn’t entirely to blame.

Hercules held his arms open and Alexander stood up to hug his best friend.

“I’m so sorry, Herc,” Alexander croaked. He buried his face in Hercules’ neck and sniffled.

“Shh, it’s okay. As far as I’m concerned, all is forgiven, okay? I talked to Laf as well and he agrees with me. I hope John comes around, too, but I honestly don’t know if that’s going to happen. He does miss you, but he’s still so, so angry. We’re trying to talk to him, but you need to talk to him as well, okay?”

Alexander nodded and looked up at Hercules.

“Thank you,” he whispered, wiping his eyes. “I think I should talk to him now.”

Hercules nodded and hugged Alexander tightly one more time.

“I think that’s a good idea.”

Alexander took the elevator by himself down to John and Lafayette’s floor and stopped in front of John’s door. He didn’t have a whiteboard because he and Alexander had accidentally knocked it down one night. They were really drunk and making out in the hallway when John pushed Alexander against the door and knocked it to the floor. They bragged about it for a week, much to the dismay of Hercules and Lafayette, who did not need to hear about it.

With a deep breath, Alexander stepped forward and knocked on the door. It felt foreign to him—he was used to just bursting in at any time of day. He felt weird and uncomfortable; it was all wrong.

Alexander could hear rustling and see the light flick on from under the door. He knew from experience that John was grumpy when he first awoke from a nap. Alexander was this close to turning around and going back later when the door swung open. John stood in front of him shirtless and with his hair down, a tangled mane that he pushed hastily off his face when he registered that Alexander stood in front of him.

Alexander could hear Lafayette’s voice in his mind. Alex, don’t play me. I know you were fucking. John only wears his hair down during sex. It’s a bit alarming, actually. Is nothing sacred anymore? I don’t need to know, okay? He needs a better system…

John didn’t say anything, but studied the face in front of him. Alexander felt all the words he planned to say fly out of his brain. They were replaced with a frantic desperation and a knot in the pit of his stomach.

“Is—is someone in there?” Alexander asked quietly, bracing himself for the answer he was nowhere near prepared to hear.

“Alex—” John said quietly, a sudden guilt surging through his bloodstream.

It was all Alexander could stand to hear—he had gotten his answer. Without another word, he spun on his heel and all but sprinted back to the elevator. He felt tears building in his eyes as he jammed his thumb into the button for his floor, praying that the doors would close before he started to cry.

As soon as the elevator started moving, he slid to the floor, the cool metal wall against his back, and hugged his knees to his chest, letting out a sob. He knew they weren’t together. He knew that John could do whatever he wanted. He knew that he had no right to be upset. But here he was. Had John already moved on? Had Alexander fucked up that badly that John was completely over him? He felt a crushing helplessness take over him as he rested his forehead on his kneecaps. There was nothing left for him to do.

John really was done.

It really was over.

The elevator dinged and the doors opened onto his floor, where he staggered back to his room, crawled into his bed in silence, and cried himself into a restless sleep in which he had a dream about watching Star Wars in silence with his arms wrapped around John…

A weight on the edge of the bed woke Alexander up. The darkness around his blinds told him that the sun had gone down—how long had he been sleeping? The weight was Hercules sitting down and patting Alexander’s leg.

“Hey—what happened with John?” Hercules asked.

Alexander’s breathing hitched in his throat as the grogginess blew away to be replaced with the same sadness he’d felt earlier.

“He moved on,” Alexander deadpanned, closing his eyes as if it would make it seem less real. He didn’t want to see the expression on Hercules’ face. He didn't want spreading the news to make the news real.

“He told you that? Alex?”

“No, the random guy in his bed told me that,” Alexander whispered.

Saying the words aloud made him feel like he was being punched in the gut.

“Oh my god,” Hercules said to himself. “Lex…Alexander, I am so sorry. I had no idea or I wouldn’t’ve—”

“S’not your fault,” Alexander mumbled, blinking the tears away. “I need to go to sleep. I have class in the morning.”

“Alex,” Hercules replied, his voice filled with concern. “Do you want to talk about it?”

Alexander rolled over and closed his eyes, shaking his head vaguely.

“It’s over. There’s nothing left to talk about.”

An incessant beeping. A tired groan. 7:30 AM. Alexander sighed and turned his alarm off. School had officially begun again.

Alexander dragged his feet as he got ready. Despite his near twelve hour sleep, he was exhausted. He looked in the mirror as he pulled his hair into a bun. His eyes were swollen and bloodshot—he’d been crying in his sleep. Alexander felt dehydrated, emotionally drained, and sick. He felt worse than when John had first broken up with him.

Then, at least, there had been hope. There had been the possibility of forgiveness. Now, there was nothing. The envelope had been licked and sealed; there was no more hope. It was over.

“Fuck,” Alexander mumbled as he burned his tongue on a sip of his second cup of coffee. He pulled on his coat and took the travel mug with him to class, knowing he would need the false sense of energy from the caffeine.

He sat down at the back of the lecture hall without giving the class much thought. It was the first day of the new semester so he pulled out his phone; they wouldn’t be covering much material aside from the syllabus, which he’d already read in an effort to take his mind off John. Sinking into his seat, he shifted his entire focus to the music playing in his earbuds. He didn’t want to be looked at, he didn’t want to be there. He wished he was invisible.

“Alexander?” came a voice, cutting through the song he was listening to.

He paused it and pulled out an earbud, looking around for the voice. It was one empty seat away from him. Alexander gaped—it was the last person he’d have thought would be attached to the voice at all.

It was Thomas.

“Fuck,” he said through an uncomfortable chuckle. “You look like shit. Are you sick?”

“No,” Alexander said simply.

“Hey—your jaw is better. Right? No more wires. That's good…”

Alexander nodded, staring straight ahead at the projector. Thomas chuckled uncomfortably again.

“How’s John?” he asked, clearly trying to continue the conversation.

“Okay, Thomas, listen,” Alexander snapped. “I know that you feel bad for punching me. It’s fine. I’m totally over it. Okay? My jaw is fine. You don’t need to apologize anymore. But John and I broke up so I’m not really in the mood to talk.”

From his peripherals, Alexander could see Thomas’ eyes widen before he nodded awkwardly and folded his arms across his chest.

“Oh,” he said quietly. “Sorry…I—I didn’t know.”

Alexander blinked and put his earbud back in.

The class only lasted half an hour before the professor took pity on the students’ souls and let them leave.

As Alexander stood up, he knocked his mug onto his lap, spilling lukewarm coffee all over his pants.

“Fuck,” he muttered. He pulled his backpack onto his shoulder and rushed into the washroom to wipe the spill before it dried.

He wrapped his earbuds around his phone and tucked it into his pocket, wetting a paper towel and holding it to the coffee stain on his thigh. In the mirror, Alexander watched the bathroom door open again, and he stifled a muttered curse word as Thomas walked in. Thomas stopped in his tracks when he caught Alexander’s eye and went to turn back around, but Alexander stopped him.

“Don’t be stupid—just use the fucking washroom.”

Thomas shrugged and pumped some soap onto his hands. “Lecture halls are just so gross,” he explained awkwardly.

Alexander didn’t respond. He stood under the air dryer to dry his pants and watched Thomas in the mirror. He found his eyes flickering down to his lips as he babbled randomly, trying to diffuse the tension.

“It’s like a cesspool of germs in there, y’know?” he continued. “I forgot how grimy you feel after class. I hate—”

“Thomas,” Alexander said.

Thomas looked up and caught Alexander’s eye in the mirror. He furrowed his brow as Alexander bit his lip. Before he could stop himself, Alexander crossed the room and grabbed Thomas by the waist, spinning him around.

“Shut the fuck up,” Alexander growled before jamming his lips to Thomas’s.

He remembered the sensation well, memories flooding his mind. Thomas’s mouth was stiff with surprise, but he quickly obliged and kissed Alexander back. Alexander nibbled down on his bottom lip. He felt a soft moan escape Thomas’s throat and vibrate against Alexander’s lips in response. He inhaled sharply and pulled Thomas closer, lacing his fingers into his hair and tugging.

“Fuck,” Thomas breathed.

“Stop talking,” Alexander commanded, pulling harder at his hair.

Thomas groaned and threw his head back, letting Alexander suck at a spot right below his earlobe that drove him crazy.

“That’s for breaking my fucking jaw,” Alexander whispered, smiling smugly at the hickey he left behind. He moved downward, leaving them on Thomas’s neck, collarbone, and one below his other ear.

“And so are those,” he growled.

Thomas smashed his lips back to Alexander’s and kissed him roughly, letting Alexander’s tongue explore the inside of his mouth with an intense curiosity. It had become unfamiliar territory in the months since they’d last kissed. Alexander wanted to drown himself in Thomas—to drown himself in human contact. It felt so wrong, so unfamiliar, but so, so good.

The feeling of Alexander’s tongue running along his palate made him groan and close his eyes in pleasure until he felt Alexander’s teeth bite again at his bottom lip and tug him forward. Hard.

“Ouch,” Thomas said in surprise, pulling back a bit.

“That’s for being an asshole,” Alexander smirked, grabbing at Thomas’s cheeks and pulling their lips back together.

He could feel Thomas’s hot breath between kisses; he was a groaning mess, weak at the knees and hungry for more of Alexander. Hungry for as much of Alexander as he could get.

“Alex,” Thomas moaned. He was desperate for more contact—desperate to be free of the confines of his jeans. “Can we go back to my room?”

“Fuck no,” Alexander breathed. “We’re going back to mine.”

He felt Thomas sigh into his mouth as he reached up to tug at his hair again.

“I hope you’re ready for this,” Alexander continued in a low voice. “Because you’re mine for the next two fucking hours—you owe me.”

“For what?” Thomas asked. He looked down at Alexander, whose eyes were dark and filled with lust.

“For breaking my fucking jaw,” Alexander said, as if it was the most obvious logic in the world.

Thomas ran his tongue slowly along his top lip. “Fuck,” he breathed.

“You’re mine till I say you’re not,” Alexander growled. “Let’s go.”

[newyorktheater]

Casting director Xavier Rubiano loves attending “Miscast,” the annual concert produced by MCC Theater in which Broadway stars perform songs in roles for which they would never be cast. Eva Noblezada was Hercules last year, for example; Christopher Jackson, who originated the role of George Washington in “Hamilton,” sang a Beyonce song from “Dreamgirls”; Gavin Creel, Andy Karl and Jason Tam were the strippers in “Gypsy.“  The twentieth edition of “Miscast” will be presented tonight, for the first time online on YouTube and for free.  The lineup was announced long ago (the event was rescheduled three times), but not the songs they will sing. That is always a surprise.

As a kid growing up in Queens who liked to dance and who fell in love with theater when his high school in Astoria gave out free tickets to Broadway shows, Xavier Rubiano says he understood the importance of casting even before he knew exactly what casting meant. He thought Patti LuPone was exactly right as Mrs. Lovett when in high school he saw the 2005 Broadway revival of Sweeney Todd, but she also made the part her own.  Besides injecting the murderer’s accomplice with an unusual sensuality, “she played it very Lady Macbeth and still was able to find humor in the character as well.” Audra McDonald in the 2012 “Porgy and Bess,” Rubiano says, “was a revelation. Have you ever heard a more beautiful soprano while someone is full on ugly crying and acting like she’s on drugs!?”

LuPone and McDonald are two of the 26 people I have profiled over the last six months as part of my Broadway Alphabet series. Xavier Rubiano (“pronounced ZAY-vee-er ROO-bee-A-noh”) is the last in the series (the only one slightly out of alphabetical order.) He is not as well known as most of the previous 25. But he represents the many behind-the-scenes folk who have always made Broadway possible.

As with many of the other people who wind up serving as the backbone of Broadway,  Rubiano intended to become a performer. He enrolled in AMDA, the performing arts conservatory. But “I started to seriously think about casting as a career my freshman year. For my final I wanted to sing “I Am Adolpho” from The Drowsy Chaperone. I had just seen the show and loved it but the vocal selections or the score weren’t available as the show had just opened. My music director in the class said, ‘Why don’t you just call the casting office and see if they’ll give you a copy of the sides and song?’ So, 18 year-old Xavier picked up the phone and called the casting office and they had a copy for me by the afternoon! It was my first time even knowing about a casting office or what they did and so I became obsessed with finding out more.”

His curiosity led to a couple of internships after graduation and what has turned into a decade-long career as a casting professional (Don’t call him a “casting agent.” There’s no such thing, he says.) He now works at Tara Rubin Casting, where one of his shows is “Dear Evan Hansen,” and much of his time has been spent with young actors starting off their careers. He tells them it’s important to be prepared, but it’s equally important to be themselves; it’s no longer necessary to try to fit a mold or type. “When meeting a casting director for the first time, it’s important to be confident and grounded and sure of yourself. I want to see who you are, your energy, your light, and how I can use that for the show I’m currently casting or for something else that someone else is casting in my office.”

Rubiano is aware that, long before Miscast was a popular annual gala, theater aficionados loved to debate the worst casting mistakes in Broadway and Hollywood history.  I showed him a long thread on the subject in a theater chat room

“My general thoughts on miscasting is that it’s so subjective about who’s right and wrong for a role,” he told me. “That thread had a throughline, though, about celebrity casting and I do have to agree that when we start prioritizing a star name over talent, then the show suffers and the actor suffers as well because they have to catch up with everyone around them who are far more experienced in theater.”  It’s a mistake, he believes, to make an offer to somebody without auditioning them, no matter how big a name they are. And even with an audition, it can be a gamble. ” I think most casting directors can defend their choices but I can see some of them having regrets after the fact. An actor can audition and read for a part and be incredible in the room. And then that actor can fall and crumble in the rehearsal room and not succeed in performances.”

The casting director has seen first-hand that there is not one right actor for a role, that different performers can make the character their own — even a character that is deeply identified with the actor who originated the role.

Ben Platt, the original Evan Hansen

Taylor Trensch

Roman Banks

Ben Levi Ross

Andrew Barth Feldman in Dear Evan Hansen

Jordan Fisher, who made his Broadway debut as John Laurens/Philip Hamilton in Hamilton in 2016, is returning in the title role of “Dear Evan Hansen” for a 16-week engagement beginning January 28, 2020, succeeding Andrew Barth Feldman . “Evan Hansen is a 16-course meal for an actor. The complexity of this boy is akin to climbing Mt. Kilimanjaro.”

A Dear Evan Hansen open call

“Replacing Ben Platt was a daunting experience for us in the office and for the production itself. We saw all the best young male performers in the city for this replacement. When Taylor Trensch came in, his audition was so grounded and understated, it really eased everyone’s worry about how Evan Hansen could be different from the last because it was so different and it still worked! Since then we’ve cast over twenty actors (including understudies) across four different companies to play Evan and each one is encouraged to bring their own life experiences to make their Evan Hansen their own and different from Ben’s performance.”

As with every other member of the theater community, casting professionals have been facing unusual challenges during the past six months, a unique period in Broadway history. “At the beginning of the pandemic, there were a lot of auditions happening remotely. We weren’t expecting the shutdown to be this long so we were casting things for fall of this year via self-tapes and Zoom. It was about midsummer that things really slowed down. There’s good and bad with casting remotely. The good is that we can expand our search even further because there are no geographical restrictions about being seen in person but the bad is that we lose that human interaction and the thrill of a live performance in the room. Wifi and computer quality sound can only be so reliable”

The increased visibility since Memorial Day of the Black Lives Matter movement has brought to the fore an issue that Rubiano says he has long championed. “As a Latino casting director, I am always looking to inject any cast with more BIPOC representation knowing firsthand what it’s like to be underrepresented.”  He is a member of the CSA (Casting Society of America) BIPOC Alliance, which is creating training programs, developing partnerships with organizations focused on anti-racism work, and and in other ways offering support “where there wasn’t support before.”

“I think the BLM movement and the pandemic are giving us all a time of reflection. I’m not sure yet what casting will be like in the future but I know it’ll be very different. The work has just begun, be it onstage or backstage.”

Broadway Alphabet Series

X is for Xavier Rubiano, a Broadway casting director who likes Miscast Casting director Xavier Rubiano loves attending “Miscast,” the annual concert produced by MCC Theater in which Broadway stars perform songs in roles for which they would never be cast.

[yesweweresoldiers]

Does the Presidency Function as the Founders Intended?

In his new study of the presidency, Stephen F. Knott, Thomas and Mabel Guy Professor in Teaching American History’s Master of Arts in American History and Government program, traces what he views as a long devolution of the executive office, culminating in the surprising election result in 2016. The Lost Soul of the American Presidency: The Decline into Demagoguery and the Prospects for Renewal will appear from the University Press of Kansas on October 25. Knott, who teaches National Security Affairs at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, has written five other books on the presidency, including two studies of Ronald Reagan and a book he co-authored with Tony Williams, Washington and Hamilton: The Alliance That Forged America (Sourcebooks, 2015). We asked Professor Knott to explain why he believes the presidency no longer functions as the framers of the Constitution intended.

Since the American founding, how has the presidency changed?

I argue that the president’s role has been unmoored from what the founders envisioned 232 years ago. The founders saw the president as a head of state who stood above the partisan fray, representing the nation as a whole. Today, the president represents the will of an impassioned majority. The president has become a cheerleader for popular feelings, putting at risk those who don’t share them.

As a Hamilton scholar, you know he argued in Federalist 68 that the Electoral College, which delegated presidential selection to electors chosen by state legislators, guaranteed

[caption id="attachment_22848" align="alignright" width="266"] John Trumbull. Alexander Hamilton, 1805. Oil on canvas. Public domain, from the Google Cultural Institute.[/caption]

. . . that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

What happened?

Thomas Jefferson decided that the “revolution of 1800” must revamp the presidential selection process and re-found the office on a new understanding.

[caption id="attachment_22612" align="alignleft" width="309"] Rembrandt Peale. The Official Presidential Portrait of Jefferson, 1800. Public domain, from the White House Historical Association.[/caption]

He launched the presidency on a populist course that, in the long run, undermined the intentions of the framers of the Constitution. The founders I consider critical—Washington, Hamilton, and Madison—worried that demagoguery could destroy the republic. Hamilton feared demagogic leaders would tap passions to sway public sentiments. Hence he held the energetic executive responsible for checking popular excess. Jefferson argued to the contrary that public opinion served as the “best criterion of what is best,” and that enlisting and engaging that opinion would “give strength to the government.” As the nation’s only nationally elected figure, the president drew support for an energetic executive directly from the people. Jefferson turned Hamilton’s argument on its head, arguing that popular opinion conferred constitutional legitimacy. Jefferson made this abundantly clear in a letter he wrote to James Madison in 1787: “after all, it is my principle that the will of the Majority should always prevail.”

[caption id="attachment_23218" align="alignleft" width="282"] Thomas Sully. Andrew Jackson - 7th President of the United States (1829–1837), 1824. Public domain, from the US Senate site.[/caption]

This led to the much more partisan candidacy of Andrew Jackson, who accused his opponents of representing an elite and un-American oligarchy. Jackson believed that “the majority is to govern” and that the president was uniquely situated to speak for that majority. To Jackson, checks on majority rule, including the Electoral College, undermined the principle that “as few impediments as possible should exist to the free operation of the public will.” As a consequence, the Jacksonians expanded the right to vote among white males but stripped free blacks of their voting rights. Jackson changed the nature of the American political order, an order created to allow for reason and reflection and the possibility of statesmanship. Under Jackson, the tyranny of the majority replaced the rule of law.

Ironically, Jefferson and Jackson, although opposed to nationalizing or federalizing problems that could be dealt with at the local or state level, paved the way for the progressive presidents of the 20th century. Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt saw the office as a stage on which the president could be as big of a man as he wanted to be. Although each saw himself as the voice of the people, their leadership imposed costs on racial and political minorities.

You say partisanship detached the presidency from its Constitutional role. Yet many observers say that the 2016 election shows the weakness of our party system. Parties can no longer keep the nomination process under their control.

[caption id="attachment_35943" align="alignright" width="268"] Jacques Reich, Woodrow Wilson, 1917. National Portrait Gallery.[/caption]

I couldn’t agree more. The presidency has become personalized. Woodrow Wilson considered cigar-chomping party leaders in smoke-filled rooms an impediment to effective governance and did what he could to mitigate their power. Today, the parties no longer screen potential candidates. In 2016, a man who was not a member of the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders, nearly won the Democratic nomination, while a man who had been a lifelong Democrat, Donald Trump, won the Republican nomination and the presidency. Any personality who can move the majority now sees himself entitled to govern as he sees fit.

So now, instead of speaking for a party, the president speaks for the instincts of a shifting majority? Have fear and reaction—seen in prejudice, identity politics, xenophobia, and isolationism—displaced party goals?

I think so. I’m told the word “passions” appears 66 times in The Federalist. The process of selecting the president was supposed to check those passions, promoting candidates who appealed to reason. But today we prefer candidates who excite the crowds. That reverses the key founders’ vision.

When the parties filtered the nominees for president, the party bosses picked those they thought they could control. Still, they did a fairly decent job of choosing those who would not do harm. For example, they replaced Henry Wallace with Harry Truman. But by then, Progressive presidents had already moved us toward a direct democracy system. Wilson even proposed a national primary for the two parties.

The reforms George McGovern pushed through the Democratic Party in 1972 followed Wilson’s vision, making the possibility of insurgent candidacies more likely. The Republicans moved much more slowly in that direction, yet ironically ended up backing Trump, in my view the most egregious example of this democratized, populist presidential selection process.

Do the greatest presidents show the least ego?

[caption id="attachment_23479" align="alignleft" width="297"] William Howard Taft, 27th President of the United States and 10th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. 1908. Public Domain.[/caption]

The best presidents have conducted themselves with moderation and magnanimity, although this may mean voters and historians don’t judge them fairly. William Howard Taft did not project a “vision” that would lead the majority into the promised land, even though he supported progressive legislation. He was overwhelmingly defeated for reelection in 1912 in part because he didn’t practice the “little arts of popularity.”

Certainly Abraham Lincoln had a vision for a new birth of freedom. But he had a prudential sense that people have to be brought along. He didn’t see it as his job to fire up the base and attack the opposition. If there was any president who had a reason to go after the opposition, whether the Confederate states or some of their Democratic party allies in the north—it was Lincoln, but Lincoln’s language was very restrained.

Along with exaggerated attacks on opponents come exaggerated promises. Securing the Democratic Party nomination, Obama declared that this would be “the moment when the rise of the oceans beg[ins] to slow.” John F. Kennedy proclaimed at his inauguration that the US would “pay any price, bear any burden” to promote democracy abroad. Trump promises he’ll build a wall and the Mexicans will pay for it. Inflated rhetoric leads to inflated expectations of what the office can deliver. Deep disappointment follows, when it turns out that we can’t remake the world, remake human nature, or even necessarily avert climate change.

How have modern communications contributed to this?

[caption id="attachment_35937" align="alignright" width="373"] Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Fireside Chat, September 6, 1936, Library of Congress.[/caption]

Wilson was the first to use radio, which Franklin D. Roosevelt played to the max. His presidential library in Hyde Park holds letters American citizens wrote him, saying, in effect, “I listened to your fireside chat, and I felt that you were in the room with me. You made me feel loved and cared for.”

John F. Kennedy, during the two years, ten months and two days of his presidency, demonstrated the power of television. His personable performance in the TV debates with Nixon played a role in his election. Even in death, TV elevated him in the national memory. The networks covered his assassination and funeral around the clock, repeatedly showing the image of his young widow and small children. In the aftermath, two thirds of the public claimed to have voted for Kennedy, even though he actually did not get quite 50%.

Obama was the first to use social media, and President Trump relies on it. At last check, he has tweeted over 44,000 times.

Some blame Congress for ceding power to the president in recent years.

That began when Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt assumed responsibility for setting the legislative agenda. Wilson restored the in-person State of the Union speech and in it laid out a laundry list of presidential initiatives.

[caption id="attachment_35947" align="alignright" width="427"] President Dwight D. Eisenhower standing with Lyndon B. Johnson . . . during a bipartisan luncheon at the White House, March 31, 1955. Thomas O’Halloran, Library of Congress, LC-U9- 150A-18.[/caption]

Yet presidents who have acted as head of state, rather than as party leader or policy developer, have done quite well. They are seen as unifying national figures. In modern times, perhaps Dwight Eisenhower comes closest to that model. Eisenhower never personalized his disputes with the Democratic Party opposition. He had a good relationship with Lyndon Johnson. He disdained Joe McCarthy in part because of his personal attacks on others. I think Eisenhower’s example has a lot to offer us in the 21st century.

How can we return to that model?

I try to be optimistic. One thing we could do is to restore the filtering function that the party leaders used to play. I would favor more super delegates for both conventions—members of Congress and governors who are not pledged to support those who win state primaries. That might at least prevent non-members from winning party nominations.

Ultimately, the American people must change. We’ve been sold a bill of goods about the president. We hear of “presidential government,” as if the other branches didn’t matter. We call the president the most powerful person in the world. We celebrate the office excessively.

We need more and better civics education, teaching us not only about the proper balance of powers, but reminding us of the limits of politics.

Presidents themselves can act as educators—Wilson wanted to be the national teacher, but he taught some wrong lessons. More recently, Ronald Reagan played a unifying role at the D-Day beaches and after the Challenger disaster. Even George W. Bush struck the right tone in the rubble of the World Trade Center. Those nonpartisan moments when Americans are called on to take pride in the nation and embrace their common citizenship—I’m fully in favor of that. It’s when presidents become partisan lightening rods that the trouble begins.

  The post Does the Presidency Function as the Founders Intended? appeared first on Teaching American History.

from Teaching American History https://ift.tt/2nvNNsE via IFTTT

[gyrlversion]

What sort of Brexit DO MPs want?

The backbench plot to snatch control of Brexit hit a wall last night as none of the alternatives to Theresa May’s deal secured a majority – but MPs still showed Britain they favour a softer Brexit or a second referendum – and will never deliver No Deal.  

Last night, in an unprecedented move, politicians seized control of the Commons timetable from Theresa May to hold so-called indicative votes.

The poll showed Parliament is close to agreeing on a soft Brexit with a plan for the UK remaining in a customs union with the EU defeated by 272 votes to 264, while a second referendum was rejected by 295 votes to 268. 

MPs were handed green ballot papers on which they voted Yes or No to eight options, ranging from No Deal to cancelling Brexit altogether. However, the votes descended into shambles as MPs rejected each and every one of the proposals – although its architect Sir Oliver Letwin always warned there wouldn’t be a winner first time.

Ten Tories – including ministers Sir Alan Duncan, Mark Field and Stephen Hammond – supported an SNP plan to give MPs the chance to revoke Article 50 if a deal has not been agreed two days before Brexit. Some 60 Tory MPs backed the option of remaining in the single market.

These are the results of last night’s indicative votes on Brexit, in order of preference. It shows that while MPs can’t find a consensus they lean heavily towards a softer Brexit or second referendum 

This graphic shows how ministers voted on the idea of No Deal. The Cabinet abstained, but junior ministers were largely split between those who back No Deal or oppose it. Overall MPs showed it was unlikely they would ever agree to it

Tory MP Oliver Letwin (pictured in the Commons today) began today’s proceedings after his amendment on Monday night tore up the usual Commons agenda to allow last night’s votes

The results of Wednesday’s votes, in order of preference, were: 

Confirmatory public vote (second referendum) – defeated by 295 voted to 268, majority 27. 

Customs union – defeated by 272 votes to 264, majority eight. 

Labour’s alternative plan – defeated by 307 votes to 237, majority 70. 

Revocation to avoid no-deal – defeated by 293 votes to 184, majority 109. 

Common market 2.0: defeated by 283 votes to 188, majority 95. 

No Deal: defeated by 400 votes to 160, majority 240. 

Contingent preferential arrangements – defeated by 422 votes to 139, majority 283.

Efta and EEA: defeated by 377 votes to 65, majority 312. 

Shadow housing minister Melanie Onn resigned after Jeremy Corbyn ordered his MPs to back a raft of soft Brexit plans, as well as a second referendum.

Some 27 Labour MPs defied the whip to reject a so-called ‘confirmatory vote’ on any Brexit deal. The party had instructed them to support the plan just hours after one of its senior frontbenchers publicly warned that it would be a mistake.

Sir Oliver Letwin, the architect of the Commons move, today insisted the indicative votes were not intended to give a precise answer right away – and will hold another round of votes on Monday. 

MPs are due to hold a second round of votes – unless Mrs May can get her deal through first – after none of the eight options debated on Wednesday was able to command a majority. It could be that the eight options are cut down to the most popular.

Sir Oliver told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: ‘At some point or other we either have to get her deal across the line or accept that we have to find some alternative if we want to avoid no deal on the 12th, which I think at the moment is the most likely thing to happen.

‘At the moment we are heading for a situation where, under the law, we leave without a deal on the 12th, which many of us think is not a good solution, and the question is ‘Is Parliament on Monday willing to come to any view in the majority about that way forward that doesn’t involve that result?”

MPs will take control of the Commons order paper again on Monday, so they can narrow down the options if Mrs May’s deal has not been agreed by then – or pass legislation to try and impose their choice on her. Speaking in the Commons after the results, Sir Oliver said: ‘It is of course a great disappointment that the House has not chosen to find a majority for any proposition.

‘However, those of us who put this proposal forward as a way of proceeding predicted that we would not even reach a majority and for that very reason put forward a … motion designed to reconsider these matters on Monday.’

Theresa May (pictured returning to Parliament) sensationally promised to quit Downing Street in return for Tory Brexiteer rebels passing her deal as she admitted her time as Prime Minister was almost over

What PM needs to edge to victory… by just 2 votes. There are 235 Tory loyalists, 10 switchers, 30 who with back the deal if May quits, 10 DUP supporters and 24 Labour

The Prime Minister allowed her MPs to vote however they wanted on the choices after she was warned around ten junior ministers would quit if they were whipped against backing a soft Brexit.

The eight Brexit options that MPs couldn’t back: 

Revoke Article 50 – 273 to 184 AGAINST 

Put forward by SNP’s Joanna Cherry and backed by 33 MPs including Conservative former attorney general Dominic Grieve, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable, Labour’s Ben Bradshaw and all 11 members of The Independent Group. 

It demands that if no deal has been agreed on the day before Brexit that MPs will get the chance to cancel the UK’s notice to Brussels it would leave the EU.

Britain is allowed to unilaterally cancel Article 50 and stay a member on its current terms, according to a ruling of the European Court. It would bring an end to the existing negotiations – but would not legally rule them being restarted. 

Second referendum – 295 to 268 AGAINST 

Tabled by Labour ex-foreign secretary Margaret Beckett to build on proposals from Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson.

It states that MPs will not sanction leaving the EU unless it has been put to the electorate for a ‘confirmatory vote’.

A significant evolution of the plan is it would put any deal agreed by the Government to a public vote and not just Mrs May’s plan. 

Customs union – 272 to 264 AGAINST 

Tabled by veteran Conservative Europhile Ken Clarke, backed by Labour’s Yvette Cooper, Helen Goodman and chair of the Commons Exiting the EU Committee Hilary Benn and Tory former ministers Sir Oliver Letwin and Sarah Newton. 

It demands that ministers negotiate a new ‘permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU’ which would prevent the country being able to strike its own trade deals but make it easier for goods to move between the UK and Europe. 

Labour’s plan – 307 to 237 AGAINST 

Proposed by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn

It includes a comprehensive customs union but with a UK say on future trade deals and close alignment with the single market.

The plan also demands matching new EU rights and protections; participation in EU agencies and funding programmes; and agreement on future security arrangements, including access to the European Arrest Warrant.

No deal – 400 to 160 AGAINST 

Proposed by Eurosceptic Tory MP John Baron.

Tabled a motion demanding ‘the UK will leave the EU on 12 April 2019’ without a deal. However, a No Deal Brexit has already been rejected twice by MPs.

It would instruct the Government to abandon efforts to secure its deal and inform the EU it did not want a long extension to Article 50 either, in line with last week’s EU Council. Both sides would then have a fortnight to make final preparations.  

Common Market 2.0  283 to 188 AGAINST 

Tabled by Conservatives Nick Boles, Robert Halfon and Andrew Percy and Labour’s Stephen Kinnock, Lucy Powell and Diana Johnson.

The motion proposes UK membership of the European Free Trade Association and European Economic Area.

It allows continued participation in the single market and a ‘comprehensive customs arrangement’ with the EU after Brexit. It would be very similar to current membership.

The idea is this would remain in place until the agreement of a wider trade deal which guarantees frictionless movement of goods and an open border in Ireland. 

Single Market – 377 to 65 AGAINST 

Tory former minister George Eustice – who quit as agriculture minister this month to fight for Brexit – proposes remaining within the EEA and rejoining EFTA, but remaining outside a customs union with the EU.

The motion was also signed by Conservative MPs including former minister Nicky Morgan and head of the Brexit Delivery Group Simon Hart.

The idea would keep the UK in the European Economic Area (EEA), but unlike the Common Market 2.0 plan would not involve a customs arrangement. It is similar to Norway’s deal. 

Standstill with the EU – 422 to 139 AGAINST 

Backed by senior Brexiteers in the ERG including Steve Baker and Priti Patel, this would tell the Government to seek a tariff-free trading arrangement with the EU> 

It would be based on a ‘standstill’ agreement saying all regulations in the UK would continue to match EU ones for up to two years.  

She and the Cabinet abstained on the indicative votes, helping her to mask the wide gaping divisions among her senior ministers on the way forward.

Commons Speaker John Bercow selected eight out of the 16 Brexit options tabled by MPs for a vote, turning down proposals to demand a unilateral right to leave the Northern Irish ‘backstop ‘ or to require automatic revocation of Article 50 if No Deal is reached. He also rejected the so-called Malthouse Compromise Plan A – drawn up by backbenchers from Leave and Remain wings of the Tory Party – which would have implemented Mrs May’s deal with the backstop replaced by ‘alternative arrangements’.

Ahead of the votes, Mrs May warned she would not regard the results as binding. But former Tory chancellor Ken Clarke yesterday told BBC Radio 5 Live the Prime Minister ‘would obviously have to be removed’ if she ignored a consensus emerging from the indicative votes process.

Labour ordered its MPs to back a motion, tabled by former foreign secretary Dame Margaret Beckett, requiring any Brexit deal passed during this Parliament to be confirmed in a public referendum before ratification. The party also whipped its MPs to back its own alternative Brexit plan – but four Labour backbenchers voted against it. Three others – including party chairman Ian Lavery – voted for a ‘managed’ No Deal. Mr Corbyn had also encouraged his MPs to back the so-called Common Market 2.0 plan tabled by Mr Clarke – which would keep the country in the single market as well as a customs arrangement – but did not whip them to do so.

At Prime Minister’s Questions, Mrs May criticised the Labour leader over his support for a customs union and a second referendum. She said: ‘Whatever happened to straight-talking honest politics?’ In a tweet, the Department for Exiting the European Union warned that the Common Market 2.0 plan ‘would not respect the referendum result’.

‘[It] would not end free movement of people, would not let us set our own trade policy, would not stop us sending money to the EU, [and] would make us a rule taker,’ the message added.

A number of Tory MPs refused to take part in the votes. Aldershot MP Leo Docherty said none of the options presented a ‘coherent path towards Brexit’. He tweeted: ‘This is an exercise in Parliamentary navel-gazing and I will be abstaining.’ Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom earlier warned that MPs had turned the normal ‘precedent on its head’ by taking control of the order paper, which sets out the parliamentary timetable for the day. She said: ‘Those who are not in government are deciding the business, and there are inevitable ramifications to that.’

But former Tory chief whip Andrew Mitchell said Sir Oliver had played ‘an absolute blinder’ by making clear to Brexiteers the consequences of continuing to oppose the PM’s deal. He said: ‘I think Sir Oliver Letwin has laid out for all my friends and colleagues in the ERG the instruments of torture, of what awaits them if they do not support Mrs May’s deal the next time it comes to a vote.’  

Allies of PM said she had reluctantly made the decision to quit over the past fortnight, following conversations with close political friends and her husband Philip.

Mr May stood by her side as she made a ‘moving’ speech to tearful staff in No 10 after making her announcement to MPs last night. Allies said the decision reflected her determination to push through a plan she believes is ‘firmly in the national interest’.

One said: ‘She had other options but she has put her country first. It is typically selfless’ – but it is unclear if it can save her deal.  

The DUP’s support is seen as critical to unlocking the backing of dozens of Eurosceptic MPs.

Downing Street was last night locked in frantic talks with the party in the hope of persuading its ten MPs to support the deal.

‘They are tough negotiators,’ one source said. ‘It’s not over yet.’

But one Cabinet minister said: ‘If they don’t move, then we don’t have the votes.’

MPs last night rejected every Brexit option in a series of ‘indicative votes’, with a customs union, second referendum, Norway-style option and No Deal all failing to get a majority.

That, and the PM’s ‘Back me, then sack me’ plea, sets the scene for a third attempt to pass her Brexit plan tomorrow – the day Britain was due to leave the EU.

Mrs May becomes the fourth consecutive Tory prime minister to have their career wrecked by the issue of Europe.

Pressure on her to quit had been building in recent weeks, with Eurosceptic MPs unhappy with her deal, warning that they wanted a new leader to take forward the next stage of Brexit negotiations.

A senior Tory said party whips believed up to 30 Eurosceptic MPs would back Mrs May’s deal only if she agreed to go.

Addressing the 1922 Committee of Tory MPs last night, an emotional Mrs May acknowledged that Brexit turmoil had been ‘a testing time for our country and our party’. She called on MPs to do their ‘historic duty’ and back her plan.

But she acknowledged concerns about her own leadership, saying: ‘I have heard very clearly the mood of the parliamentary party.

‘I know there is a desire for a new approach – and new leadership – in the second phase of the Brexit negotiations – and I won’t stand in the way of that.’

Her dramatic move fired the starting gun on what promises to be a bruising Tory leadership contest this summer that will choose the next prime minister.

Tory sources said that if Mrs May’s plan passes, a leadership contest will start shortly after May 22, when the UK finally leaves the EU. However, No 10 refused to say whether she would still depart on the same timetable if her plan is blocked or defeated.

One source said it would be ‘a different scenario’, adding: ‘It’s hard to see how we could have time for a leadership contest in quite the same way if we’re still in the middle of trying to take us out.’

Who could replace Theresa May? 

Here are the top runners and riders to replace the Prime Minister, their odds with Ladbrokes and how they voted in the 2016 referendum:

 Michael Gove 4/1

Michael Gove’s odds have shortened in recent days

Leading Vote Leave figure in 2016 who now backs PM’s Brexit deal

Former journalist, 51,  who stood for leadership in 2016

Was sacked as education minister by Theresa May

Later returned as Environment Minister

 A Brexiteer with a machiavellian reputation after the 2016 leadership campaign in which he first supported Boris Johnson for the leadership and then stood against him, to their mutual disadvantage.

The former education secretary –  sacked by Mrs May –  was rehabilitated to become a right-on environment secretary – complete with reusable coffee cups and a strong line on food standards after Brexit.

Despite being a former lead figure in the Vote Leave campaign alongside Mr Johnson the former journalist and MP for Surrey Heath has swung behind Mrs May’s Brexit deal.

At the weekend he denied being involved in a coup seeking to make him a caretaker PM. 

Seen as one of the Cabinet’s strongest political thinkers and having stood once it is unthinkable that he would not stand again.

Boris Johnson 4/1

Boris Johnson is very popular with the Tory grassroots

Former foreign secretary and mayor of London

Voted leave and has become an increasingly hardline Brexiteer 

As likely to make headlines over his private life

Has recently lost a lot of weight and smartened up his appearance

The former foreign secretary who quit last July and has been tacitly campaigning for the leadership ever since returning to the backbenches with a regular stream of attacks on Mrs may and her Brexit strategy.

Never far from the limelight it is his private life that has seen him most in the news recently after splitting from his wife Marina and embarking on a relationship with a former Conservative communications staffer 20 years his junior.

A hawkish Brexiteer hugely popular with the party faithful, in recently weeks he has further boosted his frontrunner credentials with what might be deemed a ‘prime ministerial’ makeover.

He has lost weight and taming his unruly mop of blonde hair into something approaching the haircut of a serious senior statesman.

 Jeremy Hunt 8/1

Jeremy Hunt backed Remain in 2016 but has undergone a conversion to the Brexit cause

The Foreign Secretary voted Remain 

But has become an increasingly vocal Brexiteer

Backs May’s deal

Has approached ministers about running as a unity candidate 

The Foreign Secretary who has undergone a Damascene conversion to the Brexit cause in with a series of hardline warnings to the EU.

The 52-year-old South West Surrey MP is the most senior Cabinet minister in contention.

He has reportedly been selling himself to colleagues as a unity candidate who can bring together the fractious Tory factions into something approaching a cohesive party. 

A long-serving health secretary, he replaced Mr Johnson as the UK’s top diplomat and has won some plaudits over issues like the imprisonment of British mother Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in Iran.

But critics point to tub-thumpingly comparing the EU to the USSR at the party conference last year – which was very badly received in Brussels – and a gaffe in which he referred to his Chinese wife  as ‘Japanese’ as a reception in China.  

Dominic Raab 10/1

The former Brexit Secretary is now a Theresa May critic

Shortlived Brexit secretary last year, replacing David Davis in the hot seat 

But walked in November over terms agreed by PM

Voted for Brexit in 2016

Mr Raab, 45, is another Vote Leave member who became Brexit secretary after David Davis quit alongside Mr Johnson last July over the Chequers plan.

But he lasted just a matter of months before he too jumped ship, saying he could not accept the terms of the deal done by the Prime Minister.

Like Mr Johnson and Mr Davis he has become an increasingly hardline Brexiteer, sharing a platform with the DUP’s Arlene Foster and suggesting we should not be afraid of a no-deal Brexit.

The Esher and Walton MP’s decision to quit in November, boosted his popularity with party members but he lacks the wider popular appeal of Mr Johnson.

And like Mr Johnson he might benefit from having quit the Cabinet at an earlier stage and dissociating himself with the dying days of the May administration.  

 Sajid Javid 12/1

Sajid Javid has kept a relatively low profile throughout the Brexit chaos

The most senior cabinet contender

Voted Remain but wants to see Brexit delivered

Faced criticism as Home Secretary 

But has taken a hard line on Shamima Begum case  

The Home Secretary, a Remainer who wants to see Brexit delivered, was the leading candidate from inside the Cabinet to replace Mrs May.

After replacing Amber Rudd last year he consciously put clear ground between himself and the Prime Minister on issues like caps on skilled migrants after Brexit.

But his credentials have taken a hit in recent weeks. He finds himself facing ongoing criticism of his handling of the knife crime crisis affecting UK cities, which sparked a cabinet row over funding for police.

He also lost face over his handling of the influx of migrants crossing the English Channel in January, being seen to move slowly in realising the scale of the problem.

But more recently the 49-year-old Bromsgove MP has made a serious of hardline decision designed to go down well with Tory voters.

Most notably they have included moving to deprive London teenager turned Jihadi bride Shamima Begum, 19, of her British citizenship.

The post What sort of Brexit DO MPs want? appeared first on Gyrlversion.

from WordPress https://www.gyrlversion.net/what-sort-of-brexit-do-mps-want/

[shenzhenblog]

How the U.S. Can Navigate an Ever-Scarier World

Anybody who pays attention to the global security scene knows we are in a whole new world — one variously called the “post-post Cold War era,” the “return of great-power conflict” and the “struggle between liberalism and authoritarianism.”

But what does any of this really mean? The end of the U.S.-led global order? A hegemonic China? The rise of so-called illiberal democracy? That we can no longer rely on McDonald’s to bring world peace? (Actually, that one didn’t work out so well.)

On this topic, as with so many others, I decided to gain insight from somebody who actually knows what he or she is talking about: Richard Danzig, a former secretary of the Navy who is now a fellow at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab 1 in Laurel, Maryland. (Michael Bloomberg, the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg Opinion, is a major donor to Johns Hopkins.) A giant in the military affairs/foreign policy/national security establishment, Danzig, along with 10 other fellows at the Hopkins lab — including Bloomberg Opinion columnist Admiral James Stavridis — has written a far-reaching paper entitled “A Preface to Strategy: The Foundations of American National Security.” (PDF available here.) We spoke about its points and more. Here is a lightly edited transcript of our discussion:

Tobin Harshaw: So let’s start with the Applied Physics Lab report’s title, “Preface to Strategy.” What does that term mean to you?

Richard Danzig: A number of us were skeptical about the classic model of a strategy document, which attempts to be comprehensive and predictive about evolving interests, potential opponents, technologies, economic conditions, etc. We wanted to focus on certain basic propositions but go into them in considerably more depth than is generally the case. We focused predominantly on U.S. strengths and opportunities. We also wanted to show how present thinking is shaped by the past and how we might liberate ourselves — at least to some degree — in thinking about the future.

TH: You note that many of your predecessors in the national security establishment had articulated objectives and methods very clearly, and that’s been lost today. Is there a historical example that serves as sort of a model?

RD: Sure, in the early years of our combating communism there was George Kennan’s famous long telegram and NSC-68 — strategic documents that articulated a philosophy of containment.

An even more striking example is so evident we don’t even pause to think about it — the way in which Franklin Roosevelt rallied the nation to fight the Axis powers in World War II.

Today we face a much more complicated world. We haven’t been physically attacked in the way that we were at Pearl Harbor. But that makes it only more important for a strategic document to speak to the public. Our paper is intended to be read broadly by the American public.

TH: But before Pearl Harbor, of course, FDR had a great deal of trouble generating support for entering the war. He did what he could, for example, with lend-lease for the U.K. Now we have a president who’s kind of the opposite, who disparages alliances and commitments. Do you think that the American people are still engaged with the world? Or do you think that Trump’s election showed the isolationist mind-set of the populace?

RD: We think today’s position is quite different from the World War II situation or the Cold War competition. We think the general population is committed to the idea of U.S. primacy; that the U.S. should be the leader of the free world; that it should be engaged with the world. We don’t see strong trends toward isolationism.

But there’s less clarity about why we’re committed to that role. It’s pretty obvious if you’re being attacked or if you think, as in the Cold War, that there’s a risk that our opponents will come and take over America and impose totalitarian rule. Nobody really thinks that China or Russia will take over the U.S.

TH: We’ve been at war now for 17 years. My children have never really known peacetime. Do you think that the war on terrorism just becomes kind of a background noise? How does that affect the younger generations that are going to replace us?

RD: I think it creates public fatigue. The military forces get both stronger and more worn from use. But for us a less noticed but central concern is the way in which it affects the strategies and priorities of our military and civilian decision-makers. We believe they become too present-tense oriented.

The present tense involves certain kinds of transient conflicts. The long-term issues are larger. One of those is what happens if you get involved in a more fundamental struggle with an opponent like China. The risk is that we lose track of the fact that our military must, in all circumstances, attend to that basic, most fundamental challenge as well as deal with the present. Also, there are significant risks to the environment and global health that demand international cooperation. We must manage both long-term competition and long-term cooperation. That wasn’t so central a problem in the Cold War, and it can’t be addressed if America’s leaders are overly absorbed by the present.

TH: In terms of Pentagon acquisitions and readiness policy, what changes are called for?

RD: Everybody preaches “innovation,” and has a great deal more difficulty practicing it. We try to breathe life into our precepts. For example, we emphasize the need for investment in technological skills and then specify changes to the existing military manpower system that are required to attract, sustain and empower those with the relevant skills. At present, as we see it, people with particular technical skills have a great deal of difficulty entering the senior ranks. You’re not going to wind up as chief of your service if you have a deep technical specialty. You’re not going to wind up controlling the budget or policy. If you are an enlisted man or woman, you are not going to rise above the middle ranks. We think that needs to change. Or, as another example, we want to encourage innovation, dissent and debate, and we make some specific suggestions as to how civilian leaders can promote that.

TH: You mention that the private sector has taken on a great deal of the innovation responsibility that the government used to do. Is there a chance that the Pentagon can actually move toward the Silicon Valley metabolism?

RD: Yes. The software revolution is very helpful because it pushes away from the acquisition of hardware and its long lead time. It also reflects another very important concept which is that you don’t acquire a fixed good, as for example, you historically might have acquired a tank. You’re acquiring something that’s constantly changing and evolving. The challenge is for the bureaucracy to keep pace with that speed of adaptation.

TH: On the flip side, some of the technology companies are antagonistic toward the military and intelligence side of government — we have the big example of Google dropping out of its Pentagon drone-project contract. Do you think they’ll wake up to the threats we face?

RD: I’d like to see that and expect that we will. There are a number of companies that continue to work with the Pentagon and that are quite committed to it. Amazon is an example; Microsoft continues to be at the forefront of companies working with Pentagon; the same is true of IBM and others.

The Google objections to Project Maven are not persuasive to me. I think that you can rightly insist that your contributions be used ethically and be concerned about the consequences, both intended and unintended. But I don’t think it’s the right response to quickly walk away from that relationship. I think you want to inject as much responsibility into it as is required.

TH: Let’s jump to our new age of great power competition. One thing that I found really interesting in the report was noting that when we talk about threats to sovereignty, we tend to think of it in terms of geography. Putin grabbing Crimea is what we think of. But you say not only is that changed, it changed a long time ago.

RD: After World War II, American leaders created institutions that continue to dominate the international security framework. They created the strategies that shape the thinking of all of the present senior decision-makers. This thinking rested on premises, some of which were evident at the time, some of which we can see more clearly now, and some of which are probably still not evident to us.

One of these premises was that the main threat to American national security was from other militaries crossing borders. Now cyber poses a different kind of problem, one that doesn’t recognize a border and doesn’t manifest itself even as a military action, much less as an action involving an attack that crosses a physical boundary. And so we have difficulty dealing with it.

TH: A lot of people, without wanting to be in China or Russia, feel that there are great advantages to an authoritarian system in terms of consistency and policy, in terms of control over dissent, etc. But you and your co-authors also feel that democracy has a lot of strengths that are unique to it, correct?

RD: Yes. You lead into it nicely when you comment as a sort of subordinate clause, “without wanting to live there.” One of the striking things is how many members of the elites within those countries don’t want to live there. That’s a reflection of a whole lot of things. Among them, fundamentally, it’s a reflection of lack of freedom in their own societies.

Authoritarian systems have advantages in the short term. A directed economy and a directed political system force rapid consensus. But we also know that these systems have a great deal of difficulty correcting their errors. They have difficulties with latent dissent that tends to manifest itself in subtle ways that drag on the political system and the economy. In the long-term, we think the American system is likely to be more successful, whatever the challenges in the short term.

TH: Speaking of China, it’s estimated that its economy will surpass ours in the next decade and perhaps double ours later in the century. But I’m old enough to remember when this was supposed to be the Japanese Century. That didn’t happen, obviously. How could the Chinese stumble on this path to global dominance?

RD: A lot could happen. You’re right in pointing out that the Japanese likely success was, in retrospect, exaggerated. Like you, we wouldn’t assert too much precision about this. Nobody knows what it will be like in 2050 or whatever. But it does seem highly likely that Chinese GDP will grow to exceed ours. And our basic point about that is that we haven’t, in our lives, experienced an opponent with a GDP anything like equal to ours.

China could stumble. We note, for example, that this could happen because of its environmental problems; because of its very large population — so that its GDP per capita is considerably less than ours; because of its problems of corruption; because of its problems dealing with dissent and so forth. GDP is not, by any means, some talismanic measure of national power. It’s a rather outmoded, 20th century way of calculating well-being in wealth. And it doesn’t necessarily correlate, by any means, with military power.

But while acknowledging these diverse considerations, as national security analysts we need to plan for challenging cases. The dominant very plausible one is one in which China’s economic power exceeds ours. We think strategic planning needs to proceed from that premise.

TH: The paper points out that another advantage is that America has a vast network of allies and partners. China and Russia don’t have friends, and you say that’s not coincidental.

RD: This is another manifestation of the failures of an autocratic regime as distinguished from one that prizes freedom and is based on that range of values. It gives us exceptional power. And one of the concerns many of us have, about the present administration, is the undervaluing of alliances.

TH: We have a president whose rhetoric is, well, poisonous to our allies. Does this do permanent damage to these alliances?

RD: This paper is not about President Trump, pro or con. It is about where, we think, from a national security perspective, we ought to be investing. And one of those things we ought to be investing in is alliances.

I think we can come back from any interruption in that investment. But the interruptions make it harder to come back. And they sow seeds of doubt that risk enduring.

TH: We throw around the term “soft power” a lot. You also call it “sharp power” in the paper. We know how that’s worked in the past. But it’s been devalued, even before Trump. What is soft power for this next era of great power competition?

RD: One example is provided by what the Chinese are doing with their so-called Belt and Road Initiative, trying to reach out both overland and by sea, which is the fabled Silk Road.

So the Chinese are investing an estimated $90 billion a year in aid, infrastructure projects and the like. Chinese access and Chinese values tend to go with those investments. China’s vision of the internet or of surveillance or of control through systems of facial recognition and the like become more accessible to the rulers of those countries. That’s an example of something that is very distant from military power but very relevant to influence. Of course, more direct hard power can also flow from these investments as bases are established and data is collected.

TH: So what is our Belt and Road then?

RD: Presently, we might invest on the order of $30 billion a year, a third as much. In our view, we ought to be encouraging more aid and trade in those contexts. We place a lot of emphasis on business relationships as a useful mechanism for spreading values and rules of law. When Americans are abroad selling their goods, they carry with them American values.

A different example is in the spread of information and our efforts to present our point of view. We think there are rich opportunities in those arenas. To the extent we withdraw from the world and don’t invest that way, we undervalue that aspect.

TH: Last question: There are, I think, 11 names on this paper. That’s a lot of chefs in the kitchen. How do you all work together to not just get your individual opinions in but to make sure that you have sort of common agreement?

RD: That’s another unusual aspect of this paper. It’s not uncommon for strategy documents to be written by committee. But I think anybody who reads this will feel that this is not a committee product. We didn’t dumb down the language, make the views lowest common denominator and the like. I was delighted that, in the end, we all felt we could sign this paper.

  Note : This article was originally posted on Bloomberg by Tobin Harshaw

How the U.S. Can Navigate an Ever-Scarier World was originally published on Shenzhen Blog

[theconservativebrief]

To people whose main reference point for politics is the late Obama years, the 2016 presidential campaign, and the post-Bernie Sanders blossoming of left-wing politics in the United States, Nancy Pelosi seems — and, indeed, is — an establishment figure.

But for those whose political horizons go back a bit longer, she stands out as the exemplary progressive among powerful Democrats.

She had a role in stiffening President Barack Obama’s spine after Scott Brown threw the future of the Affordable Care Act into doubt, and her opposition to the Iraq War came at a time when the party’s other legislative leaders (Reps. Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt, Sen. Harry Reid) and presidential aspirants (John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton) were backing it.

But more fundamentally, her reputation as a shrewd and effective leader dates back to the huge fight over privatizing Social Security in the mid-aughts. At the time, the Democratic party’s fundamental political position looked more precarious — and Pelosi successfully held her party together against chipping away at one of the greatest party achievements in American history.

All this helps explain why the anti-Pelosi sentiment is among a fairly marginal group of centrist Democrats who are completely detached from the anti-establishment movement on the left.

In the winter of 2004 to 2005, George W. Bush had just been reelected, and Republicans held majorities in both houses of Congress — electoral victories that they had, in all cases, won more or less fair-and-square rather than depending on gerrymandering or fluky maps. It appeared to be the dawning of a bold new era of conservative policymaking. Certainly that’s how Bush saw it.

“I earned capital in the campaign, political capital,” Bush said in his post-election press conference, “and I intend to spend it.”

He intended to spend it, in particular, on an ambitious plan to replace Social Security’s basic structure with a very different program in which citizens would divert a share of their income into 401(k)-esque accounts. Bush did not develop a specific privatization plan, but instead articulated a series of principles, and expected Congress to work out the details.

The conventional wisdom at the time was that it was bold, visionary, and correct of Bush to push for something along these lines. And the expectation was that ultimately he would get it done.

All of the major legislation of Bush’s first term — tax cuts, Medicare reform, the Iraq War authorization, more tax cuts — passed with Democratic votes. Why should Social Security be any different?

But Republicans had a problem.

If younger working people stopped paying Social Security taxes and started putting their money into private accounts instead, that would create a huge temporary hole in the federal budget. Many Republican members of Congress had spent the previous years embracing privatization as a solution for Social Security’s long-term solvency without understanding that privatization actually created an enormous short-term solvency problem. And the GOP had no consensus on how to surmount this difficulty.

The options, roughly speaking, were to cut benefits for the current elderly, to raise taxes, to cut spending elsewhere, or to accept a large increase in the budget deficit. All of these ideas had some support in conservative circles, but none of them had a lot of support. And to pass anything, Republicans would need to unite around a single solution.

Pressure mounted on Democrats — including from inside their own caucus — to propose a Social Security fix of their own to counter Bush’s proposal. Pelosi’s insight was that any Democratic proposal would necessarily prompt intra-party infighting and muddy the waters, while Republicans simply had no way of resolving the internal contradictions of their own position. If Democrats simply stayed united and critical of privatization, the GOP plan would collapse under its own weight.

What they had to do was do nothing:

As the spring of 2005 wore on, some pestered her every week, asking when they were going to release a rival plan.

“Never. Is never good enough for you?” Pelosi defiantly said to one member.

It worked. While Democrats refused to engage in the details of the debate, in-fighting consumed Republicans. And the fact that the whole idea was unpopular loomed larger and larger in the minds of GOP elected officials who had no particular stake in the details.

Bush attempted to barnstorm the country in support of privatization, but that only drew more attention to an embarrassing and unpopular situation. No bill ever came to a vote in either house of Congress.

Things were very different in 2005.

Pelosi’s stance was condemned over and over again in Washington Post editorials and in op-eds from center-left business leaders. These days, Democrats are much more likely to talk about expanding Social Security than cutting it, and even Republicans position themselves as the real defenders of Medicare. (Except when they’re proposing to cut Medicare.)

Of course, this all happened 13 years ago, which is a long time in politics.

The politics of Social Security have shifted so much that President Donald Trump opposes any cuts to the program. So the idea that opposing Social Security cuts marked Pelosi out as a bold progressive doesn’t scan correctly to people more engaged with modern-day politics.

This big leftward lurch in the political debate over America’s largest non-military spending programs happened so quickly that its rarely discussed today. But it’s easy to imagine a world in which things took a different turn back at the height of Bush’s political power.

That they didn’t is in no small part thanks to Pelosi’s triumph in an intra-party dispute. And that, in turn, helps explain why, at the end of the day, progressives are lining up behind Pelosi’s reelection and the intra-caucus opposition to her is led by a relatively small group of more conservative Democrats.

Original Source -> The time Nancy Pelosi saved Social Security

via The Conservative Brief

[groovyeggdeputyscissors-blog]

I’ve been through a few Presidents in my day. This piece is about my own personal top-of-mind-awareness, the first thing that comes to mind, when I think of each. It is not intended to be historically correct, and ignores any scandalous events, or otherwise, that may have surfaced after each’s Presidency concluded. Additionally, I will most likely omit many achievements. This is only about what comes into my mind first, not a lesson in history.

Dwight Eisenhower, President 1953-1961: My age range during these years was 4-10. My first recollection of Dwight Eisenhower was at the age of 5, living in Libertyville IL My mother was as much a hard-line a Democrat as my father was a die-hard Republican. Eisenhower was running for re-election against Adlai Stevenson of Maine. My father would walk around singing, to the tune of Whistle While You Work from Snow White: “Whistle while you work, Stevenson’s a jerk” which would, obviously, get my mother riled. The Cold War was escalating, everyone was afraid of nuclear war, and air raid drills were common in schools in most parts of the country. Schools in Illinois at the time didn’t bother with air raid drills; we had tornado drills, which were basically the same— siren sounds, head for basement, line up against the wall.

Before we moved to Illinois, and lived in Massachusetts, WBZ TV in Boston aired a local kids show, Big Brother with Bob Emery.  As a member of the show’s “Small Fry Club”, I wouldn’t miss an episode. Each day, at some point in the show, Bob would stop the show, sit in front of a portrait of Eisenhower, Hail to the Chief would play, and we kids in TV land would all raise our glasses of milk and drink a toast to the President.

That’s pretty much all I remember about President Eisenhower, except that, looking back, there was a tremendous respect for the office in those days;  President Eisenhower was somewhat of a hero to us kids.

John Kennedy, President 1961-1963:  Kennedy’s campaign for office began during what I refer to as The Younger Years. His actual short Presidency occurred during The Middle Years. The main differences between those two periods are ones of consciousness and learning. My recollections of his run for office begin at age 10; first impression: I never realized Presidents could be young and have hair. I remember Richard Nixon sweating profusely during his debate with Kennedy. I remember being in Maine at my Grandparents’ (father’s side) summer home and hearing my Grandfather, who was, in retrospect, the equivalent of a Christian Right person today—just “born” not “born again”—saying that the country was in real trouble if a Catholic were elected to office. I also recall my father’s response that he never again wanted to hear my Grandfather talk like that when we kids were around.

It was during Kennedy’s Presidency that I realized what the Cold War was— it was hard not to—the Cuban Missile Crisis, Nikita Khruschev pounding his shoe at the U.N., my father building an actual fallout shelter of concrete bricks, to specs, in our basement, and storing food and water in Army Surplus, air tight containers. It all added up to destruction of that innocence and security only children have.

I remember being in awe of Jacqueline Kennedy because she spoke a gazillion languages. I was actually watching TV when Marylin Monroe sang Happy Birthday to JFK, and remember thinking, at the time, that something was really odd. I also recall that Caroline Kennedy went to Concord Academy in Concord, Mass., the next town to Acton, where I lived. Concord Academy was right across from the Concord Library where we kids went to do research for school papers. I remember Cape Cod, Kennedy boats, and touch football.

I was 14, in school study hall, when the teacher/monitors all began crying. Shortly after, the Principal addressed the school on the loud speaker system: John F. Kennedy had been assassinated. It was one of those moments you never, ever forget— a moment when you absolutely know that the world, as you have known it, will never again be the same.

Lyndon Johnson, President 1963-1969: Seeing LBJ sworn in aboard Air Force One was a moment that stands out in my mind because nothing like this had ever before happened. But, as that was happening, I had also entered into my early teenage formative years. The folk movement, Bob Dylan, music in general made “thinkers” of much of my generation. Gone was the acceptance of “my country right or wrong” thinking that had prevailed up until this point. It had been replaced by general pessimism, and total distrust of our government in general.  Involvement, activism, protest became dominant attitudes and actions, fueled by a never ending Viet Nam war we knew was immoral, to say the least. We saw a Vietnamese person executed, shot in the head, on live TV. We experienced a military draft system that would most certainly catch up with us as soon as we graduated from high school, with then sole purpose of placing us in that war. We saw the injustices and awful consequences of racism in this country. And, we were going to do something about it.

When I think of LBJ, I think of the First Lady, “Lady Bird”, because the name was so different. I remember him holding a dog, a beagle I think, by it’s ears. I remember that he became the first “blah, blah, blah” President, meaning that every time he was on TV, all I heard was “blah, blah, blah”. There were two exceptions: First, when he announced that he was sending ground troops into Cambodia, and, second, when he announced he would not run for re-election. I watched both in the TV room in my dorm at college. The first announcement drew shouts of anger, the second loud cheers.

It was on Johnson’s watch that Viet Nam continued to escalate, that MLK was assassinated, that Robert Kennedy was assassinated, and that Mayor Daly of Chicago unleashed the hounds of Hell onto demonstrators outside of the Democratic National Convention. All of the programs Johnson initiated with his Great Society legislation went right by us. Our focus was on the ongoing horrors of war, both outside of, and inside our country.

Richard Nixon, 1969-1974: I spent a good part of the summer of 1968 at a friend’s house in the South Bronx, NY. Word on the street was, if Richard Nixon got elected, there was going to be an all out revolution in this country. Obviously, that never happened. My immediate recall of Richard Nixon was his nickname “Tricky Dick”, which is pretty much how many felt. His presence on TV was not a pretty sight; every word he spoke seemed insincere, scripted, almost laughable. Yes, he was the first President to visit the then People’s Republic of China, and yes, Nixon was responsible for signing legislation that founded the EPA in 1970, and had the voting age in the U.S. lowered from 21 to 18, and yes, he did end the Viet Nam War. But, images of the Vietnamese people left behind, and the way they were left behind, still haunt me. Watergate, of course is my most profound memory, as is Nixon’s final departure from DC when he was forced to resigned from office.

Gerald Ford, 1974-1977: There are only four things I remember about Gerald Ford: First, he stabilized the country with his calm presence after the Nixon debacle; second, he pardoned Nixon; third, a woman tried to shoot him; and fourth, Chevy Chase on Saturday Night Live continually imitated and made fun of Ford, stumbling and bumbling in almost every SNL episode.

Jimmy Carter, 1977-1981: Possibly the most genuinely caring of all the Presidents in my lifetime, Jimmy Carter did not come across well on TV. Often overshadowed by his Brother Billy, whose seemingly redneck shenanigans often dominated the news, who actually launched Billy Beer as a result, Carter had his hands full with an economy that went into double digit inflation and, of course, the Iran hostage crisis and a failed rescue attempt. Inflation in this country was so out of control in 1979-1980, that, in the advertising business, we often couldn’t advertise prices in an ad for the following week because they would have risen so much. I remember Carter virtually shutting off credit in this country to help slow the rate of inflation— I actually played golf with the president of a Gardner, MA bank to procure a mortgage for my first home in 1980— the mortgage rate was 16% APR, and people thought I was lucky. On the positive side, I do remember the Camp David Peace Accords, in my opinion, the best achievement of the Carter years.

Ronald Reagan: 1981-1989: By the time Ronald Reagan became President, I already had almost a quarter century of hearing “blah, blah, blah” every time a President spoke, and had reached a point of skepticism where I automatically figured anything said by a U.S. President was, at best, less than being close to the truth. So, here we were with an actor turned governor turned President of the U.S. I wasn’t at all surprised. His fatherly presence was endearing to most in this country. I had a rapidly growing business and young family at the time, things were relatively calm, so the Reagan years more or less slipped by uneventfully. I do remember that Reagan was “The Teflon President” because no matter what happened under his watch, it seemed to deflect away from him and onto someone else. I recall Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev working out the INF Treaty, which really was the beginning of the end to The Cold War. I remember often wondering if Ronald or Nancy Reagan were calling the shots. And, of course, I remember Saturday Night Live.

030114-O-0000D-001 President George W. Bush. Photo by Eric Draper, White House.

George H.W. Bush: 1989-1993: By the time Bush Sr. was elected President, my skepticism toward the office, and government in this country, had reached a point where it came as no surprise to me that an ex- CIA head was now our President. Yes, he signed the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Clean Air Act. But, he also initiated the first Iraq war. I don’t remember much else except for Dana Carvey on SNL. He did great impersonations of Bush.

Bill Clinton: 1993-2001: I remember Bill Clinton running against Bush Sr. because here was a guy running as a “cool” candidate, wearing shades, playing sax on TV, using every Hollywood means possible to attract young voters. He appeared to be a symbol of change after 12 years of relatively old, conservative dudes in the office. But, my memories of Clinton are not fond, beginning with Whitewater, and continuing through the Monica Lewinsky show. Yes, some good things happened under his watch: 6 million new jobs were created in his first two years in office, he cut taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses while raising taxes on 1.2% of the wealthy. Yes he signed the Family & Medical Leave Act, and the Student Loan Refinance Act. But he also signed NAFTA, and initiated a 3 strikes rule that has imprisoned many, particularly African-Americans in this country. And, when people slated to testify against him were found mysteriously dead in a park, when he played semantics, looked straight at the camera and said “I did not have sex with that women”, those are the memories I retain most, and the types of recollections that have helped to bring my respect lower and lower as President after President has served.

George W. Bush: 2001-2009: When I think of W, I automatically picture 911. As when JFK was shot, I remember exactly where I was: In a client’s office for an early meeting when someone from the office came in and said a plane had just hit the World Trade Center. I went straight home from the meeting to put on the TV, just as the second building was coming down. This was another time I knew things would never again be the same.

When I think of George Bush, I think of The Patriot Act, and all the rights we lost as a result. I think of Dick Cheney in his secret office, and still wonder if it was his job to give instructions to W from a shadow government. I picture the second war with Iraq, based on “faulty intelligence”, a war that lasted from 2003 until 2011, if you believe that it actually ever ended. I also picture a war with Afghanistan which began in 2001 and still continues to this day in 2018. I remember Bush signing the biggest tax cut in American history, benefitting particularly the wealthy. I remember the beginning of the biggest economic crash since 1929. I picture, and prominently hear, “blah, blah, blah”.

Barak Obama, 2009-2017: At the sake of unleashing a firestorm, to me, Barak Obama was the biggest disappointment of any of the Presidents in my time. I expected little, and got less, from the others. I always argued, when he was running, that no matter who was President, nothing was ever going to change, but deep down I was hoping. Yes, he ended the 2008 Recession by extending Unemployment, initiating the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act, and pumping 241.9 billion of our dollars into the economy. Yes, he passed the Affordable Care Act, resulting in 95% of the population having some form of health insurance. Yes, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act regulated big banks and created Wall Street reform, and yes, Obama signed the International Climate Change Agreement.

But, right off the bat, when many of Bush’s Cabinet Members were reappointed into Obama’s Cabinet, I got that bad feeling all over again. Billions of tax payers’ dollars were pumped into economy, yet the people who stole the billions, resulting in the economic crash, kept their spoils and were never held accountable. The Affordable Care Act was, in my opinion, nothing close to Universal Health Care, which many major countries in the world enjoy. The Black Lives Matter movement had to evolve, under the watch of our first Black President, which, to me, is ludicrous. Maybe I’m being overly hard with my recollections of his Presidency, but I expected better.

Donald Trump: 2017-present: So now we went from a movie actor turned governor turned President, to a Reality TV Star and real estate mogul who millions of right wing Christians believe God sent to be our President. Seriously…there are no words.

Twelve Presidents later, what’s different?

Perhaps it was childhood innocence and ignorance that had me so excited to run home for lunch and “toast” the President each day. I think John Kennedy, right or wrong, maintained a level of respect from supporters, and detractors alike, that has not existed since. My personal respect for the office has declined continually, President after President, to a level where I have none at all. Pessimistic? Yes. Optimistic? Not at all. Perhaps, after Trump leaves office, someone so great, so inspiring, so motivating, and so driven to change this country for the betterment of all of it’s people. will appear on the scene, and the office will again deserve some respect. But, 12 Presidents later, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that day. And, I have to wonder, if my respect has declined to such a low point over the years, how does the rest of the world now view the office, and our nation?

12 Presidents: My top-of-mind recall I've been through a few Presidents in my day. This piece is about my own personal top-of-mind-awareness, the first thing that comes to mind, when I think of each.