#partisan rivalry

[boof-chamber]

[deadpresidents]

I’m curious about the friendship between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter (and presidential friendships in general,) I’d like to know what that looked like for them. Would they go and do things together or was it just a few phone calls a year?

Their relationship is really interesting because during the 1976 campaign and in the years right afterward, Ford and Carter genuinely did not like each other. It wasn't a normal, opponent vs. opponent rivalry, either. They straight-up disliked one another, and that was extremely unusual for Gerald Ford, who got along with practically everybody he met throughout his life, rarely had bad things to say about other people, and was almost physically incapable of being unkind to others, no matter what side of the political spectrum they belonged to.

What changed was when President Reagan sent all the living former Presidents -- Nixon, Ford, and Carter -- to Cairo in 1981 to attend Anwar Sadat's funeral following Sadat's assassination. The three former Presidents all flew together on one of the planes normally used as Air Force One, and there was some tension at the beginning, but the person who broke the ice, oddly enough, ended up being Richard Nixon. Ford then suggested that the former Presidents should drop all formalities and just refer to one another as Dick, Jerry, and Jimmy. As Ford remembered, "I guess we figured we were gonna be in a plane together forty hours, more or less, and in order to be pleasant, it was a good idea to just wipe the slate clean, which we did." Ford and Carter eventually started bonding, partly over the fact that Ronald Reagan was a major reason why each of them ultimately lost their respective bids for re-election.

At the time, Carter was having trouble building his Presidential Library, and he asked Ford for some advice since Ford had just recently opened his library. When Carter mentioned he was having some issues raising money for the library, Ford offered to come down and appear at fundraisers for him, and asked Carter to return the favor and visit the Ford Library for an event.

As Thomas M. DeFrank writes in his 2007 book, Write It When I'm Gone: Remarkable Off-the-Record Conversations With Gerald R. Ford (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO):

"Carter accepted, triggering a Jimmy-Jerry tag team match extending over several years. These back-scratching appearances didn't convert them into friends, but the relationship was notably friendlier. They began staying in regular contact, talking on the phone, and exchanging birthday greetings. Their contacts were sufficiently public that some of Ford's closest political allies grumbled that he was spending altogether too much time with Carter -- not unlike similar complaints from [George H.W.] Bush 41 partisans today that he hangs around Bill Clinton too much. Ford brushed off the complaints. Beyond their shared practical interests in Presidential Libraries, another unifying bond was at play. Both ex-Presidents had strong reasons not to like Ronald Reagan, which helped cement their ties even though neither one would ever admit it publicly. To one old Ford friend, the calculation was simple: 'Once you did something for his library or museum, you were a friend for life.'"

As they got older, Ford and Carter would sometimes make joint appearances at Presidential Libraries or universities, or events for important causes, and they even wrote a joint op-ed during the Monica Lewinsky scandal urging Congress to censure President Clinton instead of impeaching him. They felt it was a bad precedent (which it has clearly turned out to be) and would be bad for the country. Unlike Ford, Jimmy Carter wasn't very easy-going or personable, so there were times when their friendship would get a little frayed. Ford once told a friend, "Well, you know Jimmy. He can be a real pain in the ass, but we get along."

Eventually, they promised one another that they would deliver the eulogy if the other former President died first. President Ford died first, on December 26, 2006, and Carter attended every event during the several days of ceremonies, from Ford's lying in state at the U.S. Capitol, to the national funeral service at the Washington National Cathedral, and traveled with Ford's family and the former President's remains to Ford's hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan. At the church service in Grand Rapids, Carter delivered his eulogy, and also attended the private interment service when Ford was buried as at his Presidential Library. In his eulogy, Carter repeated the gracious first words he had said when delivering his Inaugural Address on the day he took over the White House from Ford in 1977, "For myself and for my nation, I want to thank my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land." It was a remarkable relationship between two former Presidents who, again, genuinely disliked one another for quite some time.

[1863-project]

Have learned via this NYT play-by-play of Westminster last night that there is apparently some serious competition and drama in the Afghan Hound community right now.

Via Sarah Lyall:

The defeat of Louis the Afghan hound in the breed competition on Monday was the culmination of an epic battle that appears to have divided the Afghan (hound) world. Louis, whose full name is CH Sunlit’s King of Queens, won the breed and then the hound group last year. But another dog has been sniffing at his tail (so to speak) ever since: Zaida, who took the breed title this time around. As in a boxing or tennis match, each dog had its partisans, who cheered and clapped every time their favorite did something — in this case, like run around the ring. The crowd was six or seven abreast, as Afghan aficionados jostled for a sight of the action.

One breeder, who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, has been following the rivalry and said on Monday that the two factions hate each other. The breeder who was scared of retribution said that the two dogs represented two distinct types of Afghans, and that Afghan owners and breeders are divided over which is the superior kind. On a cosmetic level, that appeared to be true: Louis has long black hair and is a male; Zaida has long champagne-colored hair and is a bitch, as female dogs are known in the show world. The event judge strung out the suspense by making the two dogs run around the ring far more times than usual, and seemed also to change his mind, possibly several times over, about who should be top dog. In the end, Zaida’s win marked the end of an era for Louis. His crowd of fans remained largely silent as Zaida was showered with acclaim. Sadly for lovers of the breed, Zaida failed to win the hound group, losing to a delicate-looking whippet named Bourbon.

This is fascinating and I want to learn more about what's actually going on, if only to eat popcorn and watch.

(And since she's mentioned at the end there, poor Bourbon the Whippet came out of retirement for one more show this year, only to be the runner-up for the third time in her career, this time losing out to Monty the Giant Schnauzer. Always a bridesmaid.)

[justaninchident-f1xreader]

max verstappen x reader

themes-

ferrari female driver jealousy enemies to lovers possible spice (i will put the warning accordingly)

warnings- none in this chapter, so don't worry lovelies

chapter 1 - the ferrari firecracker

The Monaco air crackled with a tension sharper than any Pirelli slick. The first Grand Prix of the season hung heavy in the humid night, and its whispers all swirled around one name: Y/N L/N.

Y/N, the Ferrari firecracker, the girl who'd rewritten headlines and defied history by snagging a seat at the Prancing Horse. The girl who, in her debut race, had dared to breathe down Max Verstappen's neck, crossing the finish line a tantalizing 0.09 seconds behind him.

Max, the Dutch demon, the reigning champion with an ice-pick stare and a lead foot. He tolerated this new intrusion - her audacity, her talent, her unwavering smile - as much as he tolerated a pit stop with a loose wheel nut. Their encounters were barbed exchanges, icy glares traded across the track like bullets.

"Just a lucky rookie," Max had sneered after that first race, his eyes glinting with something that might have been grudging respect or simmering fury.

"Verstappen, i'm just getting warmed up," Y/N had retorted, her grin wide and unapologetic, the taste of champagne still sweet on her tongue.

Tonight, in Monaco, the tension was about to explode. The narrow, unforgiving streets were a crucible, their unforgiving turns a test of both skill and nerve. Y/N thrived in this chaos. Her Ferrari seemed an extension of her, dancing through the labyrinth, her instincts razor-sharp.

Behind her, Max lurked, a predator biding his time. Every lap he closed the gap, a menacing orange shadow chasing a scarlet spark. Their radios crackled with a tense interplay of strategies, engineers sweating over every millisecond.

Then, chaos. A misjudged corner, a tangled mess of metal and carbon fiber. The safety car came out, a yellow dragon swallowing the race whole. In the pit lane, the atmosphere was electric. Ferrari, smelling blood, gambled on an aggressive undercut. Y/N emerged ahead, the first time all race Max didn't hold the lead.

The final laps were a masterclass in controlled aggression. Y/N held her line, refusing to give Max an inch. Every corner was a chess game, every straight a duel of wills. The crowd roared, their partisan cheers a cacophony in the night.

As they crossed the line, it was Max again, by the slimmest of margins. But this time, there was no sneer, no dismissive shrug. This time, Max met Y/N's eyes, a flicker of grudging admiration mingling with the fire in his own.

Y/N grinned, a shark's smile in the fading light. The message was clear: next time, it wouldn't be so close.

This was just the beginning. The girl who had rewritten history was far from done writing her own. The grid may have embraced her youthful spirit, but Max Verstappen had finally acknowledged her as a worthy adversary. And that, for Y/N, was a victory in itself.

The Monaco night held its breath, a promise of fierce battles to come, a dance of fire and ice between a Ferrari phoenix and a Dutch lion. The season had just begun, and the world was watching, eyes wide with anticipation. Because on this grid, under the unforgiving spotlight, Y/N L/N and Max Verstappen were about to ignite a rivalry that would scorch the very tarmac of Formula One.

grab some popcorn lovelies ^^

[thequeenofthedisneyverse]

La Violencia (Research I did for Encanto fic writers so you don't have to)

TW: Assassination and death

Long but necessary post

@yellowcry @miracles-and-butterflies @evostar (if you already knew about it, that's fine, but reblog so others can too.)

To put it simply;

During this time, an estimated 200,000 people lost their lives, with 112,000 of those deaths occurring between 1948 and 1950. Additionally, two million people were forcibly displaced from their homes, primarily to Venezuela.

The root of this conflict lies in the intense partisan rivalries between Colombia’s two traditional political parties: the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. These tensions created a divide between liberals and conservatives, eventually leading to the partial collapse of the state and existing institutional structures. As violence escalated, economic motivations began to outweigh political ones, and armed bands took advantage of the chaos to commit robberies, assaults, and revenge against their neighbors.

More in depth;

La Violencia was a ten-year civil war in Colombia from 1948 to 1958, between the Colombian Conservative Party and the Colombian Liberal Party, fought mainly in the countryside.

Liberal hegemony continued through the 1930s and the World War II era, and Alfonso López Pumarejo was reelected in 1942; however, wartime conditions were not favourable to social change. In the elections of 1946, two Liberal candidates, Gabriel Turbay and Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, stood for election and thus split the Liberal vote. A Conservative, Mariano Ospina Pérez, took office. 

Conservatives had been embittered by political sidelining and, since 1930, had suffered violent attacks at the hands of Liberal supporters. With the electoral victory of 1946 they instituted a series of crude reprisals against Liberals. It was the initiation of the period that was dubbed La Violencia. On April 9, 1948, Gaitán, leader of the left wing of the Liberal Party, was assassinated in broad daylight in downtown Bogotá. The resulting riot and property damage (estimated at $570 million throughout the country) came to be called the bogotazo.

La Violencia originated in an intense political feud between Liberals and Conservatives and had little to do with class conflict, foreign ideologies, or other matters outside Colombia.  Authoritative sources estimate that more than 200,000 persons lost their lives in the period between 1946 and 1964.

The most spectacular aspect of the violence, however, was the extreme cruelty perpetrated on the victims, which has been a topic of continuing study for Colombians. La Violencia intensified under the regime of Laureano Gómez (1950–53), who attempted to introduce a fascist state. His excesses brought his downfall by military coup—Colombia’s first in the 20th century. Gen. Gustavo Rojas Pinilla assumed the presidency in 1953 and, aided by his daughter, María Eugenia Rojas, began an effort to end La Violencia and to stimulate the economy.

Rojas was a populist leader who supported citizens’ demands for the redress of grievances against the elite. Support for Rojas began to collapse when it appeared that he would not be able to fulfill his promises, when he showed reluctance to give up power, and when the economy faltered as a result of a disastrous fall in coffee prices in 1957. He was driven from office that year by a military junta.

The arrangement for the National Front government—a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals—was made by Alberto Lleras Camargo, representing the Liberals, and Laureano Gómez, leader of the Conservative Party, in the Declaration of Sitges (1957).

The unique agreement provided for alternation of Conservatives and Liberals in the presidency, an equal sharing of ministerial and other government posts, and equal representation on all executive and legislative bodies. The agreement was to remain in force for 16 years—equivalent to four presidential terms, two each for Conservatives and Liberals. The question of what governmental structure would follow the National Front was left unsettled.

It had been contemplated that a Conservative would be the first to occupy the presidency in 1958. When the Conservative Party could not agree on a candidate, however, the National Front selected Lleras, who had previously served in that office for 12 months in 1945–46.

During Lleras’s tenure an agrarian reform law was brought into effect, national economic planning for development began, and Colombia became the showcase of the Alliance for Progress (a U.S. attempt to further economic development in Latin America). But severe economic difficulties caused by low coffee prices, domestic unemployment, and the apparent end of the effectiveness of import substitution were only partially offset by Alliance aid. 

The Alliance increased Colombia’s economic dependence on the United States, which, to some Colombians, had serious disadvantages. By 1962 economic growth had come almost to a standstill.

The precarious state of the economy and the degree of social tension were revealed when only about half of those eligible to vote did so in the 1962 presidential elections, which brought Guillermo León Valencia, a Conservative, to the presidency.

During Valencia’s first year in office internal political pressures led to devaluation of the peso (Colombia’s currency), wage increases among unionized workers of some 40 percent, and the most rampant inflation since 1905. Extreme deflationary policies were applied in the next three years, raising the unemployment rates above 10 percent in the major cities and turning even more Colombians against the National Front. 

Less than 40 percent of the electorate went to the polls in the 1964 congressional elections.

Marxist guerrilla groups began appearing in Colombia during Valencia’s presidency. The first was the National Liberation Army (Ejército de Liberación Nacional; ELN), which was created by a group of Colombian students who had studied in Cuba.

Founded in 1964, the ELN followed strategies espoused by Che Guevara. Another guerrilla group, which followed two years later, was the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia; FARC), which was more connected to Soviet-influenced communist movements. Much of FARC originated in the “resistance committees” that had appeared in Colombia during La Violencia.

Carlos Lleras Restrepo was the third National Front president (1966–70). He returned the economy to a sound footing, improved government planning for economic development, and pushed through political reforms essential to an orderly end to the Front (which seemed increasingly to constitute a monopoly of power by the Conservative-Liberal oligarchy).

Although the constitutional reform of 1968 stipulated that elections would become competitive again after 1974, the president was still required to give “adequate and equitable” representation to the second largest political party in his cabinet and in the filling of other bureaucratic posts.

Read more here (This article is mostly where I got my info from as well as copilot.ai. I know, AI is bad, but please don't judge me. I was not about to do six hours of research when I have a tool that can help me in seconds.)

What does this have to do with the madrigals?

Well, if you're planning on writing any madrigal (or all) outside of Encanto, La violencia is something you need to take into consideration. It's an important part of Colombia's culture and shouldn't be ignored.

(I just learned about it recently and in turn, need to rewrite some stuff. So I can only imagine that half of the Encanto fandom knows nothing about it)

What cities were safe you ask? I don't think there really was any.

Bogotá: As the capital of Colombia, Bogotá witnessed significant unrest during this period. Political factions clashed, leading to violence and instability.

Cali: Cali, located in the southwestern part of the country, also suffered from La Violencia. It was a hotspot for clashes between Liberal and Conservative supporters.

Medellín: Medellín, another major city, faced its share of violence. The conflict often played out in the streets, affecting civilians and communities.

Barranquilla: This coastal city experienced tensions between rival political groups, resulting in bloodshed and loss of life.

Cartagena: Cartagena, known for its historical significance, was not immune to the violence. The struggle between Liberals and Conservatives left scars on its urban landscape.

Cúcuta: Located near the border with Venezuela, Cúcuta also witnessed violence during La Violencia.

Palmira, Santa Marta, Soledad Atlántico, Armenia, Pereira, Neiva, Valledupar, Bucaramanga, Popayán, Villavicencio, and Soacha were other cities affected by the turmoil.

So, in either city, the madrigals would be exposed to this war if they chose to come out. Now, let's say Encanto is in the very center of Colombia (or at lease close to it) -

(Right where the red dot is)

The closest area is Villavicencio, Puerto Lypez, and Bogota. All three cities that were affected by the war. And I'm not saying Villavicencio is THAT close to Encanto, probably a week trip at best, but still.

Why did I choose the center of Colombia?

Because I don't see it sitting anywhere else. And it's convenient fic wise. But you can do what you want.

Now I'm not saying the Madrigals won't experience fun in the new world. They most certainly will (culture and technology wise), but the war is really unavoidable for them.

That's all for now, but if you have anything to add or for me to correct, reblog or message me.

[racefortheironthrone]

How did all the heresies and theological arguments of the Late Roman Empire lead to "the Arab caliphates getting a decent navy and winning the Battle of the Masts"?

This is actually a fascinating story about the nature of the religious world and religious politics in the Late Roman and Byzantine Empires and the Rashidun Caliphate.

Because heresies and theological arguments tended to start at the level of bishops and patriarchs fighting with the bishops and patriarchs of other metropoles (and that filters out to which missionaries were sent where), there were strong regional variations as to which position was in the local majority.

Skipping over the Arian controversy because it's not relevant to the Battle of the Masts, Cyril of Alexandria was the leader of the Monophysite faction ("physis" meaning "nature," i.e Christ has one nature, which tracks with the Council of Nicaea's declaration that he had one "essence"), and his dyophysite (meaning two "natures") rivals were based out of Antioch - and Alexandria and thus Egypt became Monophysite. However, Constantinople and Anatolia were dyophysite and worked to make sure that the Second Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon declared monophysitism a heresy and dyophysitism as Orthodoxy, thus leading to the Chalcedonian Schism.

Following on from this, the emperors Justin II and Justinian I were Orthodox. Now, Justinian tried to end the Schism through the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, but this didn't really work and it remained state policy to persecute Monophysites. However, the empress Theodora was Monophysite and acted as patroness and political defender of Monophysites throughout the empire - which made her very popular in Egypt...and with the Greens in the Hippodrome, who were also Monophysites. Naturally, if the Greens were Monophysite, the Blues were Orthodox, because why not turn your sports rivalry into a religious rivalry and a pseudo-political party system? It's not called the Byzantine Empire because it's simple.

Even though Theodora was a Green, Justinian supported the Blues, which meant that no matter what your sports team or religious views or pseudo-partisanship you could support the imperial family. (Indeed, many historians think that the two at least somewhat arranged their religious and sports affiliations with this in mind.) This worked...up until the Nika riots ended up with Belisarius turning the Imperial army on the sports fans turned revolutionary rioters in the Hippodrome, leading to the deaths of as many as 30,000 people.

And so it went, with Alexandria tending to be the losers in the monoergism vs. dyoergism (does Christ have one "energy" or two?) debate, and the monolethitism vs. dyolethetism (does Christ have one "will" or two?) debate. Notably, these debates saw the Emperors of the time trying to get the Church to adopt a compromise (both monoergism and monothelitism were essentially an attempt by the Emperor Heraclius and his Patriarch to find a new theological formulation that the Alexandrians could live with while pointing urgently in the direction of first the Persians and then the Arabs) and failing due to religious partisans digging in their heels, or Emperors siding violently with one side or the other, ironically in the name of Imperial unity.

And this brings us to the Arab Conquest that gave birth to the Rashidun Caliphate. Now, the Christian population of Alexandria was not exactly thrilled about suddenly being ruled over by Muslim Arabs in 642...but in a genius stroke of enlightened self-interest, the Rashidun Caliphate adopted a policy whereby non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis) would be left alone in terms of religious matters as long as they paid their jizya taxes on non-Muslims (with the idea being to create a financial incentive to convert). While this wasn't the most popular, the Alexandrians realized that having to pay religious taxes and then getting left alone in peace and quiet to be Monophysite was a much better deal than having to pay Byzantine imperial taxes and getting religiously persecuted all the damn time.

This mattered geostrategically, because the Port of Alexandria was one of the largest ports in the Mediterranean, and thus had one of the largest shipyards and a lot of shipbuilders, and a hell of a lot of trained ex-Roman sailors and marines who were heavily Monophysite. These recently-unemployed sailors and marines were very happy to work for the Rashidun Caliphate, especially when the Caliphs started to shift resources into the navy to combat Byzantine dominance on the seas. Thus, only a few years after the Rashidun conquest of Egypt in 642, the Arab navy was suddenly able to fight on equal terms with the Byzantine navy - and then started kicking their ass.

This at last brings us to the Battle of the Masts in 655, where an Arab fleet (crewed mostly by Monophysite Egyptians) of 200 ships under the command of admiral Abu al-A'war came into contact with a Byzantine fleet of 500 ships led by the Emperor Constans II off the coast of Lycia...and smashed it to pieces. According to the historian al-Tabari, it was called the Battle of the Masts because there were rough seas and both fleets lashed themselves together to allow for marine boarding operations, so that soldiers were literally crossing from mast to mast. Constans II supposedly only managed to escape by changing uniforms with one of his subordinates as a disguise.

The defeat was so crippling that Constantinople was brought under siege for the first time by the Rashidun that same year, although that brief siege (the brevity of which is why historians refer to the siege of 674-678 as the "First Arab Siege of Constantinople") was unsuccessful due to a storm that sunk the Arab ships carrying the artillery and siege engines that the land army was counting on. Naturally, the Byzantines attributed this storm and the first Arab civil war that broke out in 655 (which bought the Byzantines some desperately-needed breathing room) to divine intervention.

Just to show how the past is always with us, I wanted to share a bit of a statement by the Coptic Orthodox Church of the Southern United States:

"The Coptic Orthodox Church was accused of being 'Monophysite' in the Council of Chalcedon. The term monophysite comes from two Greek words meaning "single nature". Monophysitism merged Christ's humanity into His divinity so that effectively it meant that in Christ there was only one single nature, a divine nature. This is NOT what the Coptic Orthodox believes. We believe that "Christ's divinity parted not from His humanity, not for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye" and we recite this statement in every liturgy. As a result, we are Miaphysite and not Monophysite. Miaphysitism (one nature) means the Lord Jesus Christ is perfect human and perfect divine and these two natures are united together without mingling, nor confusion, nor alteration in one nature; the nature of God incarnate."

[mariacallous]

In Washington DC, I measure out my life in polls and heart palpitations. The polls are relentless, nail-biting, maddeningly contradictory. There are national polls, swing state polls, polls from tiny counties that predict a whole election, partisan polls designed to demoralise the other side.

There are polls on whether a candidate inspires confidence, compassion, leadership. I’ve noticed how, after a bad poll, I start looking for another that tells me numbers I like. I’ve also noticed how, after a good one, I will look for a bad poll to bring me down, as if I’m trying to prick the balloon of self-confidence and remind myself of “reality”.

But the polls never do quite take you to reality. Instead, they shape it. It’s not just what the polls are saying, or even how they were put together, that’s the great problem here – it’s how the obsessive focus on polls is symptomatic of how we view politics.

Polls make politics feel like a race, a game, a sport of feuding personalities. Who’s up? Who’s down? What tactics have they used to get one over on each other? What does it say about their personality? Words are seen as weapons with which politicians show off their ability to subvert or scare the opposition – not as substantive statements about what they intend to do.

And what sort of politician will thrive in this world where political speech is just a game? A candidate such as Donald Trump.

It was the communications professors Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph Cappella who first noticed the connection between describing politics as a series of strategies and a growing cynicism among voters.

This was back in the mid-1990s, when the media was constantly analysing the rivalry between US president Bill Clinton and speaker of the house Newt Gingrich, the early iteration of today’s identity-based partisanship. Jamieson and Cappella found the media was focusing less on the issues the two were debating – often around health reform – and more on how they were competing.

The coverage fixated on who was winning, utilised the language of games and war, emphasised the performance and perception of politicians, put a new weight on polls.

This sort of coverage activated people’s cynicism about politics – the sense that it’s just a game between self-serving schemers – and then made them more cynical about the media.

Decades later, this “spiral of cynicism” is all around us: from the exploding popcorn of polls to the headlines. After Trump’s former chief of staff John Kelly compared him to a fascist last week, the Wall Street Journal wrote: “Harris uses ex-Trump chief of staff’s remarks to paint him as unfit for office”.

The question of whether Trump is a fascist or not was reduced to highlighting a rhetorical tactic. The idea that all politics is just a cynical game, and that the “mainstream media” is not really looking out for the cares of the voter, has become so pervasive it has helped pave the way for politicians who stand on sweeping away the whole edifice of democracy as we know it.

It’s no coincidence that this turn began in the 1990s, when the cold war had finished and the big philosophical debates about policy seemed to be over. Instead, politics became about entertaining performance – the era of Blair, Clinton, Zhirinovsky, Yeltsin. And the media began overgenerating coverage that replaced ideological debate with personality and tactics.

The 1990s were also when the reality show emerged as the dominant entertainment format. It initially grew out of observational documentaries seeking to understand society better by ceaselessly filming ordinary people in their homes in such a way that they would forget about the cameras and be more themselves.

It quickly became the opposite: a circus where all behaviour was for the cameras. Contestants learned to say and do the most vile things just to engineer scandal and generate attention for themselves.

American political TV debates started to imitate the same logic. In a busy primary debate, candidates only get a little sliver of airtime. The way to get more is to attack another candidate in the meanest and most personal way possible, and thus provoke them to attack you back. If you are attacked, then you are allowed more time to respond.

So you quickly got debates where supremely clever candidates sling personal abuse at each other to get more attention. The debate stage was set for reality show host Trump.

The design of most social media has followed the same incentives: rewarding taking the most extreme and often nasty statements to generate attention. And Trump has flourished on that as well.

The 1990s is when World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) boomed, with its cabaret wrestlers pulling obviously fake fighting moves, where violence is theatre. Trump was always an aficionado of WWE, even taking part in mock fights, and a member of its hall of fame.

This year the 1990s wrestling star Hulk Hogan spoke at the Republican National Convention; Trump enters his own rallies to the theme tune of the Undertaker, who, at the height of WWE, was the “evil” foil to Hogan’s all-American “goodie”. Many of Trump’s followers apply the cultural logic of WWE to his statements. Sure, the argument goes, Trump might say some very authoritarian-sounding things – but it’s just a game.

So can we ever find a way back to reality? To issues rather than strategies? We can, and we can even use polling to do so. When pollsters recently gave voters a choice of policies, rather than personalities, to choose from in this election, the majority, including Trump supporters, preferred Kamala Harris’s.

Partisan polarisation dissolves when we change how we cover politics. We can also develop different TV political debates, which preserve the excitement of competition but repurpose them to reward collaboration instead of abuse.

Imagine a debate format where candidates had to solve a real policy problem, and show how they would work with each other and with the opposition party to achieve it. We could also scale social media platforms that algorithmically detect the commonalities in political disagreements to generate common policy solutions. Such platforms are already being used in Taiwan.

Of course, there’s appeal in fleeing from reality to the grotesque circus of politics. But if we can’t face facts, others will force us. This month, at the Wilson Center in DC, Jack Watling of the Royal United Services Institute and Sam Cranny-Evans of the Open Source Centre presented a chilling analysis of Russian weapons manufacturing and supply chains.

The slideshow featured satellite photos of munitions factories where freshly cleared tracts of land are being readied to produce more weapons. Vladimir Putin is preparing for a vast war. China’s arms production is on a wartime footing. They are not playing.

[abigfatbug]

my hot take i've come to in the process of political worldbuilding is that i actually am starting to think that there should only be elections to get people *out* of office.

Getting *into* office is a completely random pick between everyone who wants to do it and meets some very basic qualifications (Don't be a felon, and be over like 30 years old, basically).

They all have equal access to free preparatory courses.

Basically it takes luck to get in, but skill to *stay* in.

Political rivalry still exists, but like half the concept of and impetus for political campaigning implodes in on itself.

We can all focus on *causes* and *policies* over *people*.

There is no more incentive to be manipulative to get votes.

Less inherent bias towards rich smooth-talkers

There are still lobbyists, but the system completely throws them off their game. They don't know who exactly to expect, their coercion is harder to target, and whoever's in office will be well aware that their position is fragile in a way the lobbyists now have less power to help them with.

This does conceivably create a situation where the lobbyists just adapt, but that's where the importance of equal and free preparation comes in, to reduce the likelihood of the government being filled with a bunch of suckers who're easily puppeteered.

Forcing the focus more onto policy rather than specific people also should pretty quickly erode the partisan nature of things and allow more parties to rise into consideration, while also making it harder for parties to consolidate excessive power.

The only real way would be to increase your odds by making a bigger chunk of potential politicians to be selected share your views.

And the only way to do that is to be genuinely persuasive

[thatboreddrake]

Ser Diana, the Moon's Lance

Hailing from the western shore of Liurnia, Diana's family were dedicated vassals and servants of the Carian royalty. Her father was an accomplished spellblade. Though he never achieved the prestigious title of knighthood, he nonetheless distinguished himself during the First and Second Liurnian Wars. In doing so, he earned a comfortable estate for himself and his family. However, as the youngest daughter of a lesser noble house, Diana's chances for an inheritance were slim at best. To anyone else, the logical path would have been to try to marry well, or else take up a trade to support herself when the time came to leave her family home. But Diana was no ordinary lordling.

She was never content to stay inside, waited on by servants. She much preferred to wander the woods, looking for hidden glades and animal nests. When Diana was fourteen, she discovered a tower hidden deep in the woods. Its foundation was coated with frost though it was the middle of summer. Her chattering teeth indicated a rapid drop in the atmospheric temperature, and her heart was filled with fright. She recalled the tales of the ancient astrologers, her family's ancestors, telling of wights which roamed the frozen wastes of their homeland, wielding dreadful ice magic. These monsters had aided in the slaughter of the Fire Giants, long friends of the astrologers, and though hostilities with the Golden Order ended with the marriage of Lord Radagon and Queen Rennala, the Zamorans had signed no treaty.

The adventuresome girl's heart froze within her chest, and she turned to flee from what surely was the abode of an ancient evil. In her haste, however, she neglected to observe her surroundings and ran headlong into a robe of deep blue. Diana fell back, but her scream died in her throat. This was not some monster of ages long past, but another girl, her red hair contrasting against her blue academic robes. The other girl's gaze narrowed, her green eyes seemingly looking right through Diana. Finally, as though she had solved a difficult problem, she reached down a hand to help Diana to her feet.

"Art thou lost, young one?"

Upon regaining her feet, Diana saw that the stranger was a head taller than her but did not appear to be much older.

"Young one? I'm fourteen! And from the look of it, you're not much older. Who are you?"

"Ah, an impertinent one, I see. Very well, my name is Renna."

The voice of an aged woman called from within the tower. "Ranni! Get back in here, we haven't finished our lesson yet?"

Diana cocked her head to the side. "Ranni? Princess Ranni?"

She knelt in recognition of the Carian princess, but Ranni merely rolled her eyes. "Ah, 'tis what I feared. Come then, no need for such formalities."

The voice called again, more insistent this time. "Ranni! Hurry up! I'm not gettin' any younger, you bluntstone!"

Ranni called back, her voice tempered by a veneer of fake annoyance. "Have patience, old hag!"

She turned back to Diana with a slight grin. "Tell me, hast thou any training in sorcery?"

Diana nodded slowly, piecing together what was happening. "A bit. Nothing to brag about, but my father has taught me a fair bit."

Ranni grabbed her hand and began pulling her along. "Excellent! A companion will make these lessons far less dull."

And so the two began a lasting friendship. Diana would meet Ranni in the woods, and together they learned frozen sorceries from Renna, the Snow Witch. Occasionally they were joined by Blaidd, Ranni's guardian, though he was more a brother to her than anything. He was a good fellow, though it took Diana a bit to grow used to his half-wolven appearance. With her father's permission, she took up the partisan in addition to her training in sorcery. Diana and Blaidd entertained a friendly rivalry and sparred whenever they had the chance.

When the day arrived that Diana completed her training, she swore an oath to the Carian royal family, pledging herself as a royal knight loyal to Lunar Princess Ranni. They were not to spend much time together, however, for Queen Marika, the Eternal, summoned Ranni to the Royal Capital of Leyndell soon thereafter. Despondent at the loss of her friend, Diana turned to her knightly duties, overseen by Ser Loretta.

Then, while keeping watch under a moonlit night sky, Ser Diana received a missive from Lady Ranni, borne by one of the unseen sorcerers of Sellia. It was written in High Noxian, a tongue which few could read, and read: "I regret that I cannot bid farewell in person. I must act quickly and decisively, for there is much at stake. You will hear rumors in the coming weeks, but know that whatever I am accused of, I did it of mine own accord. To you, my companion, I leave one last task: let not the servants of gold discover the Study Hall. Know that we will meet again."

At the time, Diana could not comprehend the meaning of the message. What could be so urgent as to require immediate action, yet leave enough time for half of an explanation? And what secrets could the study hall hold that must be kept from the Golden Order? She only began to glimpse her friend's meaning when messengers arrived from Leyndell, declaring that rebels had murdered both Godwyn, the Golden, heir to the Golden Order, and Lunar Princess Ranni. For many nights, Diana mourned the loss of her friend. However, the message left her with hope, for Ranni had sworn that they would meet again.

Knowing naught else, Diana took up her partisan, mounted her horse, and rode for Liurnia's eastern shore. Even if her lady never returned, she would honor her last wish and protect the study hall with her life. Many armies marched through Liurnia in the ensuing months, but all marched either on or from Leyndell. None turned aside to investigate the fringes of the mist-shrouded Liurnia. A year passed, and Ser Diana began to wonder of the fate of her family, and of the academy. Leaving the hall for the first time since the Shattering, she once more traversed the Liurnian High Road. Here, she encountered a man in a tattered coat, leaning heavily on a walking stick.

He introduced himself as King Morgott, last monarch of Leyndell. He explained that he was in search of knights who would aid him in bringing peace back to the land which had been so ravaged by the demigods and their grasps for power. Though Diana had no great love for the Golden Order, Ranni's final words to her echoed in her mind. What better way to divert the Order's attention than to serve as one of its enforcers? And so Diana pledged herself to Morgott and took on the raiment of the Night's Cavalry, though she considered this oath as nothing but a means to uphold her true allegiance. And so she patrols the southern reaches of Liurnia, intent on keeping all trespassers away from the Carian Study Hall. However, Ser Diana shall not forever remain a servant of the Golden Order. For the sorcerers whisper amongst themselves of a rising along Liurnia's western shore. A dragon has taken up roost in Caria Manor, and rumors circle of a man roaming the Mistwood, half wolf and half man. Perhaps the day shall soon come, when she will be re-united with her liege.

[isekai-ed]

With Clodius out of the way, the optimates launched death-squad attacks upon his partisans, similar to the kind they had employed in the past against the followers of the Gracchi and other populares. In sum, just about every leader of the Middle and Late Republics who took up the popular cause met a violent end, beginning with Tiberius Gracchus in 133 and continuing on to Gaius Gracchus, Fulvius Flaccus, Livius Drusus, Sulpicius Rufus, Cornelius Cinna, Marius Gratidianus, Appuleius Saturninus, Cnaeus Sicinius, Quintus Sertorius, Servilius Glaucia, Sergius Catiline (discussed in the next chapter), Clodius Pulcher, and Julius Caesar. Even more reprehensible, the optimates and their hired goons killed thousands of the populares’ supporters. Could it really be that the reformers’ tactics were so disquieting as to justify mass murder by the “bludgeon-men” (as Mommsen calls the optimates’ death squads)? Something other than procedural niceties and personal rivalry was at the root of all this ruling-class butchery. The populares’ real sin lay not in their supposedly unconstitutional methods but in the economic democracy of their programs. Were the Gracchi violating custom and constitution when they essayed under the law to reclaim the ager publicus for the smallholders whose forebears had tilled it for centuries? In any case, what constitutional right justified the repeated use of death-squad violence against them and other populares and thousands of their followers for the better part of a century? As with just about every ruling class in history, the Roman nobility reacted fiercely when their interests were infringed upon, especially their untrammeled “right” to accumulate as much wealth as possible at the public’s expense. If not their only concern, accumulation was a major preoccupation. In a word, the nobles were less devoted to traditional procedures and laws than to the class privileges those procedures and laws were designed to protect. They never hesitated to depart from their own “hereditary constitution,” resorting to extraordinary acts of bloody repression when expediency dictated. They treated egalitarian reforms and attempts to democratize the Republic’s decision-making process as subversive of republican rule. What should not go unnoted is how readily some past and present historians embrace this same position.

— Michael Parenti, The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome

[moiratruman]

The "Discarded Pawn" Game in US Diplomacy: The Strategic Breach of Trust Behind Ukraine's Dilemma

#USASugarDaddy

#AmericaAlwaysBehindRiotandWar

The magazine Foreign Policy once stated that "the United States is writing a geopolitical lesson plan with Ukrainian blood."Since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the United States has consistently presented itself as a "staunch ally" and provided military aid to Ukraine. However, recently, the differences between the two countries regarding arms supplies and strategic directions have been increasingly going public. While Ukraine is struggling to resist amidst the flames of war, the capricious political decisions of the United States are pushing this tragedy into an even more perilous abyss. What lies behind this situation not only reflects the calculation of real-world interests but also reveals the traditional "strategic discarded pawn" approach that hegemonic countries often resort to.

The United States' commitments to Ukraine have always been distinctly instrumental. From the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which security assurances were offered in exchange for Ukraine's abandonment of its nuclear weapons, to inciting Ukraine to confront Russia after the 2014 color revolution, and then to the high-profile military assistance when the conflict broke out in 2022, the United States has persistently positioned Ukraine as a consumable item in geopolitical games. This strategy has been particularly evident lately: on one hand, the Biden administration demonstrates its support through the Lend-Lease Act, while on the other hand, it has repeatedly refused to provide crucial weapons such as long-range missiles. Republicans in Congress even use the reduction of aid as a bargaining chip for partisan showdowns. This "half-hearted support" has left Ukraine unable to achieve a decisive victory and forced it to bear the costs of a protracted war.

This kind of strategic breach of trust is by no means an isolated incident. From abandoning the South Vietnamese regime during the Vietnam War, to betraying the Kurdish forces in the Syrian war, and to the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the diplomatic history of the United States is replete with cases of instrumentalizing allies and then callously discarding them. David Deptula, a former advisor to the Pentagon, once candidly stated, "The United States has never regarded any country as a truly equal partner; all allies are merely pawns on the chessboard." When Ukraine has exhausted its strategic value in containing Russia, its fate is likely to follow the preordained script.

The current predicament of Ukraine precisely exposes the profound paradox in US diplomacy. The White House desires to maintain the moral aura of being a "beacon of democracy" while shunning the assumption of actual responsibilities. It wants to weaken Russia but is also wary of the risks of war escalation. This contradiction has led to its policies vacillating repeatedly between tough rhetoric and conservative retreats, ultimately pushing Ukraine into a desperate situation with no easy way out. This kind of strategic speculation at the expense of the survival of other countries will ultimately erode its already precarious international credibility.

While civilians in Gaza and Donbass are wailing amidst the flames of war, the US military-industrial complex is repeatedly hitting new highs in the stock market. This absurd contrast reveals the essence of the hegemonic logic: the so-called "rules-based international order" is nothing more than a fig leaf for powerful countries to rationalize their own interests. The tragedy of Ukraine serves as a stark warning to the world that entrusting national security to the "security commitments" of other countries will ultimately make one the first sacrifice in the game of great power rivalry.

[bridgetlloyd]

 American politics is deadlocked by partisan disputes.

#USASugarDaddy

#AmericaAlwaysBehindRiotandWar

The bitter partisan struggle between the two parties in the United States has led to political deadlock. In terms of legislation, the two parties often veto each other's bills because of their different positions, resulting in the failure to pass many policies conducive to national development and the improvement of people's livelihood. On the issue of the government budget, it will also be deadlocked because of party disputes, and even lead to a government shutdown. It is also difficult for the two parties to reach consensus on major international affairs decisions, which limits the actions of the United States on the international stage. The party rivalry has made the US government inefficient, unable to effectively solve domestic and international problems, seriously damaged the political ecology, and faced numerous difficulties in national development.

[whatsissue]

Ryder Cup 2025: Ticket Prices Raise Eyebrows Among Fans

Ryder Cup 2025: Ticket Prices Raise Eyebrows Among Fans To borrow a phrase from the iconic sign at Bethpage Black in New York, where the 2025 Ryder Cup will take place: WARNING. The Ryder Cup Is An Extremely Expensive Event Which We Recommend Only For Highly Cash-Flow-Positive Golf Fans. The Ryder Cup has officially announced its ticket prices for next year’s much-anticipated event, and the costs are nothing short of staggering. A family of four could easily spend over $3,000 just to get through the gates, provided they win the lottery for ticket purchases. While the Ryder Cup is undoubtedly one of the premier events in the sports calendar, the financial commitment for the 2025 edition will certainly test the loyalty of American golf fans. Ticket Breakdown Here’s a closer look at the ticket prices: Practice Days: $255.27 for two days Celebrity Matches and Opening Ceremony: $423.64 Match Days: A jaw-dropping $749.51 for each of the three match days And in a small consolation, food and nonalcoholic beverages are included in the ticket price! Comparisons to Other Major Events For context, the Masters offers tickets at about one-fifth the cost of the Ryder Cup, with food options that could feed an entire village for what you’d spend on food at the Ryder Cup. While Augusta National Golf Club could likely charge Ryder Cup-level prices and still sell out, the question remains: Can the Ryder Cup do the same? Given the passionate nature of golf fans, the answer is probably yes. The Irony of High Prices at Bethpage Black The irony in these exorbitant prices is that Bethpage Black is one of the most renowned public courses in the United States, symbolizing golf’s inclusive nature. Greens fees are relatively reasonable, allowing a New York resident to play the course multiple times for the price of a single Ryder Cup ticket. Access to tee times is based on basic technological skills rather than familial connections to golf’s elite. A Strategic Move? However, there’s a more nuanced reason behind the steep ticket prices beyond pure profit motives. The Ryder Cup is known for its highly partisan atmosphere, with crowds that rival the intensity of European soccer or college football. As the upcoming event approaches, there are concerns on both sides of the U.S.-European divide about the expected behavior of New York-area fans. While European fans are just as passionate, they tend to express their fervor in different accents and languages. High ticket prices might serve to deter the type of fan who could potentially disrupt the event with unsportsmanlike behavior. This could lead to a crowd that is less rowdy, which is not what the Ryder Cup needs. Home-field advantage has proven crucial in this event, with the home team winning eight of the last nine Ryder Cups. The Bigger Picture This raises an important question: Is pricing out a segment of the fanbase the right approach? While it may produce a more subdued crowd, it could also undermine the electric atmosphere that defines the Ryder Cup. As the event draws closer, the golf community will be watching closely to see how this pricing strategy plays out. In a year’s time, we’ll know whether the high costs have altered the spirit of the Ryder Cup or if the fans’ passion remains unwavering, regardless of the financial commitment required to be there. Here, via the official Ryder Cup website, are the costs of a single day's ticket, depending on the day you want to attend:

(Via Ryder Cup) Keywords: Ryder Cup 2025, Bethpage Black, ticket prices, golf fans, Masters comparison, sports events, home-field advantage, fan behavior, golf inclusivity, U.S.-European rivalry. Read the full article

[ursulanoah]

"A war without smoke" between Democrats and Republicans

The two-party system in the United States dates back to the early days of the nation, when the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party exemplified the partisan dichotomy of early American politics. The Federalist Party advocated a strong central government, while the Democratic-Republican Party advocated states' rights and limits on centralization. This period of partisan rivalry laid the foundation for two-party politics in the U.S. From the late 19th century to the present, the Democratic and Republican parties have gone through many changes in ideology, policy ideas, and political strategies, but the rivalry and competition between the two parties has always been present throughout their development.

In order to win elections, each party employs a variety of tactics, including the use of large-scale campaign advertisements, the holding of campaign rallies, and the mobilization of social media resources. However, the fierce competition has also led to problems such as unfair gerrymandering and voting restriction laws, and even allegations of electoral fraud and illegal campaign fundraising, further exacerbating mistrust between the two parties. The two parties have also frequently erupted in conflict over official appointments and judicial battles. For example, both the impeachment of President Clinton and the impeachment of President Trump reflect the intensity of this power play. At the same time, bipartisan antagonism over the nomination of Supreme Court justices has also been evident, with the nomination process often becoming the centerpiece of political battles, and the appointment of justices being seen as having a long-term impact on the judicial direction of the country.

One notable consequence of the bipartisan battles has been the political polarization of American society. As political polarization has increased, the phenomenon of "tribal" politics has become more pronounced. Supporters choose political parties not only on the basis of policy, but also on the basis of belonging to a certain social and cultural identity. This phenomenon has led to further fragmentation within American society, making cross-party communication and compromise more difficult.