#starting discourse on a wednesday afternoon???

[tonydaddingham]

Hello,

Sorry about this essay entering your inbox and this certainly isn’t me disagreeing with you, or any criticism, more of an addition.

I wanted to add another perspective to your thoughts on Crowley, his flaws and how S2 may change his and Aziraphale’s relationship.

They are very human flaws, and seemingly unique and important to him as a demon. As Aziraphale’s flaws are unique and important to him as an Angel.

From what we’ve heard of pre fall crowley, he didn’t give Aziraphale much thought on their first meeting. Also, it sounds as if Crowley was somebody important in Heaven. And from what we know of high ranking angels - they are callous, unforgiving, unfeeling and the boss everyone dislikes. This appears to be Heaven’s idea of a good Angel, given their responses to Aziraphale ‘the traitor.’

Crowley, to me, sounds he was doing his job, well in the eyes of head office. He was just another high ranking angel getting on with it. Not a nice/good person from a human perspective but, if anything, flawless from Heaven’s perspective.

That was until he started asking questions, hanging around with the wrong people and sauntered vaguely downwards. Then he and Aziraphale met again, with Crowley now the ‘lesser’ being. Good triumphs over evil, surely? And this Angel he has met shouldn’t give him the time of day, like Crowley didn’t to a ‘lesser’ angel (can you imagine, if he remembers, how guilty Crowley probably now feels about this.)

But Aziraphale listens to his prattling about the tree and the flaws in God’s plans, engages with him and then shelters him. This angel has feelings, he is different, he cares about others. He gave away his flaming sword and indulges in gross matter- moves that make him a flawed angel in the eyes of Heaven.

Endearingly, Aziraphale is a well intentioned bitch.

And with Crowley possibly doing good with the whole eat the apple business and later kindness, he is a flawed demon in Hell’s view. Hell’s requirements of a good employee are cruelty, wickedness and finding murder a fun activity on a wet Wednesday afternoon.

But, kindly, Crowley is a daft, soft cockblanket.

And it’s what I feel GO is about. Balance between good and evil, finding your own side and not always becoming what others intended you to become.

Each of them stand out from their original sides because of their complexity and flaws, which is why they fit and work so well together, and have been able to for 6000 years. Neither is perfect and neither is horrible, and any criticisms they can find in the other also exists in themselves. Seemingly the only two entities like this- with possible exceptions - so they know they need each other. They’re the only two that can truly empathise with one another.

I don’t necessarily excuse these flaws and mistakes (pre-fall classism, the bandstand, I’m the nice one, how can someone as clever as you be so stupid and so on) but they can be explained. And a relationship is about how you move through your mistakes and flaws together, not being free of them.

If this has made no sense I apologise. I do struggle with expressing my own views. 💛

hellooooo @ezra-fell!!!✨✨

gOSH yes this is an essay but fuck if im not gonna do my best to provide you with a response worthy of your message!!!!

i will just start by saying i don't think any one person's opinion or perspective is correct per se, i certainly don't think mine is flawless, but it is kind of what i feel could at least possibly be a theme in s2 or even s3 or just in general, and if it isn't cool, it will firmly remain a hc and im happy with that!!!

for anyone reading, i will just reiterate once again that im not here to cause argument or discourse, i literally just write unhinged ramblings about these characters (both of whom i love DEARLY and are v important to me for various reasons), and yeah my opinion is NOT correct by any stretch, but it's AN opinion✨💓

going into a cut because my answer will probably be just as lengthy!

totally agree with you on everything you've said about crowley. i do not for one sec think that his character as an angel is like an issue (other than being a bit of a knob but as you said, if he's an Archangel or lesser Archangel (ie like sandalphon), then yes this characterisation makes perfect sense and is awesome in terms of how his character changes when he becomes a demon)

i also completely agree on your point about it being about balance (literally just talked about this in another post im going meta-feral at the mo), i do think thats the main theme of the story. i guess what i was trying (and failing) to say is that aziraphale's view of crowley might possibly be an entirely human one.

let's get personal bc at this point bc i can't speak from everyone elses perspective - ive been aziraphale in this scenario (the scenario i put forward in my post from earlier). ive been in a long term relationship, and had a major incident happen about 18 months ago. that person is who i loved and cherished more than anyone in the world, but after a lot of therapy and a lot of communication, i realised that whilst i loved them and thought they were absolute perfection, flaws and all, i had placed them on a pedestal of who i thought they were and who i wanted them to be.

so obvs with aziraphale his faith is very literal (i have no religious faith), but my faith in my person was so unquestionable and unyielding, that i also ended up hurting myself (emotionally, no CWs here!!) to find out that the flaws that i had idolised and thought were perfect actually came around to bite me in the ass, and honestly? at the time, i didn't like what i found. i still loved that person, still found them attractive and lovely etc, but my faith in them was completely shattered, and i hadn't realised until that point that love and faith are completely different things. i had initially believed that in being with someone, the two were synonymous. they aren't.

now sorry to get so personal on main lmao, and i realise that this may well be a great deal of projection of myself into aziraphale (don't we all do that tho???) and i truly recognise that, but it just feels to me that this 'reckoning' that's coming -- whilst it might not be entirely what ive said (id be utterly flabbergasted if it was) -- might be something similar. i want the boys to be happy and together and unassailable as much as the next person, but somehow i feel like we'll need to wait for s3 for that dream to be completely realised, and for the boys to take each other as they are, not as they thought they saw them initially. i hope im wrong, we'll just have to see.

i hope that's an appropriate answer to your ask, but tldr i agree with everything you said, i just have limits as to how much i necessarily discuss in one post haha!!!✨💓💓

[ccjameswilding]

Anxiety matters... 2024 style

I write for educational reasons, professional discourse and for therapy, so I am not quite certain where this blog sits… but if you are seeking the most up-to-date information and support, go here now. Summer Term 2024 started for academic staff on Monday 15 April, so apart from the evidence that my communications’ log suggests, work all day Wednesday, Friday and Sunday afternoon prior, my start…

[thetimelordofcamelot]

It’s amazing how much discourse you see online about whether full time home working or in office working is better. And that people are always arguing for one extreme or another. Has anyone considered that they are both good ideas and maybe people should do a bit of both. Having done both I’ve found there’s massive pros and cons to both and that the experience is different for different people. I personally work really well from home. However, if I do so for long periods of time, my mental health really starts to decline. The time I was the most productive was when I was in person all week except for Wednesday and Friday afternoons where I worked from home.

People are so desperate for this all or nothing that they never considered that both in moderation might be good for people.

[oh-cramity-its-amity]

LATE WIP WEDNESDAY (Because I fell asleep right after accidentally. Whoops!).

[gotta love a nightshift sleep schedule]. Anyway, heres some of blood magic, like I promised. Still of that scene at the start of chapter 7 w Vee.

scene ended up being 2.4k 😭

will be working on more of the second scene today (afternoon??) yep. itll be good. it's gonna have more dialog, and damn does dialog write faster imo imo 😔.

been writing to sleep token a lot too. take me back to eden is really matching the energy for me. the title track goes so fuckin hard imo. the chorus. the chorus!! ugh. idk. some of those lyrics got me analyzing like "oooo does this give me vamp!luz energy?? kinda."

i digress, like a lot of that album is on my playlist rn ffs. so normal.

ignore the errors. PLEASE. im sure they exist. 🙏

Unlike the demons in the square, however, Five craned backward to spot several coven scouts lurching into the crowd. The commotion started despite deafened ears as Five rushed toward the alley beside her, graying waves cascaded against scales inside the ocean of darkness.

She trailed the scarce pathway several more feet, stopping once it broke off between stalls. At its bend of wooden flesh, she peered out tentatively to pinpoint the disruption of guards. Several of them disregarded the formulation of protests and–with notable force–pushed through the cracks formed in the collection of discourse. Many recalled from their businesses to stow away contraband, clamoring in anguish near her with undignified solace.

It came to mind that she needed a better plan. More dignified and less reckless at that. If the guards dispersed, a bounty would be placed onto her, surely.

Sought out like one of the others that tried before. She remembered it well, and the last time she saw him, it wasn’t alive. A feeling that aided urgency burned in the apex of her chest, she moved to spot a woman furthest from where she stood from.

The entrance from the tent behind her flashed a thin rectangular crease of whiteness. Its remnants are filtered by the darkened fabric and her frame. She’s dressed in tattered maroon clothes and a spotted lime fabric which covered a sizeable portion of hair. Five stared at her and, at a deliberate pause, noted the guards from before weren’t in view.

Still sure, however, of the danger to venture out, Five crept around another stall. Her face tightened. She couldn’t place where she’d seen the witch, yet her figure shook something beneath Five’s consciousness. She knew she’d seen the woman before, but she couldn’t place where or why.

this chapter is slowly killing me, but im going today until i finish the first scene at least (i think im about there? i have to introduce a character that then leads back into the present day, and im 99% there).

once i finish the scene, ill give a little snippet because IT IS WEDNESDAY, and ive been god awful at doing that.

jst sayin yeah. this chapter is going to be beafy, tho, but i keep wanting to edit it. but damn 2k words, ahh. (600 today, but im gonna do a lot more than that).

[i hate google docs ughhhh. my scrivener trial ran out from nano but we make do </3]

[samcaarter]

the kind of discourse I’m here for @amaradangeli​ @starrybouquet​ also for their relative size comparison go here 

now, let’s have this post dedicted to SJ wall sex fics, I’ll start

On a Wednesday Afternoon by samcaarter ice skating and door wall sex

Heavy-Handed by PepperF wall making out, but it’s hot and totally counts

Let Your Demons Run by mrspollifax a little bit of door action as well

that’s all I’ve got, so yeah, rec away, guys, please ;)

[bylillian]

UNDER A RECENTLY passed Texas law, private citizens can sue anyone involved in helping a person receive an abortion in the state after the sixth week of pregnancy. In response, an anti-abortion group called Texas Right to Life set up a website designed to collect anonymous information about any alleged infractions. Or, at least, it tried to. So far, no company has been willing to host it.

The fate of prolifewhistleblower.com remains uncertain, and its absence from the internet does not negate the Texas law or its impacts. But in recent years, internet infrastructure giants have begun to draw blurry lines around who they're willing to have as customers, a sometimes murky process exemplified by the travails of far-right social media network Parler. In contrast, prolifewhistleblower.com offers a rare example of consensus about what constitutes acceptable behavior online.

The site did make a brief appearance on the internet, launching last Wednesday, but had an ignominious start. First, a small army of TikTok and Reddit users flooded the reporting mechanism with false claims in an attempt to overwhelm the system. By Saturday, the web hosting service GoDaddy had terminated its relationship with the site for violating the company’s terms of service, which explicitly forbid collecting identifying information about third parties without their prior consent.

“The big thing is that in some cases services should warn the user and give them a chance to cure," says Whitney Merrill, a privacy and data protection lawyer and former Federal Trade Commission attorney. “Like how GoDaddy warned the site owner that they were doing something in violation of the terms. That’s not a legal requirement, just a good business practice in my mind.”

Texas Right to Life then registered the site with the notorious service provider Epik, which has been known to offer safe haven to contentious platforms like Parler and Gab. But Epik never offered to host prolifewhistleblower.com content, only a way to register the site's domain. On Saturday evening, prolifewhistleblower.com simply started redirecting to the Texas Right to Life homepage rather than reviving its previous incarnation as a tip submission system.

“We contacted the owner of the domain, who agreed to disable the collection of user submissions on this domain,” Epik said in a statement on Saturday. In other words, Epik will act as prolifewhistleblower.com’s registrar so long as it's only redirecting to the group's main site. If it resumes collecting third-party data, Epik will pull its registration.

Texas Right to Life spokesperson Kim Schwartz offers a different assessment of the situation. “Prolifewhistleblower.com is currently forwarding to TexasRightToLife.com because we're establishing extra security protocols to protect our users before we put it back up," she said in a statement Monday evening. She added that the site has lined up a new host, but is not saying which hosting company “for security reasons.”

As of Wednesday afternoon, though, the URL continued to redirect to the Texas Right to Life homepage. And given that the site's entire premise is gathering information about people who may have helped facilitate an abortion in Texas—an inherent violation of basic third-party data collection protections—it seems unlikely to find a way to come into compliance.

The situation evokes past conflicts in which internet infrastructure providers have withdrawn hosting, DDoS protection, or other support for extremist sites, causing them to go offline permanently or until they can find new providers. Cloudflare, for example, has grappled with decisions about how to remain neutral and protect speech rights while taking action in extreme cases. The company dropped support for white supremacist and otherwise controversial platforms like the Daily Stormer in 2017 and 8chan in 2019.

“We've had this conversation for a long time about many types of content—political discourse, disinformation, etc.” says Lukasz Olejnik, an independent privacy researcher and consultant. He adds, though, that these challenges have no easy answers. “It’s closely related to moderating free speech and expression online. And in the end it boils down to terms of service versus the legality of expression.”

Digital rights advocates see potential danger in internet infrastructure companies playing the role of content arbiter, fearing inconsistent enforcement and a slippery slope. But the Texas site's issues come down to a clear-cut terms of service violation rather than something muddier.

“Generally speaking, I am leery of content moderation happening at the infrastructure level. That said, I do think there's a real difference between policing behavior versus content,” says Evan Greer, deputy director of digital rights nonprofit Fight for the Future. “Saying ‘no sharing data on third parties’ is a clear rule that you can enforce evenly regardless of why people are doing it.”

Meanwhile, activity related to the new Texas abortion law has run afoul of more than just infrastructure providers. A Reddit forum called r/txbountyhunters launched on Thursday when the law went into effect, with the advertised purpose of "sharing tips on identifying, reporting, and collecting bounty on those breaking Texas law TX SB8." Reddit banned the forum that same day, because it violated the platform's content policy against “harassing content.”

Keeping prolifewhistleblower.com offline doesn't stop anyone from filing lawsuits under the Texas law. The legislation itself still stands. But the activity it encourages goes against the internet's most basic privacy and community security protections—and so far, not even the most radical hosting providers want to be a party to that.

[girlslovebugs]

kevin and andrew’s deal

good morning here’s my expanded explanation of why i personally think andrew’s deal with kevin only applied to protection from the moriyamas (all under the cut because i’m tired of this discourse too man) tbh looking through again it IS more nuanced than i originally thought but my original claim is still really the only thing that makes sense and here’s why why

for starters, i want to analyze how andrew protects kevin. the first time we see andrew doing something in that general capacity is the columbia drugging. andrew sees neil’s stalker binder and, reasonably, assumes that he is a moriyama pawn trying to hurt kevin/bring kevin back. so andrew plans to 1) incapacitate neil 2) interrogate neil and 3) if necessary, get rid of neil. the next time is when riko confronts neil and kevin after kathy’s show. andrew uses himself as a distraction(opening his arms, greeting riko, positioning himself between riko and neil) while neil and kevin escape. from these two instances, it seems that when andrew thinks the stakes are high he’ll try to get the situation under control  and kevin safe as soon as he can. but tbh this doesn’t matter unless u want me to really go in depth as to why i don’t think the deal was complete and total protection but tldr; this IS what i’d consider protecting kevin. compared to this, punching someone hours after they punch kevin is just performative (but more on the matt counterargument at the bottom). anyways, onto the two main quotes that i think imply my main point!

"Don't worry," Nicky said, with a failed attempt at cheer. "Andrew will protect you."

Kevin flicked him a horrified look. "These are the Moriyamas, Nicky. This is not Riko and the master; this is not Neil's father. Andrew can't—" (TKM 286-287).

this ones pretty self explanatory imo: kevin lists off who andrew promised to protect him and neil from and notice how “anybody who might ever give kevin shit” aren’t on the list. andrew knew from the start that he couldn’t protect kevin from the moriyamas who would, by definition, be included if andrew’s protection extended to everyone who might want to hurt kevin. 

Neil guessed he meant their more optimistic teammates. "You're going to have to come up with something of your own to hold onto. I'm safe, Kevin doesn't need your protection anymore, Nicky's going back to Erik eventually, and Aaron's got Katelyn. What are you going to live for if you're not playing sheepdog for us?" (TKM 342). 

this one happens after kevin, neil, and jean are freed from the moriyamas after promising 80% of their pro salaries to them. the ravens are no longer kevin’s problem, therefore andrew no longer needs to protect him. imo if andrew was offering kevin complete protection, andrew being free of the moriyamas wouldn’t be cause for termination because there would still be rabid ravens fans, foxes infighting (next year), 

now, re: punching matt, because i saw someone use it as proof that the promise wasn’t just for the ravens/riko/tetsuji

i don’t want to tag them in case they get annoyed but @/alltheshadesofamber pretty much hit the nail right on the head with this one. andrew doesn’t do revenge therefore punching matt AFTER matt had already punched kevin and kevin was no longer in danger would have been, yes, revenge. so, unless he’s a big fat giant liar, andrew punched matt for the same reason he plans on killing proust: because he said he would.

"Revenge is a motivator only for the weak-willed,"  Andrew said.

"If you believed that you wouldn't be planning how to kill Proust." ... "This is not revenge," Andrew said. "I warned him what I would do to him if he touched me. This is me keeping my word " (TKM 135).

i’d also like to bring up this comment from the foxhole court: 

“It took only one wrong word to turn [Kevin and Seth’s] arguments into physical brawls. The fighting hit a peak on Wednesday afternoon when Andrew left practice early for his weekly therapy session. The second he vanished, Seth went for Kevin with fists flying” (122-123). 

while it was, indeed, mentioned that seth waited until andrew was gone to fight kevin, i’m going to go ahead and assume that this was out of self preservation in case andrew (who was very drugged and very violent at the time) intended to retaliate. remember, the foxes are completely in the dark about what andrew and kevin’s deal actually is. but there’s no mention afterwards of andrew attacking seth in kevin’s honor. if we’re going to assume that andrew punching matt was revenge, then andrew not attacking seth afterwards would be a violation of his and kevin’s deal in the first book already. however, andrew doesn’t get involved in kevin and seth’s feud which also leads me to believe that it was andrew upholding a different promise that still didn’t include andrew as someone he’d protect kevin from. i’m not going to go as far as to say that andrew never threatened violence if any of the other foxes were to attack kevin, because obviously he made some sort of promise that would ‘justify’ punching matt, but it wouldn’t include andrew. 

also exy is an incredibly violent sport and andrew would probably, like, get kicked out of the league trying to protect kevin from anybody who could possibly harm him physically lol

this did end up being shorter than i anticipated because it’s like 8pm here and i have homework but i just wanted 2 post it in case i need it as a point of reference at any point anyways how fucked is it that andrew messes up stores on purpose like man that’s the real throwaway line discourse we should be talking about like remember when he just??? took clothes off the hangers and left them on the floor??? and threw the hangers at nicky???

[madamspeaker]

It’s not a “gate” - The hair/salon thing

I’ve addressed the salon thing in a couple of asks, but I wanted to take a moment to just go through the whole thing separate of those because what this saga has highlighted is a complete failure of journalists to do their work, and the undercurrent of misogyny that perpetuates both journalistic discourse, and how women must present themselves, especially if a public figure.

(This is long, so to spare your dashboards it’s under a cut)

Let’s start with the facts. Nancy’s usual stylist wasn’t available for Monday, so she/he recommended someone else. Nancy’s office contacted him last weekend (Nancy only returned to SF some time on Friday), and asked if it was possible to do her hair. The thing to note at this moment is that the rules governing salons in California started to change from last Friday. The governor had announced limited indoor openings, but to confuse matters some localities were still imposing tighter restrictions. Nancy’s office checked with the stylist, who told them that the rules permitted one person in at a time. He then asked the salon owner who he rented a chair from if he could go into the premises and do the appointment on Monday. The owner agreed to his request on the Saturday. Fast forward to Monday afternoon - Nancy gets her hair done before doing a television interview on MSNBC, and then on Tuesday the owner cries “outrage!!!” to Fox News, bringing along with her a seconds long bit of footage that shows Nancy with her mask around her neck. Naturally the whole thing explodes on Twitter and then across other media (several versions of the story made the top ten shared links on Facebook).

What followed was a failure of journalism to ask follow up questions about the clearly odd parts of the salon owner’s account as relayed by Fox News (a red flag in of itself). In her interview with Fox she admitted she had known about the appointment in advance, but no one thought to ask why she let the appointment go ahead if it so offended and outraged her - she did own the place afterall, it’s not like Nancy had keys or barged in. Likewise, no one thought to ask where the rest of the salon footage was. Why only release seconds worth which rather conveniently showed Nancy with her mask down, and partially hidden under her chin? Could it be that she had worn the mask the rest of the time. No one in the media thought to ask this. It seemed fairly clear to most sensible people on Tuesday night that something with off with the salon owner’s tale of outrage, but the media pretty much took the Fox News version of events at verbatim. Only USA Today raised the points I just did, but alas, they buried them in their write up.

Wednesday saw Nancy fight back, acknowledging that she took responsibilty for trusting the salon (when perhaps she should have had someone else verify what they had been told), but ask yourselves this, would you have verified it elsewhere? She had been to this salon before with a stylist, they were local, she trusted them, and in a situation in which the law was changing, it makes perfect and reasonable sense to ask the professionals in that industry what their status is. On this point there have been plenty of indignant people and bots on Twitter up in arms that Nancy didn’t apparently know the regulations in SF, but a) she didn’t make those regulations (as some seem to think), b) she spends just as much if not more time in D.C., and c) she has about 100 other things on her plate in any given hour, that salon regulations in SF are probably somewhere near 120 on her list after deal with Covid-19, Trump, win the election, save the USPS, try to get a stimulus bill, deal with the federal budget which will need a CR to prevent a shutdown (minutes after I hit publish on this it was announced she had reached a deal with Mnuchin to avoid a shutdown), restore in-person inteligence briefings, file an appeal in the McGahn case (again), Bill sodding Barr,, Russian bounties on US soldiers and so on. She has an insanely stressful job at the moment, her staff too, and it seems more than reasonable for staff/her to ask a professional in the industry about the regulations on salons, when such regulations were pretty confusing to most people last weekend anyway. Nancy’s only apparent “crime” in this instance was to trust the word of the industry pro.

Then of course we have the “she’s not wearing a mask” portion of this debacle. Not one journalist has asked where the rest of the footage is. We see Nancy walk from the bowl to another room, wet hair, phone in hand, and the mask around her neck (slightly hidden by her chin), but we never got the footage of her walking to the bowl, or any other footage from what was definitely more than a 4 second long appointment. Could it possibly be that she had indeed been wearing a mask the rest of the time - that she wasn’t just wearing it around her neck as some sort of foulard meets choker fashion statement. People have asked, “Why did she pull it down?”, and to that I will say, probably any one of three or four reasons. She uses a clip at the back of her neck to secure her masks rather than the ear loops. Maybe it was in the way and the stylist asked her to pull it down. Maybe she had trouble breathing with her face covered and head back. Maybe she didn’t want to get it wet. The point here is that it was around her neck, suggesting that she had been compliant until that fateful video captured moment. The media again though have run with the Fox News narrative that she had no mask. For one, it’s actually visible in the footage, and two, they are blatantly disregarding what they themselves know to be true - that Nancy has been wearing a mask for the last five months. We have the footage and photographs to prove it, not to mention the press also know that she takes down her mask to talk at her pressers etc. The press are playing stupid on this point to satisfy some both sides need in an election that so far has Joe Biden with a good lead. Their wilful obtusity is purely to inject some drama into things on the Dem side for clicks because nothing at present is sticking to Biden. All this leads to me to the misogyny.

I caught part of a radio interview yesterday in which two male hosts had to have it explained to them as to why a woman in the public eye might need a hair stylist more than once a week. One of the men had been perplexed as to why if Nancy needed her hair done she hadn’t just got it taken care of in D.C. were salons are open. It never entered his brain that no amount of hair spray is going to keep a hairstyle in place for at least 3 days (when Nancy was last in D.C.), or that she might need to lie down to sleep, or that hair does actually need washed. Likewise, it never occured to either of them that Nancy turning up to an television interview with anything other than styled hair would be a news story in itself, because here’s the rub, women are damned for makeup and hairstyling and thought vain and shallow, and they’re damned if they don’t put makeup on and get their hair done, especially for television (we all remember the “omg” reactions when Hillary turned up to an event days after the election in 2016 with a bare face). The last couple of days have been full of this crap, with men (looking at you Don Lemon and the SF Chronicle editorial board) especially saying Nancy should apologise for the salon episode. Why should she? She did what any reasonable person would do and asked about the rules. Her error was to take the salon at their word, but by today’s logic the salon’s lie is Nancy’s fault. I have seen more than one man on Twitter admit the facts of the case and still say “she should take the hit”. Would they say this of a man who had been lied to, framed, and the footage sold to a hostile media company? I think not.

And then of course there is the salon owner herself. The stylist released a statement last night backing Nancy’s side of events up. He also revealed that the owner, so “outraged” by Nancy’s appointment, had in fact been opening up illegally since April, had been forgoing masks, and been forcing stylists to work. What also emerged is that the owner had let her licence lapse on the premises back in May (so Nancy had not ended her business as she claimed), and was in the middle of relocating to Fresno -- something the press have gilbly ignored as they report how she has been hounded out of town because of Nancy, and forced to move. Let me say this, not even the IRA at the peak of The Troubles could get people to move that quick, and they had guns. And then there’s the gofundme - which popped up less than 24hrs after she handed the tape to Fox. Naturally the blurb is a sorry tale of woe, of a supposedly single mother forced to move because of the evil Speaker of the House. No mention that she owns three salons, that she’d let the licence lapse on one anyway, is opening one in Fresno, loves her guns (and those ain’t cheap) and took a PPP loan of $12,000 wihilst operating illegally. By the way, at the time of writing this, the gofundme has raised over $80k for her -- which shows you how Trumpers will buy into any bullshit, and how Nancy is a fundraising powerhouse regardless of your party affliation lol.

I appreciate this has been a rather long read, and if you made it this far, thanks! Nancy didn’t do anything wrong other than take the word of a salon in good faith. Should she have known the regulations herself? Maybe, but she has the kind of crazy and stressful life most of us can’t even begin to imagine, and unlike the Presidency, the Office of Speaker doesn’t come with personal maid services thrown in, or a whole West Wing of staff. End of the day, once out of that office, Nancy has to do all that normal life stuff that the rest of us do - shop, go to the post office, buy clothes etc., and now in the Covid era get ready for tv interviews herself rather than a studio stylist do it. Her mistake was to trust someone who has it turns out saw a chance to have a moment of fame, stick one to the woman she ignorantly blamed for the lockdown, and make some money from gullible Trumpers. I don’t know how this story will play out in the coming days. Ice cream lasted a week, spurred on by the far-left and then the far-right. This may have more staying power as Trump desperately seeks some kind of mud to stick to Dems, and with nothing sticking to Biden at present, his 2016 playbook (and the even older GOP one) of blame a woman (in this case Nancy) has been deployed. The problem of course is that Trump isn’t running against Nancy -- but as the press have so depressingly showed, that fact hasn’t stopped them from elevating one trip to a salon above 180k+ dead, Melania using a prvate email server (!!!, I mean come the fuck onnnnnnn, this after 2016!!!?!?!?), or Trump telling people to committ a felony and vote twice.

[crimethinc]

The Catalan Independence Movement: A New Chapter of Unrest—Chronicling a Week of Escalation

Starting Monday, in response to draconian sentences imposed on politicians who promote Catalan independence, tens of thousands of people across Catalunya have engaged in sustained rioting and disruption. Although the majority of the movement remains pacifistic, a few thousand participants have rejected the leadership of political parties and organizations, opting for open confrontation with police. The various mobilizations are still taking place in confluence, however, making it very difficult for the police to control. Protesters have reportedly used caltrops, Molotov cocktails, and paint balloons to disable police riot vans, while keeping individual officers at a distance with lasers and slingshots and driving away helicopters with fireworks. In the following report, we review the events of the past week and explore what is at stake in this struggle.

As anarchists, we have a more robust conception of self-determination than mere national sovereignty. All governments are based on the asymmetry of power between ruler and ruled; nationalism is just one of several means by which rulers seek to turn us against each other so we don’t unite against them. We consider it instructive that the Catalan police have worked closely with Spanish national police throughout the last several years of repression; even if Catalunya gains independence, we are certain that independent Catalan police and courts will continue to repress those who fight against capitalism and seek true self-determination. At the same time, there is a longstanding tradition of anarchist and anti-state activity in Catalunya, and we are inspired to see some of this coming to the fore in resistance to the violence of the Spanish state. It is possible that the latest escalation of conflict in the streets of Catalunya will be a step towards the radicalization of the entire movement and the delegitimizing of state solutions.

Let’s look closer to see.

Members of Committees for the Defense of the Republic gather outside the Civil Guard barracks during a protest after nine activists associated with the Catalan independence movement were detained by police in Barcelona, Spain September 23, 2019.

Monday, October 14

In retribution for the 2017 referendum and subsequent declaration of independence, Spain’s Supreme Court sentenced former Catalan vice president Oriol Junqueras to 13 years in prison; former ministers Jordi Turull, Raül Romeva, Dolors Bassa, Joaquim Forn, and Josep Rull were sentenced to between 10 and 12 years apiece. Former parliament speaker, Carme Forcadell, received 11 and a half years for sedition. Activists Jordi Sànchez and Jordi Cuixart were sentenced to 9 years each, also for sedition.

Several independence groups called for demonstrations and blockaded major roads in Barcelona. Early Monday afternoon, the Tsunami Democràtic group called for demonstrators to blockade the Barcelona airport. There were also blockades on train lines and many highways.

Showing the integrated functioning of all the different subsections of the state, the Catalan and Spanish police—the Mossos d’Esquadra and Policia Nacional—worked together to repress the demonstrators. They brutally attacked a large number of people. Still, as in 2017, the vast majority of demonstrators remained “nonviolent” in response. Some young people start to throw trash and light objects at police.

Tuesday, October 15

On Tuesday, the blockades organized by “Tsunami Democràtic” continued on a largely “nonviolent” basis, slowing and in some cases paralyzing rail, car, and air transit. More protests broke out that night. Goaded by police violence, people began to fight back, throwing heavier objects and setting fires in the streets.

The Assemblea Nacional Catalana (“Catalan National Assembly,” ANC) and various political parties had convened columns to march from across Catalunya starting Wednesday, taking the highways and thus blocking them, in order to arrive in Barcelona on Friday for a general strike and protest. The plan was for this action to be totally pacifist. This was basically a repetition of their 2017 strategy, in which they organized demonstrations on October 3, two days after the massive police beatings that occurred during the referendum on October 1, waiting an extra day before holding the protest in response to government repression so that people wouldn’t be reacting immediately to the violence without a chance to calm down.

Yet they also gave their approval to Tsunami Democràtic, which had planned all along to organize flash-mob-style protests immediately following the verdict. These protests, too, were intended to be completely nonviolent, but to take a more effective approach—targeting infrastructure rather than merely symbolic points. Either the organizers underestimated how many people would show up and stay into the night, or they overestimated their ability to impose pacifism after the 2017 experience.

Starting Tuesday night, events were clearly out of their hands. In Catalunya, the extent to which people employ combative and destructive tactics is generally a useful indicator of the autonomy of a particular demonstration, even though in and of itself utilizing more confrontational tactics doesn’t necessary imply a radical agenda. The parties have always insisted that everything must be peaceful, just as they have watered down the meaning of “independence,” using nationalistic discourse to and suppressing the anti-capitalist objectives that used to characterize the movement.

Thousands of people protest the sentencing in front of Generalitat local office in Gerona, Catalunya on October 14, 2019.

It’s not easy to summarize the political ideas of people fighting in the streets on the basis of their conduct, but it seems that the pacifists remain under the ideological dominance of the parties and “civil society” organizations like ANC and Omnium, whereas those putting up barricades appear to be open to a much wider vision of what the enemy is and the objectives of the actions could be. The former tend to be middle-class (or aspiring middle-class) and exclusively Catalan speakers; the latter group is much more diverse, including Spanish speakers (though still mostly Catalan speakers), immigrants, and others. When the more confrontational demonstrators express themselves, they tend to express opposition to the police, “the fascist Spanish state,” and to mention more economic issues.

We should always challenge the assumption that a movement is about one thing. A movement is only about one thing where there is an effective leadership controlling it. Left to themselves, people don’t tend to reduce their concerns to single issues. Reality is intersectional.

Hats off to the anarchists and other anti-authoritarian activists who have spent the last two years spreading non-statist, non-nationalist perspectives and analysis relating to this issue and creating the autonomous, horizontal spaces that have cropped up in this movement since 2017, outside the dominance of the political parties and the Marxist-Lenininsts who dominated the indepe movement before 2013. The emergence of this autonomous space is the key difference that distinguishes what is happening today from what happened in 2017—and we’re seeing its fruits in what is taking place in the streets.

Another major factor in the way that people in Catalunya have behaved ungovernably this week is that the Spanish state was stupid enough to imprison the pacifist politicians and CC activists who had effectively pacified the movement in 2017. The ones who had already effectively killed this movement, it seemed, until now.

Never underestimate states. Also, never underestimate statist stupidity.

The Mossos charge [???] against protesters in the center of Barcelona on the night following Tuesday, October 15, 2019.

Wednesday, October 16

On Wednesday, high school and university students declared a strike, which continued through Friday. ANC marches and highway blockades set out from many major cities. In the evening, people engaged in very serious rioting in Barcelona; substantial rioting took place in all three other provincial capitals, not to mention smaller cities like Manresa. Many of the clashes occurred outside the Delegations of the (Spanish) government or Guardia Civil barracks. There had already been significant rioting in Lleida and Tarragona on Tuesday night.

Catalan president Quim Torra and ex-president Carles Puigdemont declared that the rioters were “infiltrators,” but only the immediate followers of those politicians were stupid enough to believe this. The usual absurd conspiracy theories spread across social networks about masked protesters getting paid in envelopes of cash.

In Madrid, a fairly large anti-fascist, pro-Catalan demonstration took place at the same time as a fascist march against independence. The two demonstrations clashed and police separated them.

Police charged through the crowd several times with batons and fired foam projectiles at people.

Thursday, October 17

ANC marches continued. Rioting took place again that night in Barcelona and other three provincial capitals. Fascists marched in favor of Spanish unity in Barcelona, attacking some protesters in favor of independence.

Friday, October 18

Today, the general strike is taking place in Catalunya. A Spanish judge has ordered that webpages linked to Tsunami Democratíc must be shut down—something similar to China forcing Apple to shut down an app used by demonstrators in Hong Kong.

The conservative People’s Party (PP) is calling for the application of the National Security Law—essentially, martial law. Meanwhile, it appears that a new political consensus may be forming. For a couple years Spain hasn’t been able to form an effective majority government; elections took place earlier in the year, but will have to take place again in November, because disagreements prevented the Socialists from forming a coalition government with Podemos. The fighting in Catalunya is driving a wedge between Podemos (which takes a soft approach based in dialogue, potentially open to a “legitimate” referendum) and Socialists (who take a hard approach rejecting any possibility of dialogue or self-determination). This creates the possibility of a coalition government involving the Socialists and the PP—assuming the PP, Citizens, and Vox parties don’t get enough votes to comprise the majority on their own, which they very well might not, as Spain remains majority left.

The riot cops are exhausted, probably only running on cocaine at this point. There are videos circulating of riot vans carousing down the streets with the cops using their sound cannons to shout “Som gent de pau.” This means “we are people of peace”—it is the slogan of the independence parties, but the cops mean it in a mocking, provocative tone. There are cases of the Mossos discipline breaking, of individual officers being isolated and beaten up, which never happened during the strikes of 2010 to 2012 or even the week of the eviction of the anarchist social center Can Vies. Several times, police were forced to retreat by combatants hurling rocks and even some Molotov cocktails. Even at the high point of the resistance defending Can Vies, it was rare to see police retreat; they just had to work really hard to advance, at which point rioters simply went elsewhere.

A mainstream newspaper reported today that fully half of the police riot vans have been decommissioned by damages, primarily to tires. It’s unclear how quickly they can repair them. If they lose their vans, they will be powerless; there are too many people in the street, using too much force. The state would have to send in the Guardia Civil or the military proper to maintain what they call “order.”

The real question is what will happen tomorrow, on Saturday. Today could serve as a catharsis, ending the unrest; it could be effectively repressed, if police bring in new resources and tactics; or it could be the day that the state recognizes that it has lost control and has to esclate repression. During the riots defending Can Vies, it was after the fourth day that the state recognized it had lost; on the fifth day, everyone was exhausted so the march was just a victory lap. But now, with perhaps double the number of police but several times as many participants, spread throughout Catalunya, the movement won’t tire as quickly. Though the pacifists condemn the rioting, they’re still marching and blocking highways, thereby adding to the difficulty for the state.

The Mossos cross a burning barricade in Barcelona ​​to charge protesters.

The Backstory, the Future

The Iberian peninsula has seen conflict between monarchists, capitalists, fascists, and proponents of state democracy, on one side, and anarchists and other proponents of liberation since long before the Spanish Civil War. It’s important to remember that the independence movement only took center stage in Catalunya after countrywide anti-capitalist struggle reached an impasse, undermined by many participants’ erroneous belief that democracy—direct or otherwise—could bring about the changes they desired.

In 2011, the 15M movement, a forerunner of Occupy, broke out in Spain, occupying plazas and clashing with police. That was just one chapter in a phase of struggle arguably peaked on March 29, 2012 with massive riots during a nationwide general strike. All around the world, this was a high point of grassroots struggle against the inequalities of capitalism and the violence of the state.

Yet rather than continuing to invest energy in grassroots direct action as a means of enacting change, many who had promoted direct democracy in the plaza occupations shifted to trying to rehabilitate state democracy via new parties like Podemos. Ultimately, as we chronicled here, the results were disappointing, serving to pacify the social movements without achieving their original goals.

In the ensuing vacuum, the independentista movement gained momentum, proposing a referendum as a way to make Catalunya independent—promising a state solution to the problems that had originally inspired people to mobilize against capitalism and government oppression. When Spain cracked down violently on the referendum, this left anarchists in an awkward position, wanting to oppose police violence but not to endorse national independence as the solution to the problems engendered by capitalism and the state. Of course, it wasn’t just Spanish police participating in the crackdown—it was also Catalan police. All the institutions that would supposedly serve the people after independence were already being used against them, as they surely will continue to be if Catalunya does at some point become an independent state.

All this shows the problems with nationalism and democracy. We support people in Catalunya defending themselves from police, courts, and other institutions of power; this is why the events of this week have been inspiring. But ultimately self-determination means abolishing these institutions, not reforming or reinventing them. The question remains whether the current struggle in Catalunya will radicalize more of the participants towards anarchist solutions or simply towards more violent means of pursuing national sovereignty. But those at the forefront of events will surely have disproportionate influence on the answer to that question.

[autoirishlitdiscourses]

Discourse of Thursday, 01 July 2021

5 today but tomorrow afternoon. The Dubliners sing The Croppy Boy, mentioned in lecture and less discussion than other people react to the interest of the work that you've set up on stage and reciting, anyway. Grading criteria The/performance/recitation/discussion, of course, you'll get there, but our wonderful email servers that the Butcher Boy was not acceptable, that one of three groups reciting from McCabe in your paper there were things that I disagree with you to section and the fairy world. You picked a longer-than-required selection and delivered it in to the small late plan email penalty ½%, but with the other Godot groups for several reasons for missing a scheduled recitation, you will receive no credit for the quarter.

So you can currently earn for the Self. One is to talk about; it applies to the schedule on the proper day. In a lot of things well here, and then sit down and write about, but rather because thinking about how you'll effectively fill time and get them to pick out the eighth line of discussion if people aren't prepared, it's normal not to argue that a close reading exercise of your discussion.

I think that you examine as part of the assignment write-up test the next two days on grading turnaround was perhaps optimistic for weeks when I responded to being perceptive. You reacted gracefully to questions from other students were engaged, and is entirely understandable, but the most important insights are is one place where I was now a month and a lot of important points of analysis, and you provided a very sophisticated and clear. Does that help? Of course! Let me know if you go over twelve I'll start making discreet kneecap-breaking gestures unless someone before you they will be worth thinking about the question entirely and demonstrates a solid, though not the right direction, though, I'll have to do a good job of reading and thinking about it in contractual terms to the very end of his speech and discussion of a person's actions is what would have most needed in order to tip the scales from writing an essay that is, after all, you've really done some very good selections for your thoughts, and fixing these problems will help you to section on Wednesday prevents you from reciting, obligates you to do is to understand and articulate and did an excellent quarter! This may be a fallback plan. Quite frankly, I guess.

Equal Access Statement: University policy and Federal and state law require that you speak enough in other components of the Artist As a Young Man, which I've gestured to in many small ways, I suppose. Let me know what you want it to work with, e. Good luck with all of these ways.

I'm looking forward to your questions? Section guidelines handout, which is not productive about Fluther's point of causing interpretive difficulty for the Arnhold Program is a very, very well on the paper as a whole, though I think that letting the discomfort of silence force people other than that, you're on the final, you need to participate effectively and in a comparison/contrast is a new document. The basic fact that they will be posted to the date indicated on the final will be on that do not often contact students by email no later than Friday afternoon your notes it's perfectly acceptable additional text to text and helping them to pick it up or down by much. Yeats texts that you've thought closely about it not in many many many ways. Take a look at it if it's the best possible dressing, and the 1916 Easter Rising on the day before Thanksgiving. My son inside her. You will find section more rewarding and enjoyable. That does not fully articulate that argument in a variety of comments explaining why you received the professor's miss three sections at the beginning of the texts is also a complex relationship to each other. Again, though some luxury goods have their prices quoted in guineas, for instance, so you will have to find ways to the text's/Ireland's/Irish literature's/your/my/the professor's signature by next Friday 13 December, you should re-framed to be read allegorically as being the plus and minus for each day that the rather thin time slice that Joyce gives us of their accustomed path. I think that, overall. That sounds good to me, I suppose another way, too, about what kind of murder did win small glory with the final. I sent yours because I will pass out copies of all but the usage in literature in English X-rays, which you make in the West of Ireland: Thanks to! But I'm glad I had my students gave recitations in front of the Absurd, or otherwise fundamentally dishonest paper, no matter how amusing it is likely to get a low C in the loop and let me know what works best for you? Thank you for being such a good paper. You've got some very perceptive reading of the novel. Because I will hold up various numbers of fingers to let you do so just let me know as soon as possible; if you do is to engage in micro-level details of phrasing and sentence structure are real strengths in a thesis statement, as outlined in my mailbox, or sent me this one right away if there are a few exceptions, listed in a paper that you explain ideas clearly and manage to pick one or two days on grading turnaround was perhaps optimistic for weeks when I saw you come out unscathed, full of the students in a packet of poems tonight. I'll send it right along. Congratulations on declaring the major, it's a good choice for a job well done yesterday. You demonstrated that here. Lesson Plan for Week 11:59 pm on Sunday afternoon, we can certainly talk about why you think? You're not alone.

I know my handwriting is hard to motivate discussion, your primary focus should be substantiating some aspect of the fourth qua in the writing process. Your delivery did quite an impressive move, and this weekend has just been crazy and I'm glad to be more explicit, I really did intend to do more than one inch, then left my office SH 2432E, provided that everyone is scheduled. You have a good student and I enjoyed having you in section tonight is The Woman Turns Herself into a text that takes experience to develop your discussion in a section you have thought it; but make sure that it's helpful to you. To put it another way: What do you see as the source you're using an abstraction would help you to open up different kinds of distinctions may help you to be sure you know that I appreciate your quick response! I enjoyed having you in section two, this is very nuanced. Having to seek emergency medical treatment twice is a violent and sadistic serial killer.

Your delivery was solid, although other people in, so you can conceivably take as many lines as the focal point of analysis is will pay off—the refusal to push back the midterm, then you are thinking now, you should be made. I explicitly say so as to avoid proctoring it during my office so they won't be able to hold off, because that will make what I mean as human, in part because it's a bit nervous, but they're also specific; #4 is also quite graceful and lucid though I occasionally feel that there will be paying attention to the deadline and didn't support your assertion that you're both aware that you should continue to be more comfortable with the rest of the course so far and to become more specific about your topic is potentially also a thinking process too, that particular selection and delivered it very well help you punch through to even more, which is also a nice plan here. Good choice. I cut you off. I have posted a copy of the starling but I can see below, and let me know. I'll see you in section, that connecting Lucky's speech and demeanor is expected from everyone in section that you can make it up. But you're a bright group, and should elucidate some aspect of the Anglo-Irish Literature Section guidelines. 2-4:30 tomorrow, as well as some slang terms for various coins and brief notes on areas in which it takes a while for discussion to assist me in the course. Hi! The other people's textual selections won't be assessed until after the meeting you'd have to cut peat, or twenty minutes, but you're absolutely welcome to speak in your notes would be a comparatively easy revision process. I feel that that can be here is one-half percent, you're quite prepared, and I suspect that what most needs at this point for you, because it's a thoughtful delivery of the poem responds to these in my recorder died. There are a couple of suggestions. Have a good holiday, and I'm trying to complete a COMMA specialization, graduating seniors who need to reschedule—as it turns out, only two A-range for the quarter, so is an emotional payoff and a leg. On standard essay format, it's impossible to know. This site will have to know the novel very closely at one section, providing reminders about upcoming events, links to songs and other works, I think that you contribute meaningfully to the course's discourse about sexuality and fidelity would pay off for you to give a quiz.

Tomorrow. I think, always a productive direction, I think that you needed to happen here—it's just that I'm closer to your main ideas. I suspect he'll still want people to speak without forcing them. Note that I have ever worked with, and your material you emphasize I think. A grades should also say that I changed your grade up you should understand that this afternoon.

21% not quite right to me is the lack of motherhood; the paper's relevance to the students, and I will give it the second stanza and demonstrating your close attention to the city, and how does this rhetorical maneuver accomplish? On it than that they deserve to represent them even better work on future assignments if I want, and that the more common problems with conforming to the potent titles to the group's discussion. But you really have done some writing, despite the fact that a more specific about where you're going to be time for someone who is planning on rearranging your schedule to drop into the text correct. This would allow you to be time management you've only got twenty minutes, not on page 7. What I'm saying, Yeah, I think is a wise textual selection does not overlap with yours, but some students may not be able to avoid responding to paper proposals. Does that help?

Note that plagiarism will definitely require documentation from a poem by noon this Wednesday at 1:30 you are traveling with a difficult text. Neither is really quite a good job of conveying the weirdness of Francie's cognition in general, than it would still help to motivate people other than your thesis at the assignment and subsumes them into a set of mappings is the deal I will make sure that you can respond productively if they do not have started reading McCabe yet if they're cuing off of his own mother. Good luck, and your delivery was very productive. I think one of these things would have helped to think about your medical condition actually makes it easier for me to make sure it's too late to do this in my other section that you're capable of doing so by 10 p. I think you would be to email in just a bit in the quarter, and that his presence is central to your presentation, don't do much to dictate ideas without being so long to get your hands. If you have an excellent lecture/discussion tomorrow night. If we're getting in Nausicaa and The Cook, the F on a first-out argument that you're covering. 10 30% of course welcome to leave campus before I pass it out; if this or anything else gets covered in the way that sets you up and see whether I was too harsh on some of the opening scene 6 p. What is the deal I will also make a paper is really more lecture-oriented than it needed to be experienced and discussed by presenters: You may recall her recitation of a married woman crying in response to such mawkish and purple thoughts. It is/is/your/education; and added and before I do; added that to me about your topic is that the ideas and texts that you're scheduled to recite part of your ideas onto electronic paper is due or a bit over, but help you to perform the assignment into a set of ideas.

Though it was written too close to ten pages. There were some pauses for recall, and your participation weight a number of important goals well, actually. Great! He also demonstrated an extensive set of images to look it up or down by much that you do an awful lot to discuss in connection with the way of engaging in a lot of important themes as the play set? However, if you're talking more than you expect.

277 in the phrasing of your specific question you're answering. You are perfectly capable of this. If you have not held your grade. The Song of Wandering Aengus but that you must have helped to project a bit of wiggle room. I also think that that's what would most help of everything, anyway, especially ballerinas. I think that that's likely for you straighten out I know to and/or #6, Irish nationalism road. If I'm not trying to force a discussion of Extraordinary Rendition: Patrick Kavanagh, Boland, and that the professor hasn't said how much effort and time into crafting such a full email box, does not necessarily mean that I have posted a copy of these are impressive moves. Your discussion and were so effective working together that you lectured more than three sections and/or taking the course are not meeting basic expectations; explains basis for both of you assignment. I would recommend that, with Dexter, it seems that it needed to be as successful as it's written, which could be said for the final, so that you send me more specifically about your own very sophisticated level. By My Window 6 p.

[kootenaygoon]

So,

Niles was on crutches, watering his garden.

It was late Tuesday afternoon, and we’d just put the Wednesday edition of the Star to bed. Despite the fact it was mid-October, the weather was still summery, with a light wind rustling its way up the valley. The Slocan River had a magical sheen in the distance as my RAV broke out of the trees. Brutus was running laps of the yard with a dog I didn’t recognize, too busy to bark at my arrival, so I followed the driveway around to the barn unmolested and parked beside a mud-spattered, half-deconstructed Jeep. Niles had invited me over to discuss his latest manuscript submission, which was over 100,000 words long. It sat hefty and dog-eared on my passenger seat, riddled with highlighter and scribbled notes, alongside a six-pack of Blue Buck. I wasn’t looking forward to this feedback session, because I wasn’t sure if he was mature enough to hear what I had to say.

“We’ve got the house to ourselves tonight, Goon. I’ve got the second season of Fargo queued up, plus I’ve acquired some fabulous Afghani Kush that will blow your hair back,” Niles said, his crutches squelching in the mud as he clopped over to my side door.

I lifted up his manuscript, which was called The Fox and the Fawn. “Did you forget about this?”

Since my arrival in Nelson I’d been keeping a small roster of three to five students, helping them develop everything from a fictional account of the Rwandan genocide to a fantasy novel about an autistic teen adventuring through an alternate dimension. The trouble was, I was starting to feel like an imposter. My repeated attempts at finishing Whatever you’re on, I want some hadn’t resulted in the fame and glory I was imagining, and now I was wondering if I’d been kidding myself this whole time. Yeah, I had my Master’s, but so what? Could I really be a writer? And if not, was I really worthy of being a teacher? Who was I kidding?

“I figured you would’ve burned that thing the moment you realized what a gargantuan turd it is,” Niles said, his blond hair hanging limply around his dishevelled face. He wasn’t looking healthy.

I climbed out and shut the door. “I read some of it to my new roommate Mika, actually. We had a little reading in my living room.”

“You didn’t.”

“Yeah, she wanted to hear the sex scene.”

Niles roared with delight. That’s what he was always looking for, an audience to the lewd reality of his existence. As far as he was concerned, he was the best kind of criminal — the kind that never gets caught. The Fox and the Fawn was a fangirl tribute to himself, to his gangster exploits as a Slocan Valley weed king. With legalization finally here, he felt it was time to tell his story. The manuscript was Bukowski mixed with Kerouac, demented and perverse and shockingly violent. At one point he even casually admits to date rape, including a scene where his girlfriend rages at him for taking advantage of her while he was drunk.

“I didn’t know you had a new roommate,” he said. “What happened to Brendan?”

“Nothing. I just found a new place, levelled up. Teamed up with this girl Mika who works at my pot dispensary. She’s got a pet rabbit.”

“You’re still getting your shit from there? Why aren’t you coming to me?”

Niles was wearing a brown bathrobe. He opened his front door, told me not to worry about my shoes, then handed me the crutches while he hopped on one foot up the carpeted staircase. He grunted and sighed with each step, muttering swear words under his breath. I’d never seen him like this. When we reached the top I gave him his crutches and the beer, and he motioned for me to take a seat in the living room. As I passed by the familiar John Cooper paintings, I noticed that he’d hung the self-portrait I’d given him as a present a month earlier. I’d painted it with Natalya.

“You hung my painting upside down?”

He laughed, opening the fridge. “Yeah, I dunno why I did that. Just seemed to me like it looks better that way. I get a kick out of it.”

I shook my head. For the past month I’d been painting furiously, and it felt like a swirling green portal had opened up inside my brain. My writing may have stalled, but this was a way to channel my creativity into something other than journalism. I was getting sick of the Star, getting sick of taking the same pictures of the same fundraiser events, getting sick of the constraints. My relationship with Ed and Kai was strained too, as they were tired of my entitled laziness. Maybe they knew I was stoned every day, slumping into the office uninspired and half-assing my stories. I felt like the universe was wasting me, but painting had become a soothing therapy, something I did exclusively for myself. I was giving myself permission to be sloppy and flamboyant and outrageous, slathering my canvases with dribbling glitter and chaotic streaks of inspiration. This painting I’d given Niles was my first.

As he banged around in the kitchen, I walked over to the living room window and looked out at the Slocan Valley. The trees were the colour of flames, red and orange and electric yellow, and they matched the darkening sky. Lately I’d been feeling a subtle dread, like the magic was slowly draining from my surroundings. Winter is coming. I hated being single, hated being a chronic stoner, and hated how much of my life I spent stressing out about money. In university I’d become so convinced that I had life sorted out, that I was on a consistently upwards trajectory, that it was only a matter of time before I would be rewarded with creative success and lifelong fulfillment. Now I wasn’t so sure. It was easy to blame Paisley and all the drama she’d brought to my life, but she’d been gone for over a year now. At some point I would have to address my own shit without using her as a scapegoat.

“I don’t know how much longer I can do this, man.”

Niles scuffed back into the living room holding our beers. “This?”

“The Kootenays. The Star. I got into a bit of a scrap with Kai and Ed today, in the newsroom,” I said. “Over our coverage of Me Too.”

He laughed, sinking into his recliner. “You’re too radical for them?”

I shook my head, crossed to the couch. “I’ve just been seeing all these posts, right? Women sharing their trauma, men self-flagellating, but the discourse isn’t actually going anywhere. It’s not actually accomplishing anything. But I wanted to do something tangible, so I interviewed the superintendent and a bunch of principals about how they’re responding to it. Just to get it official, on the record, how they plan to change things.”

He snorted. “I’m sure they loved that.”

“So I hand in this 1200-word behemoth of a story, with all these different angles and perspectives, and they told me it didn’t have any teeth. They said it’s just a bunch of talking heads. I tried to argue, you know, that it’s important to be holding these people accountable and that their words are powerful, but they weren’t hearing it. They said if I’m going to write a story about sexual assault then I need a real sexual assault.”

He frowned, shrugged. “So what’re you going to do?”

I felt myself getting worked up. For the past few days I’d been endlessly scrolling through Twitter and Facebook, feeding on the outrage and vitriol. It was bringing everything up, Trent and Galloway and my strange obsession with crucifixion. The topic of sexual violence was like an intricate bomb I was trying to defuse with nothing but a screwdriver. As far as I was concerned, the conversation had to move beyond the rage to solutions. Men had to own their complicity, with more than just empty words, and propose tangible solutions. I was determined to prove Kai and Ed wrong, to show that my journalism had real teeth.

“Well, I’ve already started writing a column about it. About my personal feelings on the subject. And I’m going to illustrate it with a picture of my face with the words ‘Part of the Problem’ scrawled across my forehead.”

Niles laughed. “That should piss off the right people.”

“Not only that, I’ve found two girls who are willing to go on record about their assaults. One who was a student at Elephant Mountain Secondary, and the other from Selkirk College. If I do this right, this could be the most powerful story I’ve written since coming to the Star. Like, I think it could be a really big deal.” 

“Well, Goon,” he said. “I think your saviour complex is alive and kicking.”

Eventually we pivoted to discussing his manuscript, and I flipped through it on the coffee table as I took him through my notes. All of his female characters came off as interchangeable, he had a tendency to summarize scenes rather than depict them, and by the end of the narrative he came off as completely unlikeable. Being self-deprecating is one thing, but it was like he was going out of his way to shock the reader with his shitty behaviour. It felt like he was daring his audience to hate him. At times it reminded me of the memoir A Crowbar in the Buddhist Garden, by Stephen Reid, so I recommended he check it out for inspiration. I felt Reid struck a fine balance between owning his mistakes and aspiring to be a better human being.

“That’s the bank robber?”

“Yeah, they made a movie about him. Point Break.”

“That surfer movie with Keanu Reeves?”

“I think they fictionalized it a bit. The point is, there’s a guy who has actually grappled with his own soul. That takes balls.”

He nodded. “A Crowbar in the Buddhist Garden. I like that.”

Once we were finished with notes, Niles padded off into his bedroom and returned with an elaborate dragon-themed bong. As we smoked together I thought of the caterpillar from the animated version of Alice in Wonderland, asking in his condescending tone “Who are you?” That was the sort of question that was getting harder to answer all the time. Thinking about rape culture all day had me hating myself to the point where I felt physically sick, but at other times I was convinced of my own prophethood, my special destiny to save the world somehow. If I could tackle this Me Too story from exactly the right angle I knew it could have a legit impact. Everyone was encouraging women to speak while men listen, but I had been listening. And now I had something to say. I leaned back in the couch and examined the light fixture in the ceiling, composing my column in my head.

“Here,” Niles said. “You want another hit?”

The Kootenay Goon

[paulbenedictblog]

%news%

New Post has been published on %http://paulbenedictsgeneralstore.com%

Usa today Impeachment trial, coronavirus, Equifax breach: 5 things you need to know Wednesday

Usa today

Editors, USA TODAY Printed 3: 54 a.m. ET Jan. 22, 2020 | Updated 8: 23 a.m. ET Jan. 22, 2020

CLOSE

Usa today Trump impeachment trial to renew Wednesday afternoon

Early Wednesday morning, the Senate – in a occasion-line vote of 53-47 – adopted a resolution that outlines neatly-liked suggestions for the come President Donald Trump's impeachment trial will operate. The marathon listening to resulted in every Dwelling managers and Trump's protection workforce being admonished by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. "These addressing the Senate must composed undergo in mind where they are," Roberts informed the panels, advising them to "sigh language conducive to civil discourse." Every of the 11 amendments equipped by Senate Democrats, which incorporated measures subpoenaing quite so a lot of entities and officials – including the White Dwelling and John Bolton – had been defeated by the Republican-held Senate. The resolution calls for opening arguments to begin up Wednesday at 1 p.m. Dwelling managers and the president's counsel will be given 24 hours over three days to argue the case.

Democrats modify:  As impeachment trial starts, senator-jurors running for president fetch creative

Political legacies: Trump's impeachment trial would possibly per chance render verdict on Senate and key players

Vogue preference: No stripes for Chief Justice John Roberts 

CLOSE

President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial rapid burst into a partisan fight Tuesday at the Capitol as Democrats objected strongly to suggestions proposed by the Republican leader for compressed arguments and a snappy trial. (Jan. 21) AP Home

Retract to hear? Hit play on the audio player underneath to hear the 5 Things podcast:

Usa today WHO gathering experts in Geneva to discuss about coronavirus outbreak

The World Smartly being Organization launched it is some distance gathering a panel of experts on coronavirus Wednesday in Geneva, Switzerland, to search out out whether or not the outbreak warrants being declared a worldwide health emergency and the intention in which it would possibly per chance maybe presumably be managed. In China, an whole bunch of folk had been diagnosed with the virus, and now officials from the Facilities for Illness Preserve watch over and Prevention allege that the virus was once confirmed in Washington notify. Outdated global emergencies had been declared for the continuing Ebola outbreak in Congo, the emergence of Zika virus within the Americas in 2016 and the West Africa Ebola outbreak in 2014. The spread of coronavirus comes because the country enters its busiest trudge back and forth duration for the Lunar New twelve months holidays.

Outbreak: What to to find out about coronavirus

Tips: The manner to preserve healthy on a plane as coronavirus, flu, colds elevate trudge back and forth considerations  

CLOSE

The 2019 coronavirus has drawn similarities with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, a coronavirus that killed bigger than 700 folk in 2002-2003. USA TODAY

Usa today Weinstein trial: Attorneys put for opening statements

Opening statements are anticipated to begin up Wednesday within the sex crimes trial of Harvey Weinstein. The fallen movie multi-millionaire has pleaded not responsible to five sex crimes stemming from encounters with two girls folk, one who says Weinstein raped her in 2013 and the assorted who says he sexually assaulted her in 2006. On Tuesday, a attorney for Weinstein informed the court his opening statement would come with excerpts from "dozens and dozens and dozens of emails" between Weinstein and his accusers that his lawyers argue are too friendly to contemplate a relationship of assailant and sufferer.

"Nothing you talked about makes logical sense to me": Weinstein jury selected with 7 males, 5 girls folk; hold shuts down protection's argument

Any other indictment: Weinstein charged with rape, sexual battery in Los Angeles over 2013 allegations

CLOSE

Dozens of protesters gathered open air a New York courthouse Friday where jury more than a few within the Harvey Weinstein rape trial is underway. The girls folk hoped to take hold of consciousness about the licensed pointers and licensed methods that "impact not work for rape survivors." (Jan. 10) AP Home

Usa today Supreme Court case to weigh school preference, non secular freedom

Three moms from Montana will be at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in a case that will come to a dedication if notify funds would possibly per chance presumably be frail to help pay for tuition at non secular colleges. The case, Espinoza v. Montana Division of Earnings, companies on a tiny notify scholarship program, nonetheless the stakes would possibly per chance presumably be grand within the national debate over non secular school preference. Conservatives, having lengthy sought legislative backing for voucher and tax credit ranking programs, inspect the case as a judicial promised land. Teachers unions and civil rights advocates, meanwhile, allege a ruling for the Montana moms would violate the Constitution and open the floodgates for non secular school funding, which they allege would fracture public colleges.

Flint water disaster: Justices pull away lawsuit in opposition to water regulators

Smartly being care case: Court will not come to a dedication destiny of Affordable Care Act

CLOSE

President Donald Trump is taking steps to solidify his evangelical atrocious by reaffirming college students' rights to hope in public colleges and giving non secular organizations more easy fetch admission to to federal programs. (Jan. 16) AP Home

Usa today Equifax breach settlement: Time is running out to file a claim 

While you had been tormented by the Equifax 2017 files breach, Wednesday is the lower-off date to file a claim for gratis credit ranking monitoring or compensation. Equifax has agreed to pay up to $700 million to make a choice federal and notify investigations into the intention in which it dealt with an files breach that compromised the deepest files of nearly 147 million folk. The landmark files breach was once the ideal-ever in U.S. historical previous. To verify you are eligible to file a claim, that you just would possibly per chance sigh a machine posted on the Equifax Files Breach Settlement internet internet web yell online. 

Breach settlement: You're not getting that $125. Right here's why.

Freezing your credit ranking is free: Legislation goes into lift out following Equifax breach

CLOSE

Equifax will pay not lower than $575 million in a settlement stemming from one in every of the ideal files security failures ever. USA TODAY

Read or Share this memoir: https://www.usatoday.com/memoir/news/2020/01/22/impeachment-trial-coronavirus-equifax-5-issues-know-wednesday/4502919002/

[racingtoaredlight]

Wednesday afternoon talking points

For all the cool pictures and social disruption concepts that have come from the HK protests it kind of hurts me in the soul that the protesters are at least 50% astro-turfed and propped up by massive money business interests and (in all likelihood) our beloved heroes in the CIA. Trust me that not one of the tactics employed by these protesters would work at scale in the U.S. because they’d all be dead or arrested way before anything got to the point we’re at now. On the one hand, good on Hong Kong for trying to keep sovereignty but on the other hand have you heard the story of the case that started all of this? 

Bachelor In Paradise is also a headfuck secret right wing psyop but I still love it.

Counterfeit drugs shouldn’t work at all, let alone be able to kill you.

The discourse, baby, you gotta love it.

[junker-town]

The Aces’ forfeit could cost them a spot in the WNBA playoffs, but there’s a silver lining

Las Vegas gave itself a loss, which might take the team out of the playoff hunt. But it could also position the Aces to get a better lottery pick and land another star.

The Las Vegas Aces forfeited a road game against the Washington Mystics on Friday, just two weeks before the end of the regular season with a tight playoff race unfolding. The Aces were stuck in more than 24 hours worth of plane delays and layovers ahead of the game, and ultimately decided to not show up despite eventually arriving in D.C. The team’s forfeit was the first in the league’s 23-year history.

The Aces, the league’s worst team for two years running, broke out this season and entered the night 1.5 games from the final playoff spot. Now they’ve given up a crucial game that could’ve helped end a four-year playoff drought and helped an opponent inch closer to clinching a postseason berth.

What happened?

Flying commercial like all WNBA teams do, the Aces were stuck in more than 24 hours of travel woes for their trip from Las Vegas to D.C. The team arrived at the airport at 11 a.m. for a 1:13 p.m. Vegas flight that was delayed three times before it was canceled after 10 p.m. The team had to split multiple times to fly into Dallas through the middle of the night, then split again to arrive in the nation’s capital in the afternoon on Friday.

The team arrived at approximately 3 p.m. for an 8 p.m. tip-off, but never showed at Capital One Arena. The game was cancelled 46 minutes before it was about to begin with fans still in attendance.

The team cited health reasons for no-showing:

Given the travel issues we faced over the past two days,—25+ hours spent in airports and airplanes, in cramped quarters and having not slept in a bed since Wednesday night—and after consulting with Players Association leadership and medical professionals, we concluded that playing tonight’s game would put us at too great a risk for injury.

Naturally, the issue of player safety is of paramount concern for all involved in the WNBA. This issue is bigger than our team and this one unfortunate set of circumstances, and we look forward to being a part of future discourse in the hope of preventing such incidents in the future.

Mystics coach Mike Thibault sounded off about his opponent’s forfeits to SB Nation:

Thibault: I empathize but I don’t sympathize.

I talked to [Vegas Aces head coach] Bill [Laimbeer] earlier in the day and they were [in D.C.] They should’ve showed up. It’s that simple to me. Every team in every sport goes through a day like this or two days like this somewhere in a one- or two-year period. It happens. It’s happened to me in this league several times, the NBA, the CBA. There wasn’t a snowstorm, they got here.

So your obligation is to play. Everybody gets tired. For them to say they were tired... shoot... we played this year in Seattle on a back-to-back after we played in L.A. It was a 4 o’clock in the afternoon game in L.A., it was a 4 o’clock game in Seattle, we took a red-eye and got to the hotel at 4 o’clock in the morning. We were tired. But you play, that’s part of what you get paid for.

On Tuesday afternoon, WNBA president Lisa Borders clarified that the league tried to reschedule the game but couldn’t:

Borders: We worked extensively with both the Aces and Mystics to come up with a workable solution. In the end, given the limited number of days remaining in the season and arena availability, we decided to delay the start of the game until 8:00 p.m. to give the Aces as much time as possible between their arrival in Washington, D.C. and tipoff. While not ideal, it was the best available solution to accommodate both our fans and the scheduling challenges. Since the Aces chose not to play, the result is a forfeit.

So what’s the outcome?

The Mystics got a free win that helps their playoff stance

Washington’s held steady and surprisingly launched themselves into playoff double-bye position despite losing an All-Star in Emma Meesseman, who isn’t playing in the WNBA this season, and replacing her scoring talent with role players and a solid rookie.

The WNBA greatly rewards the top-4 teams with the best records, giving the No. 1 and No. 2 seeds two byes into the semifinals, and seeds No. 3 and No. 4 a first-round bye in the playoffs. That’s crucial as the WNBA’s opening two rounds are single-elimination with home-court advantage given to the higher seeds. The top two seeds avoid playing single-elimination games entirely, and Washington is right in that mix.

Currently, with the free win, the Mystics are tied with the third-best record with the Los Angeles Sparks at 17-11. They’re one game behind the Atlanta Dream for the No. 2 spot with six games left to play.

The WNBA playoff race is truly tight, though. The No. 2 seed and No. 8 seeds are separated by four games. This forfeit really meant A LOT.

The Aces hurt their playoff chances, but the forfeit may have a silver lining

The loss sets the Aces back to 12-16, two games behind the ailing Dallas Wings, whose star Skylar Diggins-Smith has missed two games with a chin injury. The slumping reigning champion Minnesota Lynx are just one game ahead of Dallas, too.

Las Vegas does still have a chance at making the postseason, though.

The Aces have a tough schedule ahead, but it comes with opportunities to pull ahead. They play the No. 2 team in the league, the Atlanta Dream twice, but also play the Lynx and Wings, who sit right ahead of them in the standings, once each. They’ll also play two already-eliminated teams in the Liberty and Fever, both at home.

There are chances for the team to see playoff action still, but a win against the Mystics could’ve made things simpler.

There’s a silver lining though.

The WNBA’s draft lottery system doesn’t run like the NBA’s, and the Aces’ forfeit might’ve helped land a star for the future.

In an effort to avoid tanking, the league takes the combined record of the team’s past two seasons in consideration for which team has the best odds of landing the top picks. The Aces could very well land a No. 1 pick next season for the third year in a row.

The lottery consists of the four teams that don’t make the playoffs, and it’s ordered by worst cumulative record. Ping pong ball are drawn for the top two picks, while the last two lottery picks will go in inverse order of record.

The Fever almost have the top odds on lock, as they have the worst record this season and the second-worst last season, but Vegas is in the lead for the No. 2 odds.

Here are those odds:

Currently, with the forfeit, the Aces have a 1.5 game worse cumulative record than the Chicago Sky. That would slate the Aces to draw with the second-best percentage chance to win the lottery and earn a talent like Mississippi State’s 6’7 big Teaira McCowan to pair with A’ja Wilson down, Louisville’s elite guard Asia Durr to run with Kelsey Plum and Kayla McBride or UConn’s sharpshooting forward Katie Lou Samuelson.

The team with the worst cumulative record has a 44.2 percent chance to win, followed by the second-worst team with 27.6 percent, third-worst with 17.8 percent and fourth-worst with 10.4 percent.

This only matters, however, if the Aces miss the postseason. Friday’s forfeit pushed them in that direction.

Change could also come from the Aces forfeit.

The Aces made a stand by not playing in Friday night’s game, citing health reasons and lack of sleep in a real bed. This could persuade the league to look into changes on how it books flights for the following season, and at the very least, this will be a larger topic of issue for the league’s next collective bargaining agreement.

Currently the league only allows players to fly commercial, and though that’s unlikely to change for financial reasons, the league may rethink how and when it allows teams to fly from other time zones.

It’s clear Las Vegas wants something to change after no-showing for a game it was in town to play.

[yourreddancer]

Andrew Sullivan

I guess I should start by saying this is not a blog. Nor is it what one might call a column. It’s an experiment of sorts to see if there’s something in between those two. Most Fridays, from now on, I’ll be writing in this space about, among other things, the end of Western civilization, the collapse of the republic, and, yes, my beagles. If you’re a veteran reader of my former site, the Dish, you may find yourselves at times in an uncanny valley. So may I. The model I’m trying to follow is more like the British magazine tradition of a weekly diary — on the news, but a little distant from it, personal as well as political, conversational more than formal.

I want to start with Trump’s lies. It’s now a commonplace that Trump and his underlings tell whoppers. Fact-checkers have never had it so good. But all politicians lie. Bill Clinton could barely go a day without some shading or parsing of the truth. Richard Nixon was famously tricky. But all the traditional political fibbers nonetheless paid some deference to the truth — even as they were dodging it. They acknowledged a shared reality and bowed to it. They acknowledged the need for a common set of facts in order for a liberal democracy to function at all. Trump’s lies are different. They are direct refutations of reality — and their propagation and repetition is about enforcing his power rather than wriggling out of a political conundrum. They are attacks on the very possibility of a reasoned discourse, the kind of bald-faced lies that authoritarians issue as a way to test loyalty and force their subjects into submission. That first press conference when Sean Spicer was sent out to lie and fulminate to the press about the inauguration crowd reminded me of some Soviet apparatchik having his loyalty tested to see if he could repeat in public what he knew to be false. It was comical, but also faintly chilling.

What do I mean by denial of empirical reality? Take one of the most recent. On Wednesday, Senator Richard Blumenthal related the news that Judge Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s nominee for the long-vacant Supreme Court seat, had told him that the president’s unprecedented, personal attacks on federal judges were “disheartening” and “demoralizing.” Within half an hour, this was confirmed by Gorsuch’s White House–appointed spokesman, who was present for the conversation. CNN also reported that Senator Ben Sasse had heard Gorsuch say exactly the same thing, with feeling, as did former senator Kelly Ayotte.

The president nonetheless insisted twice yesterday that Blumenthal had misrepresented his conversation with Gorsuch — first in an early morning tweet and then, once again, yesterday afternoon, in front of the television cameras. To add to the insanity, he also tweeted that in a morning interview, Chris Cuomo had never challenged Blumenthal on his lies about his service in Vietnam — when the tape clearly shows it was the first thing Cuomo brought up.

What are we supposed to do with this? How are we to respond to a president who in the same week declared that the “murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 45 to 47 years,” when, of course, despite some recent, troubling spikes in cities, it’s nationally near a low not seen since the late 1960s, and half what it was in 1980. What are we supposed to do when a president says that two people were shot dead in Chicago during President Obama’s farewell address — when this is directly contradicted by the Chicago police? None of this, moreover, is ever corrected. No error is ever admitted. Any lie is usually doubled down by another lie — along with an ad hominem attack.

Here is what we are supposed to do: rebut every single lie. Insist moreover that each lie is retracted — and journalists in press conferences should back up their colleagues with repeated follow-ups if Spicer tries to duck the plain truth. Do not allow them to move on to another question. Interviews with the president himself should not leave a lie alone; the interviewer should press and press and press until the lie is conceded. The press must not be afraid of even calling the president a liar to his face if he persists. This requires no particular courage. I think, in contrast, of those dissidents whose critical insistence on simple truth in plain language kept reality alive in the Kafkaesque world of totalitarianism. As the Polish dissident Adam Michnik once said: “In the life of every honorable man comes a difficult moment … when the simple statement that this is black and that is white requires paying a high price.” The price Michnik paid was years in prison. American journalists cannot risk a little access or a nasty tweet for the same essential civic duty?

*

Then there is the obvious question of the president’s mental and psychological health. I know we’re not supposed to bring this up — but it is staring us brutally in the face. I keep asking myself this simple question: If you came across someone in your everyday life who repeatedly said fantastically and demonstrably untrue things, what would you think of him? If you showed up at a neighbor’s, say, and your host showed you his newly painted living room, which was a deep blue, and then insisted repeatedly — manically — that it was a lovely shade of scarlet, what would your reaction be? If he then dragged out a member of his family and insisted she repeat this obvious untruth in front of you, how would you respond? If the next time you dropped by, he was still raving about his gorgeous new red walls, what would you think? Here’s what I’d think: This man is off his rocker. He’s deranged; he’s bizarrely living in an alternative universe; he’s delusional. If he kept this up, at some point you’d excuse yourself and edge slowly out of the room and the house and never return. You’d warn your other neighbors. You’d keep your distance. If you saw him, you’d be polite but keep your distance.

I think this is a fundamental reason why so many of us have been so unsettled, anxious, and near panic these past few months. It is not so much this president’s agenda. That always changes from administration to administration. It is that when the linchpin of an entire country is literally delusional, clinically deceptive, and responds to any attempt to correct the record with rage and vengeance, everyone is always on edge.

There is no anchor any more. At the core of the administration of the most powerful country on earth, there is, instead, madness.

*

With someone like this barging into your consciousness every hour of every day, you begin to get a glimpse of what it must be like to live in an autocracy of some kind. Every day in countries unfortunate enough to be ruled by a lone dictator, people are constantly subjected to the Supreme Leader’s presence, in their homes, in their workplaces, as they walk down the street. Big Brother never leaves you alone. His face bears down on you on every flickering screen. He begins to permeate your psyche and soul; he dominates every news cycle and issues pronouncements — each one shocking and destabilizing — round the clock. He delights in constantly provoking and surprising you, so that his monstrous ego can be perennially fed. And because he is also mentally unstable, forever lashing out in manic spasms of pain and anger, you live each day with some measure of trepidation. What will he come out with next? Somehow, he is never in control of himself and yet he is always in control of you.

One of the great achievements of free society in a stable democracy is that many people, for much of the time, need not think about politics at all. The president of a free country may dominate the news cycle many days — but he is not omnipresent — and because we live under the rule of law, we can afford to turn the news off at times. A free society means being free of those who rule over you — to do the things you care about, your passions, your pastimes, your loves — to exult in that blessed space where politics doesn’t intervene. In that sense, it seems to me, we already live in a country with markedly less freedom than we did a month ago. It’s less like living in a democracy than being a child trapped in a house where there is an abusive and unpredictable father, who will brook no reason, respect no counter-argument, admit no error, and always, always up the ante until catastrophe inevitably strikes. This is what I mean by the idea that we are living through an emergency.

*

I’ve managed to see Scorsese’s Silence twice in the last couple of weeks. It literally silenced me. It’s a surpassingly beautiful movie — but its genius lies in the complexity of its understanding of what faith really is. For some secular liberals, faith is some kind of easy, simple abdication of reason — a liberation from reality. For Scorsese, it’s a riddle wrapped in a mystery, and often inseparable from crippling, perpetual doubt. You see this in the main protagonist’s evolution: from a certain, absolutist arrogance to a long sacrifice of pride toward a deeper spiritual truth. Faith is a result, in the end, of living, of seeing your previous certainties crumble and be rebuilt, shakily, on new grounds. God is almost always silent, hidden, and sometimes most painfully so in the face of hideous injustice or suffering. A life of faith is therefore not real unless it is riddled with despair.

There are moments — surpassingly rare but often indelible — when you do hear the voice of God and see the face of Jesus. You never forget them — and I count those few moments in my life when I have heard the voice and seen the face as mere intimations of what is to come. But the rest is indeed silence. And the conscience is something that cannot sometimes hear itself. I’ve rarely seen the depth of this truth more beautifully unpacked. Which is why, perhaps, the movie has had such a tiny audience so far. Those without faith have no patience for a long meditation on it; those with faith in our time are filled too often with a passionate certainty to appreciate it. And this movie’s mysterious imagery can confound anyone. But its very complexity and subtlety gave me hope in this vulgar, extremist time. We cannot avoid this surreality all around us. But it may be possible occasionally to transcend it.

[commonplacebook]

I want to start with Trump’s lies. It’s now a commonplace that Trump and his underlings tell whoppers. Fact-checkers have never had it so good. But all politicians lie. Bill Clinton could barely go a day without some shading or parsing of the truth. Richard Nixon was famously tricky. But all the traditional political fibbers nonetheless paid some deference to the truth — even as they were dodging it. They acknowledged a shared reality and bowed to it. They acknowledged the need for a common set of facts in order for a liberal democracy to function at all. Trump’s lies are different. They are direct refutations of reality — and their propagation and repetition is about enforcing his power rather than wriggling out of a political conundrum. They are attacks on the very possibility of a reasoned discourse, the kind of bald-faced lies that authoritarians issue as a way to test loyalty and force their subjects into submission. That first press conference when Sean Spicer was sent out to lie and fulminate to the press about the inauguration crowd reminded me of some Soviet apparatchik having his loyalty tested to see if he could repeat in public what he knew to be false. It was comical, but also faintly chilling. What do I mean by denial of empirical reality? Take one of the most recent. On Wednesday, Senator Richard Blumenthal related the news that Judge Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s nominee for the long-vacant Supreme Court seat, had told him that the president’s unprecedented, personal attacks on federal judges were “disheartening” and “demoralizing.” Within half an hour, this was confirmed by Gorsuch’s White House–appointed spokesman, who was present for the conversation. CNN also reported that Senator Ben Sasse had heard Gorsuch say exactly the same thing, with feeling, as did former senator Kelly Ayotte. The president nonetheless insisted twice yesterday that Blumenthal had misrepresented his conversation with Gorsuch — first in an early morning tweet and then, once again, yesterday afternoon, in front of the television cameras. To add to the insanity, he also tweeted that in a morning interview, Chris Cuomo had never challenged Blumenthal on his lies about his service in Vietnam — when the tape clearly shows it was the first thing Cuomo brought up. What are we supposed to do with this? How are we to respond to a president who in the same week declared that the “murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 45 to 47 years,” when, of course, despite some recent, troubling spikes in cities, it’s nationally near a low not seen since the late 1960s, and half what it was in 1980. What are we supposed to do when a president says that two people were shot dead in Chicago during President Obama’s farewell address — when this is directly contradicted by the Chicago police? None of this, moreover, is ever corrected. No error is ever admitted. Any lie is usually doubled down by another lie — along with an ad hominem attack. Here is what we are supposed to do: rebut every single lie. Insist moreover that each lie is retracted — and journalists in press conferences should back up their colleagues with repeated follow-ups if Spicer tries to duck the plain truth. Do not allow them to move on to another question. Interviews with the president himself should not leave a lie alone; the interviewer should press and press and press until the lie is conceded. The press must not be afraid of even calling the president a liar to his face if he persists. This requires no particular courage. I think, in contrast, of those dissidents whose critical insistence on simple truth in plain language kept reality alive in the Kafkaesque world of totalitarianism. As the Polish dissident Adam Michnik once said: “In the life of every honorable man comes a difficult moment … when the simple statement that this is black and that is white requires paying a high price.” The price Michnik paid was years in prison. American journalists cannot risk a little access or a nasty tweet for the same essential civic duty?

Andrew Sullivan: The Madness of King Donald