#the poor Twitter refugees today | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 4 years ago

Link

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

November 12, 2020

Heather Cox Richardson

Tonight, the major networks called Arizona for Joe Biden. This means Arizona has voted for a Democrat for president for the first time since 1996, when Ross Perot’s bid for the presidency siphoned off votes from Republican candidate Bob Dole and let Democratic candidate Bill Clinton clinch the state. Before that, the last time Arizona backed a Democrat was in 1948, when it went for Harry Truman.

Since the numbers in Biden’s column now make up an insurmountable margin for Trump to overcome, the Trump campaign is now saying that the computers in certain states switched votes from him to Biden. This has been thoroughly debunked. This afternoon, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in the Department of Homeland Security circulated a statement by the Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council, a group of federal, state, and local officials, declaring that the 2020 election was “the most secure in American history” and that “there is no evidence” of tampering with any voting systems.

Perhaps more to the point, Trump has been telling people that he will announce a run for the 2024 presidency as soon as the vote is certified for Biden. This would keep money flowing into his pockets, as well as keeping him in the news. Sources have told Maggie Haberman at the New York Times that the president has no grand strategy other than to keep his supporters energized to follow him into whatever he does next, including, perhaps, launching a competitor to the Fox News Channel.

Meanwhile, the president is holed up in the White House, his public schedule empty, tweeting about how he has won an election that everyone knows he lost.

One of the things he is ignoring is the devastating spread of coronavirus through this country. Today more than 153,000 new cases were reported, with 66,000 people hospitalized. More than 10.4 million Americans have been infected with the coronavirus, and more than 242,000 have died.

While the White House election night watch party has turned into a superspreader event, today ensnaring former 2016 Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, most infections are now caused not by large public events but by small gatherings at home: dinner parties, carpools, playdates. These indoor events create “perfect conditions for a virus that can spread among people who are crowded into a poorly ventilated space,” write the doctors and public health officials at the PolicyLab of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Cases are not only on the rise, but also more severe. Experts remind us that we should avoid spending more than 15 minutes within six feet of anyone outside our own household in any 24-hour period, and they beg people to stay home for the holidays this year.

President-Elect Joe Biden has been out of the news, working. His new chief of staff, Ronald Klain, told reporters that he has been speaking privately to Republicans, although he has not talked to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. While Republicans appear to want to keep up the public narrative that the results of the election are unclear, they are beginning to demand that Biden get access to the intelligence reports Trump is keeping from him. Shutting the president-elect out of intelligence reports hampers our national security not only with regard to foreign affairs, but also with regard to the coronavirus, leaving Biden out of the planning to roll out a vaccine, for example.

Among the phone calls Biden has had with world leaders was one today with Pope Francis. According to the call readout, the pope offered Biden blessings and congratulations; Biden thanked the pope for promoting the common bonds of humanity and said he hoped to work together on issues that touched on their shared belief “in the dignity and equality of all humankind.” He singled out “caring for the marginalized and the poor, addressing the crisis of climate change, and welcoming and integrating immigrants and refugees into our communities"—all areas in which the pope has called on global leaders to take action, and on which the Biden administration’s policies are expected to differ from its predecessor’s. Biden will be America’s second Catholic president. (John F. Kennedy, elected in 1960, was the first.)

Biden has announced policy teams to help with the transition. They are made up largely of volunteers who will review the different government agencies and make policy recommendations. The Biden-Harris team notes that the transition will prioritize “diversity of ideology and background; talent to address society’s most complex challenges; integrity and the highest ethical standards to serve the American people and not special interests; and transparency to garner trust at every stage.” The names on the transition teams are impressive ones. Stanford Law School Professor Pamela Karlan, who testified before the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment hearings will be part of the team that reviews the Department of Justice for the transition.

Lara Seligman at Politico reported today that Biden has been reaching out to former Pentagon officials who retired or were fired in the past four years to talk about the transition and whether or not they might want to go back into the Defense Department. The Biden team is talking to former officials because the current ones are Trump loyalists and team members don’t think they will be particularly cooperative or, for that matter, very knowledgeable. Seligman says that Biden wants to create a bipartisan leadership team at the Defense Department. In a notable change from the past four years, Biden’s agency review team for the Pentagon is led by female defense policy experts.

Biden tweeted just once today, after six American National Guardsmen, along with a Czech and a French team member, died in a helicopter crash in Egypt during a peacekeeping mission. One American was wounded. While the current president apparently ignored the loss, using Twitter to spread false rumors about the election and to attack the Fox News Channel, Biden tweeted: “I extend my deep condolences to the loved ones of the peacekeepers, including 6 American service members, who died on Tiran Island, and wish a speedy recovery to the surviving American. I join all Americans in honoring their sacrifice, as I keep their loved ones in my prayers.”

—-

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#quotes #heather cox richardson #Letters From An American #political #election2020 #The Psycho

1 note · View note

jordanianroyals · 5 years ago

Photo

19 April 2020: King Abdullah II was interviewed on CBS’ show “Face the Nation”, moderated by Margaret Brennan, the US network’s senior foreign affairs correspondent.

Following is a transcript of the interview as it was broadcast:

Margaret Brennan: Of the populations most vulnerable to a COVID-19 outbreak, the world's 26 million refugees are at the top of that list. They often live in close quarters, with access to only basic health and sanitation facilities. An outbreak of the virus could be devastating. The country of Jordan is home to at least 3.5 million refugees, and also the world's largest Syrian refugee camp. We are joined now by the King of Jordan, His Majesty King Abdullah II. Good morning to you, Your Majesty. His Majesty King Abdullah II: Good morning, Margaret. Brennan: Social distancing is next to impossible for—for refugees. How do you plan it—to limit the spread? King Abdullah II: Well, we acted quite early on, and that helped us flatten the curve quite, quite well, and we created, obviously, some tough measures and a lockdown and quarantines over the whole country, although we're in the process of opening that up slightly. The challenge with refugees, obviously, they're about 20 per cent of our population; the majority are not in refugee camps, so that is a challenge, but we, sort of, treat every person inside of our borders, whether you're a Jordanian citizen or a refugee, in the same manner. Excessive testing has helped us figure out what our challenges are. But definitely, a country with a 20 per cent increase of its population to refugees, it's a major challenge as we go into the future. Brennan: So given that not all refugees live in camps, what kind of sense do you have of the degree to which the virus has penetrated that community? King Abdullah II: Well, again, we do random and targeted testing throughout the whole country. Refugee camps, because obviously people are much closer together in living conditions, was something that we looked at earlier on, so there is a lot of testing. The lockdown on the quarantine has helped Jordan, sort of, flatten the curve quite quickly. The cases that we've had over the past week are under 10 people every day. We average 15, give or take, on a weekly basis. So it seems that we've got things under control and within the capabilities of our medical and health establishments. But, again, there's always that question out there: is there a gap in society that you don't know of? And so, again, testing at a massive scale is how we're relying on, hopefully, getting the right figures Brennan: This pandemic is global, and the UN has called for a global response. But frankly, Europe is struggling with this virus; the United States is. The US president just cut funding or froze it, at least, to the World Health Organisation. Who do you see actually leading a global response? King Abdullah II: Well, I think this is a challenge that took everybody by surprise, by the impact and the magnitude of this pandemic. And I think the question is, nobody is going to get a perfect score on this issue. Each country has different ways of handling it, nuances of their societies and what their country faces. The question that I think you're alluding to is where are we four months, six months, a year from now? Do we understand that this is a new world that we're living in? This is a disease that, or a virus, that crosses borders. It's an invisible enemy. It will target developed countries, undeveloped countries, whatever your religion, creed, colour or race. Unless we work together, we will not be able to overcome this in the way that we need to. So our enemies of yesterday or those that were not friendly countries yesterday, whether we like it or not, are our partners today. And I think the quicker we as leaders and politicians figure that out, the quicker we can bring this under control, because it's not just COVID-19 that we're worried about. It's what does it bring for us on the world in 2021, 22, 23. Are we going to be prepared for the next wave of this? And that could only happen if we reach out to each other. Brennan: Well, the IMF has said that if countries don't handle this right, that the virus could destabilise countries, in particular because of the economic strain. Are you worried about instability in Jordan? Are you worried that this could be exploited by extremist groups? King Abdullah II: Well, I think all over the world, extremist groups and the usual suspects will obviously try and take advantage of that. We as a country that have come out of the regional shocks of wars with a massive surge of refugees that we've had, plus being a poor country on a very strict programme with the IMF and trying to get the economy back and running, obviously, this is a major concern. Having said that, we have seen areas of our society where actually we can be supporters for the region. But it's, I think, a challenge that all countries are facing—of whether or not we get the economics right. So here's the risk. I mean, obviously, we are now slowly, gradually opening up, understanding that it could really move us back a couple of paces. But I think with this type of challenge, we've got to be very light on our feet. So mistakes, I keep saying, that are made yesterday, as long as we get them right today and keep our institutions and our people flexible enough to be able to take on the challenges that we may not have foreseen tomorrow. Brennan: Have you spoken to the president of China or asked him for help? King Abdullah II: No, I have not. I have been in touch with leaders around the world. At the beginning, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, the leader and my dear friend in the United Arab Emirates, he got in touch with me and asked what could he do to help. And again, we had a problem with test kits. Jack Ma of Alibaba gave us 100,000 test kits that almost tripled our capability overnight. Many individuals and countries have helped us, as we have, in turn, been helping them. And this is, I think, the flavour I hope that people will get. I mean, to be really honest, Mother Nature gave us a big kick up the backside. And are we smart enough as a race and as a people to understand that we've got to get it right, and do we now serve humanity in the right way to be able to make sure that everybody is looked after. Because those that have not are going to suffer as much as those that have. And if we don't reach out to those that are in need, even though we may have limited resources, it is, at this stage, doing what's right to help all of us because we're all in the same boat. Brennan: Your Majesty, thank you for your time. King Abdullah II: Thank you very much, Margaret. Also on Sunday, “Face the Nation” posted a segment of the interview on its Twitter page, with Brennan asking His Majesty on the potential of Jordan offering support to the United States. In response, the King said, “hopefully, in the next several weeks, depending on our capabilities… we are probably one of the top two countries in the region when it comes to pharmaceutical and medical capabilities, so we have already been sending out masks and medicines to other countries”. “Our private sector is ramping up its production capabilities. But we will also be in a position in the next few weeks, hopefully, to send our doctors and nurses for countries in need in the region or the world as a whole. And we are slowly reaching out to our friends to see what can Jordan do to help others as they have had helped us,” the King added.

#King Abdullah II

3 notes · View notes

crazycoke-addict · 5 years ago

Text

The “Kill ‘em with kindness” isn’t an option when the person was committed a lot of war crimes.

Ellen DeGeneres was seen laughing with former President George W Bush at a Dallas Cowboys NFL game. The picture went viral and a lot of people won’t happy about it. Ellen went on her talk show and explain the picture. She explains that she and her wife, Portia DeRossi was invited to the game. Her and Portia decided to go, they were sitting next to George W Bush and his wife Laura Bush. When the picture of them laughing was posted on Twitter, she talks about how people were upset about and when they get upset: they tweet. Than She goes onto to say this:

“Here’s the thing. I’m friends with Georg Bush. In fact, I’m friends with a lot of people who don’t share the same beliefs that I have. We’re all different and I think we’ve forgotten that that’s ok that we’re all different. For instance, I wish people wouldn’t wear fur. I don’t like it, but I’m friends with people who wear fur. But just because I don’t agree with someone on everything doesn’t mean that I’m not going to be friends with them. When I say be kind to one another, I don’t mean only the people that think the same way that you do. I mean kind to everyone”.

Here’s the problem, when you’re a Activist whether that activism might be. One of the things you gotta do that will probably make uncomfortable but you know that it’s for the greater good is to call out people even when they are friends or family. A username on twitter who goes by the name FemmeFeministe made a thread explains how the word “Nice” is just another word that white peoples use to not confront your racist kin and how Ellen DeGeneres has uses the idea of nice to appeal “both sides” which avoiding confrontation.

Ellen DeGeneres became an LGBTQ+ advocate when she came out on the cover of Time Magazine in 1997. She married her wife in 2008 same year when same-sex marriage became in California. Fought for LGBTQ Rights and even called out trans woman Caitlyn Jenner for her past views on gay marriage. She has even refused to invite Donald Trump on her show, but she still end up letting George W Bush back in 2017. The problem with this is that if you have to look at George W Bush’s Times when he was president and after.

On October 11 2000, during a presidential debate, George W Bush explains his opposition to gay marriage and believes that a marriage should only be between a man and a woman. He also said that LGBTQ people shouldn’t be given special rights or special protective status. However he did claim that he still wanted them to have equal rights which is so confusing to be honest. Bush’s than opponent Al Gore and his successor Barack Obama have all change their beliefs about gay marriage, but bush hasn’t. Bush has even shown his supper for conservative Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanuagh despite the numerous and sexual harassment against him. Not to mention that The US Supreme Court is deciding whether to allow employees to discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation. This case will cause deadly consequences towards the LGBTQ people (especially black trans woman) because it can affect their housing, their healthcare and the violence they are force to endure. If bigotry wins. Bush’s support of Kavanuagh contributed to it. he caused the biggest war which went around for decades on the basis of a lie for oil, than even sabotage the entire regions in the Middle East and Africa. His war on terror caused the death millions of civilians and casual refugees, that even today, nobody knows the exact number of how many were killed since the invasion that George W bush launched with Tony Blair. After 9/11, Muslim-Americans were detained for solely being Muslims and most of them were Muslims of colour. He also oversaw the inhumane tortures practices at Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay. When Hurricane Katrina hit and it’s damage cities like New Orleans where the majority of the population is African-American. Not to mention that 30% of the residents are poor. His actions reacting to Hurricane Katrina was his biggest humiliation next to the wars he wage in.

Ilhan Omar said that America had worst presidents before trump. The difference is Trump’s actions and policies are seen because that’s his choice to bring up to the world. many people seem to forget that George W Bush wasn’t this lovable grandpa who paints watercolours of dogs, give warm hugs and even doesn’t support the racism occurring in the trump era. No, George is guilty of war crimes against peace. He’s a war monger whose actions hasn’t changed since he left the office. If you’re friends with someone like Bush who has different beliefs and they say something that you know isn’t ok than it’s ok to call them out or better yet, stop being friends with them overall. Ellen DeGeneres friendship with George w Bush is a problem because it’s show celebrities only use activism to get praise or recognition but won’t call out on someone who caused a lot of damages.

#ellen degeneres #george w bush #republican party #democratic party #war crimes #hurricane katrina

4 notes · View notes

antoine-roquentin · 6 years ago

Text

US diplomats shaken by Trump decision to exit Syria

But US officials, speaking not for attribution, and Syria experts who consult with the US administration said that this time they believe Trump’s decision is real, and will not be reversed by a bureaucracy that has urged him to keep US forces in Syria longer.

“This time it’s real and truly catastrophic,” a US official, speaking not for attribution, told Al-Monitor. “The president is just done” and said "leave."

Trump’s decision to withdraw US forces from Syria came in the wake of a phone call between him and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Friday in which Erdogan said Turkish forces could finish off IS remnants and other terrorist groups, Syria experts said.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton met Monday, when Trump was said to formally decide on a US withdrawal from Syria. Multiple US officials argued against an abrupt US withdrawal, but were said to have given up trying to get Trump to change his mind by Tuesday night. US officials began to notify allies of the decision Tuesday.

“The push back from DOD, State and NSC stopped [Tuesday] night,” said one regional expert who consults with the US administration, referring to the Department of Defense, the State Department and the National Security Council....

“Amb. Jim Jeffrey … has long been advancing a Syria policy divorced from the president’s own views,” Wittes wrote on Twitter. “I don’t fault Jeffrey at all for trying to create some coherence and leverage to achieve desirable outcomes. But it was futile without Trump fully on board.”“

The other big US policy loser here, of course, is Pompeo/Bolton/Hook’s Iran policy of 'maximum pressure,'” Wittes added, referring to US envoy on Iran Brian Hook.

US approves Patriot missile sale worth $3.5bn to Turkey

The United States has said it approved a sale of $3.5bn in missiles to Turkey amid tensions between the NATO allies over Ankara's plans to buy them from Russia.

The State Department on Wednesday said it had informed the US Congress of plans to sell Turkey a Patriot package that includes 80 Patriot missiles, 60 PAC-3 missile interceptors and related equipment....

Ankara a year ago announced a deal to buy S-400 missiles from Russia, drawing rebuke from its allies in NATO, a bloc originally formed as a bulwark against the former Soviet Union.

A State Department official, talking to the AFP news agency, said Turkey was jeopardising participation in another US military programme - the coveted F-35 fighter jets - if the country still went ahead with the S-400 sale.

Turkey could also face sanctions on defence purchases under the US law if it goes ahead, the official reportedly said, on condition of anonymity.

Turkey Planning to Buy Both Russian and U.S.-Made Missiles

The U.S. had earlier resisted selling Turkey the Patriot because it objected to Ankara’s demand to share technology. But as tensions with Iran rise, it wants to bring the Turkish government more firmly within NATO’s orbit.

Ankara is trying to diversify defense suppliers, and one big advantage of the Russian systems is that it gives the buyer some control over the technology, unlike American counterparts, said Konstantin Makienko, deputy head of the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, a Moscow think tank.

“There is a 90 percent chance that the Russian contract on the S-400s will be implemented,” Makienko said. “They also may buy Patriots in the future.”

Erdogan says Turkish troops to march into northeast Syria (Dec 12)

The most curious facet of his speech was that he was telling the YPG in advance that he was going to attack it. “If you want to do something like that, you have to do it suddenly without announcement,” Hasan Koni, a professor of international law at Istanbul Kultur University, told Al-Monitor.

This suggested that Erdogan was testing the waters of international opinion, wanting to see how strongly the world would react.

“If (the United States) doesn’t let it happen, it doesn’t happen,” said opposition legislator Hisyar Ozsoy, deputy chairman of the Peoples’ Democratic Party, the pro-Kurdish and third-biggest party in Turkey....

But liberals said Erdogan is trying to divert attention away from the poor state of the economy, where unemployment is over 11%, inflation is 22% and the IMF says growth will be 0.4% next year. Turkey holds municipal elections March 31.

“Erdogan is in need of garnering the support of nationalist voters,” said Murat Ozcelik, a former Turkish ambassador to Iraq and special envoy to Iraq’s Kurdish region.

Ozcelik told Al-Monitor that he saw Erdogan’s announcement as “a gimmick more for domestic use rather than a real invasion.”

“I don’t think he will be able to do a major operation while US soldiers are there,” he said. “The best he can do is some attacks.”

Pointing to the announcement’s effect on the exchange rate, where the Turkish lira slightly strengthened against the US dollar Tuesday, closing at 5.36, Ozcelik added: “Even the markets didn’t buy it.”

However, HDP legislator Ozsoy said Erdogan should be taken seriously.

“He’s not bluffing,” Ozsoy told Al-Monitor. “If there’s no strong (world) reaction, he could do it.”

Ozsoy said this would not be the first time Erdogan begins an election campaign with a military operation. His campaign for the presidential elections in June began with his sending troops into northwest Syria in January, Ozsoy said.

14,000 strong FSA army ready for Turkey’s Euphrates op

The FSA completed its preparations for the operation on Wednesday, coinciding with Erdoğan’s announcement. FSA’s 14,000-strong force will serve as an advance guard and their numbers will increase once the operation begins.

The TAF’s commando and Special Forces units were informed that they would partake in the operation, and were allowed to visit their families before deploying.

Thirty armored personnel carriers dispatched from the border province of Kilis headed toward the Syria border, which is where they will be stationed. The convoy of military vehicles is protected by a wide range of security measures.

Over the past 15 days, military deployments to the Syrian border have been increased. Armored vehicles, tanks and personnel were deployed from Şanlıurfa to Akçakale.

Regime Axis Forces are withdrawing forces from Hama and Idlib and are sending them to Deir Ez Zor

Indeed. Posted today by an Assad's soldier "from Idlib to DeirEzzor".

2/ What the Kurdish population fears most at this stage is an Afrin-like scenario in the North of Syria. They fear that Turkey and Turkey backed rebels will take control of territories in Northern Syria currently controlled by SDF/ YPG.

3/ Without U.S. in their areas, Kurds will try to reconcile with Syrian gov. However deal is not guaranteed. As we've seen earlier in Afrin, Kurds wanted deal with Syrian gov to avoid Turkey attack. But Russians blocked it as they were looking for better relations with Turkey.

4/ Situation bit differnet now from Afrin as Russia might be annoyed by Turkey purchase of $3.5 billion of U.S. weapons. In all cases, with sudden withdrawal of U.S. troops, Kurds are in position of weakness. Any deal with Damascus better for Kurds than Turkish offensive.

Islamic State kills 700 prisoners in east Syria: Syrian Observatory

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Wednesday that Islamic State militants had executed nearly 700 prisoners in nearly two months in eastern Syria.

The UK-based war monitoring group said the prisoners were among 1,350 civilians and fighters that Islamic State had been holding in territory near the Iraqi border.

2/ Trump is going to hand over north eastern Syria to Turkey and its local Sunni extremist mercenary forces who hate the Kurds, like militias from Der Ezzor who are part of Euphrates Shield forces, in addition to Jeish al Islam remnants from Douma.

3/ This will create the perfect zone for a revival of ISIS and similar forces who will have a second chance to pursue their goals and threaten the fragile stability that was emerging in Iraq and Syria.

quite shocked that trump didn’t listen to his neocon advisors for once. 2.5 likely options i see. one is re-integration with the syrian state in the model of reconciliation agreements. collapse of socialist pyd economy back into syrian neoliberal capitalism. sdf military formations are integrated into syrian govt ones, disbanded, go underground, or are moved to safe zones in iraq. syrian police are integrated with local police to a degree, but likely continue harassment, torture, and execution of political dissidents as in days before. no ethnic cleansing, which is preferable. two is turkish invasion and partition of syria long-term along the lines of cyprus. locals considered undesirable are ethnically cleansed, political reliables are resettled on the cleared territory, relieving population pressures in idlib and in refugee camps in turkey itself. since a syrian govt attack would activate nato protocols, it can never be retaken. refugees forced on iraq and syria, straining those governments in the near-term. would also be another blow to the saudi axis in favour of the qatari one, given that the saudis maintain troops in sdf territory. perhaps some kind of international incident. 0.5 is an isis resurgence that manages to beat back both syrian and turkish offensives and holds its own, leading to major embarrassment for trump and a renewed american military commitment. unlikely, but possible.

46 notes · View notes

ultralaser · 6 years ago

Photo

a shoet timeline of the notre dame fire on social media today. VICTOR HUGO FANS - even the darkest night will end and the sun will rise. WHITE PPL - this is heartbreaking, a true tragedy, even though we know they will spend millions to rebuild instead of taking in refugees. BLACK TWITTER - literally four of our churches were burned down //this week//, was that even in the news, let alone a tragedy? MARXIST TUMBLR - let us not mourn for this monument to a former empire's stolen riches, justice for haiti. GLENN BECK - the mere existence of poor muslims in france is enough to justify my orientalist fearmongering, read all about the looming french caliphate in my new book 'alex jones stole my whole schtick and now i look like a racist mall santa', justice for charlie hebdo. AD ALGORITHMS - all this talk about notre dame, don't forget to watch the new les mis, streaming now on pbs! #notredame #tekwar #victorhugo #architecture #empire https://www.instagram.com/p/BwUUVmZAFFW/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=1diikh2op1koq

#notredame #tekwar #victorhugo #architecture #empire

2 notes · View notes

two-are-the-trees · 6 years ago

Text

Deeper Analysis: “It’s a Good Life” from The Twilight Zone

Ok so I mentioned in my last Twilight Zone episode countdown that I was going to talk further about this particular episode, which happens to be, in my opinion, the scariest episode of the entire series. It’s an episode deviod of outright visual horror, devoid of aliens or robots or voices from the grave, and yet it remains utterly bone-chilling for audiences even today. And perhaps it is especially today’s audience that can really begin to understand the horrible significance of this story.

The episode begins strangely. Rather than showing us a short scene to introduce the characters and setting before Rod Serlin’s introduction, Rod comes out and addresses the audince directly, claiming that this episode of The Twilight Zone is “somewhat unique.” He states that a small town has been cut off from the rest of the world by a “monster” and then goes on to explain how the monster can create and destroy things according to his every whim using only his mind, and that everyone in town lives in fear of his power and cruelty. This opening is jarring and unnerving right of the bat, as Rod Serling’s strange emphasis on the importance of this episode indicates that even the host himself regards this one with a particularly serious air. We are left, too, in suspense about who or what the monster actually is, as Rod Serling saves this bit of information for the very end of his introduction. And rightly so as we learn, much to our surprise, that the monster is merely a child, a child that happens to have psychic abilites. Immediately the uncanny atmosphere with which the episode began increases tenfold as we are left to wonder what terrible events could have unfolded for Rod Serling to unflinchingly call this child a monster.

Well as it turns out, a child with psychic powers is actually the perfect recipe for a monster. Anthony, the monster in question, being a child with a limited sense of how the adult world operates and with no sense of responsibility, abuses his complete control over this town. Characters mention that they are running low on certain supplies like soap and alcohol, specifically because Anthony, being a child, sees no need for these things and therefore doesn’t allow them into his closed-off town.

It’s also clear that Anthony has had his powers from an early age, as it appears he has been raised with this power in mind. He has no compassion, empathy, or consideration for others, an indication that he has never been disciplined or extensively educated in these matters for fear of his powers. Because of this, he uses these powers however he wants, which usually involves torture and violence. He creates horrible creatures like three-headed gophers, mutates farm animals, and kills any animal he doesn’t like. When he “makes TV” for all his neighbors, he creates a violent program of one dinosaur brutally killing another.

But the most terrible part of this episode is Anthony’s violence against other humans in town. All of the adults are petrified by Anthony, and force themselves to smile all the time all constantly repeat that anything Anthony does is a “real good thing” no matter how horrible. The reason for this is because Anthony can read peoples’ minds and if he hears any “bad thoughts” in anyone’s head, he will do unspeakable things to them. In one scene, Anthony recalls a time when someone had a bad thought about him and had to “make him go on fire.” He also dulled his own aunt’s mind and severly limited her mental capabilities for the same reason. Therefore, all the townspeople have essentially brainwashed themselves into behaving in a cheery manner all the time to avoid accidently thinking a bad thought. The images of some of these people forcing themselves to smile and say “It’s a real good thing!” even through their tears of anguish is devestating to watch and creates an escalating feeling of tension and fear. This all comes to a head when one man finally snaps, hoping that someone will finally work up the nerve to kill Anthony, but alas no one does and Anthony turns him into a nightmarish jack-in-the-box, which still retains the man’s lifeless head.

Anthony’s power and violence is entirely dependent on his whim and is impossible to predict, hence the reason why he has so thoroughly enslaved everyone in his town. He claims, “I hate anyone who doesn’t like me!” and doesn’t hesitate a moment to punish or exclude those who don’t line up in accordance to his every petty desire. At the end of the episode, he decides to make it snow simply because he wants to, not understanding, or not caring, that it will ruin half of the town’s crops, dooming everyone to possible starvation.

Rod Serling ends this episode by simply saying “no comment.” A wise move, perhaps, as it encourages the audience to do a little more thinking if they want to find a meaning in this episode for themselves. And while there are a lot of different people, places, and periods in history we can draw comparisons to, I think the scariest notion of all is how many comparisons we can draw between the monstrous Anthony and one Donald Trump.

Firstly their upbringing or “privilege.” It’s no surprise that Donald Trump clearly did not recieve an education on tact or compassion during his childhood. Growing up wanting for nothing in a wealthy family (with a 1 million dollar from his dad I might add) Trump obviously has tremendous amounts of power and privilege over others inherently, in the same way that Anthony has had his ability to control others from an early age. Trump and Anthony use this power and privilege in a similar way; bullying and intimidation. Trump has been known to show cruelty toward disadvantaged groups (the poor, the disabled, refugees, the list goes on and on) and has no compassion where it is required of him (mass shootings, the California fires, ect.) much like how Anthony shows cruelty toward animals. They seemingly lack any sort of empathy. Obviously there are those in positions of power that do have empathy and compassion, however, those who were raised with unhindered power with no discipline or instruction on how to behave will exhibit behavior like that of Trump and Anthony.

Secondly is their threatening and manipulative nature. Seeing as how I am writing this post during the third longest government shutdown in U.S. history, a shutdown caused entirely by Trump’s unfounded desire to build a border wall that no one else approves of, I already have a pretty solid comparison. Trump’s tendancy to gravitate toward drastic measures, much like how Anthony constantly threatens violence, has everyone in a constant panic that he will upset the delicate balance of government. Trump has caused foreign relations scares in the past with his feuding with North Korea and he threatens that he will continue the government shutdown indefinitely, leaving thousands of government employees without pay and sending the economy into a spiral. Much like Anthony’s drastic displays of power, Trump’s constant threats leave the public in a constant state of unease.

Lastly, and this was the comparison that first led me to think more about this episode in the first place, is the very clear way in which these two figures cannot or choose not to understand anything that lies outside their selfish desires. Trump’s arrogance is plain; his giant gold towers and planes with his name in bold lettering on the side, his engaging with people personally on twitter when they insult him, his outrage at the many many unflattering pictures of him in circulation. His self-obsession is exactly comprable to this spoiled child in The Twilight Zone, as Anthony outright states that he hates people who don’t like him and gets incredibly angry whenever something doesn’t go his way (again, Trump’s government shutdown *cough*). They both ignore the needs of those around them, as Anthony does not provide things like soap and Trump does not provide things like healthcare or comprehesive rights for underprivileged groups. And no comparison can be clearer than the terrible effect these two have on the environment. The fear in the townspeople’s eyes as Anthony ruins all of their crops with his desire for snow reminds us all of the impending disasters that will come with climate change and Trump’s lack of environmental protection policies.

So perhaps I should end this discussion as Rod Serling did, by simply stating “no comment,” but I do have to note that I find it more than a little distressing that there are several notable and significant comparisons that one can draw between Anthony “the monster,” a dangerously spoiled and selfish child with no understanding of how the world works and a tendency for cruelty and destruction, and Donald Trump, the current president of the United States. And clear too are the comparisons between the townspeople who back down at the opportunity to finally stand up to Anthony and the conservatives who refuse to call out Trump for his irresponsible and reprehensible actions.

Perhaps, for our own peace of mind, these speculations are best left in The Twilight Zone.

#Gothic #The Twilight Zone #analysis #sci fi #my thoughts

7 notes · View notes

aliceviceroy · 6 years ago

Link

I don’t want to call myself a Christian anymore. To clarify, I don’t want to be known as an American Evangelical Christian. For years, I wore that label comfortably and confidently, as it has been the core of my identity since my earliest memories. But now, that label makes me uncomfortable, and even disgusted, and I want the rest of my life to be defined by something very different.

As a child, my Christian faith was just as much a part of my identity as my brown hair, my shyness, and my love of softball. My family was at church every Sunday, we prayed before dinner, and read the Bible before bed. I went to church camps, youth retreats, and Christian concerts. I attended a Christian high school, and pledged a Christian sorority in college. The Christian label accompanied a good majority of my activities, even through early adulthood.

Today, as a not-so-young adult and a mother, I find a lot about my Christian upbringing problematic. And now, in 2017, my eyes are wide open to how much of the world views my faith, and in many ways I don’t disagree with that perception. I’m horrified and embarrassed at the ways American Christianity is promoting nationalism, political agendas totally contradictory to Christ’s teachings, and a president who in no way represents the Jesus I was taught to love.

The adults who mandated I wear a one piece swimsuit to church camp (to fulfill some arbitrary standard of “modesty”) also cemented a core belief that sex outside of marriage is sinful and damaging. And I believed them. I followed all the rules and wore the right clothes. I saved myself until marriage, which had it’s own far-reaching consequences, regardless of how Biblically I behaved. And then, many of these same adults endorsed Donald Trump for president, even after undeniable evidence that he is an adulterer, misogynist, and sexual assaulter. And I am devastated.

The Christian leaders who taught me that every life is sacred, who sang Jesus loves the little children...all are precious in his sight, are silent or make flimsy excuses about escalating racism and police brutality in our country. They celebrate travel bans that discriminate based on religion, but are all for Christians being able to discriminate because of their religion. They boast tagline in their church bulletins saying Come as You Are...but wait, not if you’re gay.

I will never understand how so many Christians who have worn, marked up Bibles and prayer journals continue to support the political party who seems intent on destroying access to healthcare for the most vulnerable Americans. The poor and disabled in this country (as well as millions of children) are facing massive cuts to Medicaid. Without Medicaid, how are these people going to get the healthcare they need to live? For those that say it’s the church’s job to take care of the sick and poor, where is the evidence for that being a sustainable, long term solution? Because right now, the church is missing the need by a long shot. I don’t believe the church has a responsibility to pay my child’s exorbitant medical bills, but I do believe as a Christian, I have a responsibility to graciously contribute to the programs that are capable of meeting those needs. Most of the time, that means I pay my taxes so programs like Medicaid can exist to take care of the poor and disabled.

I feel like a child who has discovered her parents have been lying to her for decades. How could I have missed this? How did I not realize how off I was about the religion that shaped the path of my entire life? How do I reconcile that both elders and peers in my faith think a president who bullies journalists, mocks the disabled, and repeatedly disparages women’s physical appearances is perfectly acceptable, so long as he is “pro-life”, “pro-Israel” and “pro-America”? It seems to me that the selling out of an entire religious moral code is a steep price to pay for a Supreme Court nominee or two.

I’ve been told I need to pray for our leaders. What exactly am I praying for? Because prayer alone isn’t going to fix the mess that our country is in. Prayer alone isn’t going to save Medicaid for millions. Prayer isn’t going to allow refugees fleeing terror to enter our country. Prayer isn’t going to give a desperate woman seeking an abortion resources and support so she is able to keep her baby. And prayer certainly isn’t going to take away Trump’s twitter and keep him from acting like a junior high boy with no filter. So yes, I will pray. But I’m also going to do something.

I’m not going to hide behind my Bible, or my privilege, and stay quiet about injustice because it may not impact me personally. I’m not going to show up at church on Sunday, talk about God with a bunch of people just like me, and pretend that makes me a good Christian, or even a good person. I’m not going to stay out of politics, despite being whispered about behind my back by pearl-clutching Christians who find “liberal” and “Jesus” to be incompatible terms. The Jesus I know was loving, fair, and gentle, but he was also bold. And political.

I really don’t know where I go from here. I’m frustrated, angry, and lonely. I’ve lost friends, and the foundation of my entire life has been cracked, probably irreparably. I don’t know how to answer my children’s spiritual questions, because none of my answers feel genuine anymore. But I’ve decided I don’t need all the answers immediately, and I’m content to be discontent and wandering a bit right now. I may be disillusioned by religion, but I don’t doubt God and His power in my life. I also don’t doubt that He loves me, even with my instinct to walk away. I still want to be a Christian, but need a new definition of what that truly means.

#christianity #ex-christian #fuck christianity

5 notes · View notes

kmtam · 6 years ago

Text

I just listened to this podcast, The Good Fight, which this week is about Sweden’s upcoming elections. I realize this topic isn’t super exciting for most people who read my dumb blog — although I suspect it’ll make global headlines, so you may become interested anyway — but if you’ve got a little time and you’re interested in the rise of right-wing populism, it’s worth a listen.

Here are some of my thoughts.

My book is significantly about social democratic politics. I did the bulk of my fieldwork in Sweden in 2005-2006, and I went back regularly in the years that followed, when the center-right Conservative party (Moderaterna) was in power. The Sweden Democrats, the right-wing populist party with roots in neo-Nazi organizations, were somewhat of an uncomfortable joke back then. They’re a party full of racists, led by a young, telegenic asshole named Jimmie Åkesson, and while they were making some waves at the local level, there was very little discussion that they’d ever make it big in national politics. Some worry, sure, but not much active fear. They’re literally only mentioned once in my book, in a footnote.

Now, on Sunday, the Sweden Democrats are poised to win big in the Swedish election, though of course we don’t know yet what will happen. And the question everyone outside Sweden seems to be asking is, why? What has happened that has shifted this historically tolerant, left-leaning country to embrace the barely-disguised virulence of nationalist white supremacists? And the answers folks come up with are all relatively predictable: immigration, the 2015 refugee crisis, rising crime rates, worry that the welfare state can’t afford these new “freeloaders,” etc. There’s more there, of course, and I’ll get to it, but I think that, while these familiar surface reasons matter, they’re also mostly wrong. Here’s why.

Sweden has taken in asylum seekers and other immigrants since the 1960s. That initial wave came mostly from Eastern Europe, and significantly from Poland, which was engaged in anti-Semitic pogroms at the time. This wave was followed by other waves, all the way up through the 2015 refugee crisis. Yet never before in those 50+ years has national politics turned to right-wing, anti-immigrant demagoguery to redress the issue. Of course one might say, well, those initial waves were made up of other white Europeans (Poland, Finland, the former Yugoslavia), and the refugees now are mostly non-white, so this is about racism — and that’s partly right. But other waves since the 1990s have included large populations from Somalia, Iraq, Turkey, and elsewhere — many non-white people, many Muslims, just like in 2015. This isn’t to say that these waves of immigration haven’t caused all sort of political strife in Sweden, but that the response has never involved turning to explicitly anti-immigrant electoral politics as a solution to the perceived problem. In other words, while racism is a part of the current situation, it’s not THE cause, nor is racism particularly new in Sweden. The new thing here is this turn to racism specifically in electoral politics, and that’s what needs to be explained.

I should say that along with all of those other immigration waves, the same rhetoric was used: the welfare state can’t afford them; they need to assimilate; they’re both very lazy and steal our jobs (not entirely dissimilar from what we hear in the US). This rhetoric is just as wrong now as it’s always been. Sweden, like the rest of Europe, has a population problem, and if Swedes want to keep their generous and robust welfare state going, they need the population to increase at a much higher rate than natural births can accommodate, and the only way to do that is through immigration. Without immigrants, the welfare state will eventually shrink and collapse in on itself, which means rather than being a drain on the system, immigrants are, in the long term, the system’s saviors.

So Sweden has undergone decades of immigration, including immigration from the Middle East and Africa, and white Swedes have used all sort of racist language and actions during each of those waves, but the anti-immigrant populists have never gained any power in parliament until very recently. If immigration isn’t new, and racism isn’t new, what makes now different?

I think there are two main answers to this question, both of which are mostly boring, but very real (and the podcast I started off with lands in a similar spot). The first is the steady degradation of the Social Democratic party. In the final decades of the 20th century, we saw the same basic pattern all over Europe and the Anglophone world: formerly left-leaning parties, including the Social Democrats, dazzled by the promises of financialization and globalization, turned to increasingly neoliberal governing strategies otherwise favored by center-right parties. The reasons they did this are complicated, but one result, electorally speaking, is that party brands ended up very muddied in a mishmash of left and right policy ideas with no coherent through-line (we saw this with the Democrats in the US, too). This move did lead to some initial electoral success in some cases, but in the long run it left these parties without any real, clear message or platform. This in turn ended up shunting voters more leftward and rightward, seeking parties that were much more earnest about the clarity of their politics (in the US, since we only have two parties, this process has worked out a bit differently). In Sweden, the Social Democrats themselves, the party that built the world’s strongest welfare state, spent the turn-of-the-century years remodeling it, generally with tasteless decor and poor craftsmanship, to the point where it was virtually unrecognizable from its former glorious form. Why vote for them, when there are plenty of parties on the right willing to do the same shitty renovations, and a few on the left who will argue for making the welfare state even stronger?

So I think the degradation of the Social Democratic party in Sweden — which has been in power for most of the last 90 years or so — and the effects that’s had on how other parties align and adapt, has set very specific conditions that impact how Swedes think about party politics today. But I think the much, much bigger issue in the current election, as it was in ours in 2016, is social media. Like, for real — this is a common and banal observation, to be sure, but I think we are all severely underestimating how much this matters. Had Facebook and YouTube been around (or as powerful) when waves of asylum seekers arrived in Sweden from Iraq and East Africa, I think we would have seen then what we’re seeing now. Like I said, racism isn’t new: people and their bigotry haven’t changed much; but the ability to spread that bigotry, to manipulate it, and to introduce and amplify lies and deceptions and exaggerations that then directly affect how people vote, that is something new, and mostly facilitated by social media.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the recent rise in right-wing populism tracks neatly with the growth of Facebook and other social media, both in Sweden and globally. Remember, I said earlier that the Sweden Democrats (the anti-immigrant party) were around, but were not taken very seriously, when I lived in Sweden in 2005-2006. Back then, most of us were still on MySpace. Facebook didn’t open to the general public until September 2006. YouTube’s first video was uploaded in 2005, and the company wasn’t bought by Google until late 2006. Twitter didn’t launch until July 2006. At that point the Sweden Democrats had no representation in parliament. But four years later, in 2010, they got over 5% of the vote, and in 2014 they got almost 10%. They’re expected to get around 20% on Sunday, which, if you’re paying attention, is basically a doubling of support in each election. I highly doubt this rate of growth would be possible absent the specific capacities of contemporary social media.

This is terrifying to me. I’ve been a Facebook skeptic from the start and I never joined, but that was mostly for other, mostly abstract reasons, like “I don’t want a corporation directly mediating my friendships!” I still feel that way, but looking back on it, I don’t think I had any idea how devastating the actual practical effects of this technology could be. And at this point I don’t really care about discerning whether social media spreads racism that already exists, and is thus merely a vector, or if it creates racism that didn’t exist before (my money is on “it’s both!”). That’s mostly (though not entirely) an academic distinction. What matters is that racism and hatred are clearly on the rise, and on the rise in formal institutions that have the power and authority to do some very bad things in the world at a scale I’ve never seen in my lifetime. And social media is playing a starring role in this drama. And none of us have any idea what to do about it.

#sweden #election

25 notes · View notes

earlyandoftenpodcast · 6 years ago

Link

(Now known as Fraunces Tavern, this Manhattan building was originally constructed in 1719 by Stephen DeLancey, founder of one of the most prominent merchant families in the colony. After the War of Independence, it was the site of Washington’s farewell to his officers.)

In this episode, we take a general look at political life in New York during the later colonial period, from the development of caucuses to a particularly spirited election full of parades, Quakers, and booze.

>>>Direct audio link<<<

(iTunes) (Spotify) (Podbean) (Libsyn) (YouTube) (WordPress) (Twitter)

Transcript and Sources:

Hello, and welcome to Early and Often: The History of Elections in America. Episode 33: Empire State of Play.

Over the last few episodes, we followed New England from the 1690s to the 1760s. Today, we’re going to begin our next series of episodes, covering the history of New York over the same time period, an era of confused politics and chaotic factionalism. But before we jump into the narrative, I want to spend this episode talking about New York’s culture and political life in general, plus look at the early development of caucuses, a caucus being a convention in which parties or factions meet to decide who they want to run for office. Caucuses will be an important feature of American politics in the future, and it was around this time that they first started to meet in the bigger cities.

These next few episodes will draw in particular on the book A Factious People: Politics and Society in Colonial New York by Patricia U. Bonomi.

So, we last left New York in the 1690s, just after Leisler’s Rebellion had been fully suppressed. And now, New York was entering its next phase of history, a time of factionalism where new alliances formed and dissolved almost every decade.

Let’s start with the basics. What was New York like at this time? Well, for one thing, it was still pretty unpopulated. Around 1700, there were 18,000 colonists in New York, with a quarter of those in New York City and a further 1,700 in Albany, the second largest city. For comparison, that’s like a third of the population of Massachusetts at the time. It wasn’t even as big as Connecticut.

Economically, the colony was dominated by two main groups: the big merchants out of New York City and Albany, and the big landowners in the Hudson Valley between New York City and Albany. Most colonies only had one economic elite, but New York had two, which added to the factionalism New York was to experience that century.

Culturally, despite the fact that New York bordered New England, it was a very different sort of place. It was mercantile, materialistic, and rather irreligious, just like it had been under the Dutch. It was also increasingly diverse and increasingly divided against itself. More so than most of the other colonies, New York was just an arbitrary geographic designation, which didn’t particularly match any of the actual cultural borders that existed.

After the conquest, English settlers had begun moving into New York City, but up the Hudson River there was still a very substantial Dutch population. New York City became majority English by the early 1700s, but Albany and its surrounding areas were over 90% Dutch. And you had diversity among the English as well; the Puritans on Long Island had much more in common with New England than with the rest of New York. Plus there were a bunch of other random ethnicities sprinkled on top of that, Germans and French Protestant refugees and so on.

These were all very different groups. In New York City itself they mixed together and intermarried, but in the rest of the colony they often stuck to themselves. That’s why the Dutch language survived well into the 1800s -- the Dutch settlers kept to themselves. And anti-Dutch prejudice survived as well. One advertisement for workers in 1807 stated that “No Dutchman need apply unless he is pretty well Yankeyfied.” So there was both integration and separation, depending on where you were.

But despite the lingering Dutch presence, by now the English influence was really being felt, especially in government. The legal system was finally switched over to English common law in 1691 and there were now elections, both at the local and provincial levels. And although the Dutch settlers came from a very different political culture, they eventually became accustomed to the new way of doing things.

And King William had finally given New York a normal colonial government after the arbitrary rule of James II. A governor plus an appointed council of about 10 men plus an elected lower house which was just called the Assembly. The Assembly started off with 19 men, but that number grew to 31 by the end of the colonial period. 4 representatives came from New York City, and the counties sent 2 delegates each, plus a few from the large manorial estates, which I’ll talk about later. It wasn’t exactly equal by population, but all the different interest groups in the colony were pretty well represented in the Assembly.

Like in the southern colonies, the governor had the authority to dismiss the Assembly and to call for new elections when he wished, which significantly reduced the Assembly’s independence. They controlled taxes, but they found it difficult to control how the governor actually spent that money, especially in the early years.

The men elected or appointed to these positions mostly came from the upper class of lawyers, merchants, and officials, both Dutch and English. In fact, more than 85% of Assembly members came from the upper classes, and a third came from the elite -- the big time merchants and landowners. A standard enough colonial ruling class.

Over the 1690s and early 1700s, they worked out the laws which would regulate elections going forward.

The voting requirements were a bit more complex than normal. There were a lot of tenant farmers and the standard 40 shilling freehold requirement would have excluded them. So instead of having to own your own land outright, it was also acceptable if you merely had a lifelong lease on land worth 40 shillings a year, which included many but not all tenant farmers. And because the urban population was so large, there were separate requirements to vote if you lived in either Albany or New York City. Basically you had to either pay a small fee, or go through training as an apprentice. And sometimes they waived the fee if you were poor.

So in practice a lot of people could vote, probably a majority of white men. Less than in New England, but still a majority. A disproportionate number of the voters were in the cities, since the requirements there were easier to meet. At the end of the colonial period, almost 70% of white men in New York City could vote, versus well under 50% in some of the rural counties.

Catholics were forbidden from voting, but the situation with Jews was more complicated. Jews had been voting in New York, but in the 1730s there was a disputed election in which their right to do so was challenged. While the Assembly was deciding the case, someone made an impassioned speech arguing that Jews shouldn’t have the vote, because that was the tradition in England, and also because the Jews killed Jesus. Apparently that was enough to sway the Assembly, which ruled against the Jews. Although there are some later records of Jews voting as well, so it’s not clear how strictly that prohibition was ever enforced.

Turnout was typically in the range of 20-40%, which was high considering what a pain voting was in such a large colony. Turnout was higher in New York City, sometimes above 50%, but lower in the Dutch areas further north. Like in New England, turnout was negatively correlated with income. The rich voted less than everyone else. Also like in New England, there wasn’t much in the way of class divisions in voting. Rich and poor men both largely voted for the same people.

Naturally, Dutch voters tended to vote for Dutch candidates, and English voters for English candidates.

So here’s how an election in New York would work. At some point the governor would dissolve the old Assembly and call for new elections. Strictly speaking, he could just dissolve the Assembly without calling for new elections, but that was rare, since the whole point of dissolving an Assembly was to get a new Assembly that would be more likely to pass your desired legislation.

Anyway, after the election was called, word was sent out to the sheriffs of the various counties. The sheriffs were then given a deadline: they had to hold elections by a certain date, usually within 6 weeks of the announcement. The actual election date wasn’t specified, and it varied from county to county. It was thought best to give sheriffs some discretion in picking the exact date, since, for example, recent flooding in the county might cut off some of the voters from the polling site, so a delay would help make sure that everyone could vote.

But of course, this sort of power could be abused. Instead of picking a date that ensured everyone could vote, a sheriff might pick a date in which fewer people could vote. If part of the county was cut off by flooding, then you might schedule a vote as quickly as possible, if you thought that it would help you or your friends win. As we’ll see, controlling the sheriffs was an important part of controlling elections in general. If you had the sheriffs in your pocket, then you could manipulate things as you wished.

And there were other sorts of trickery as well, from threatening voters to shipping in people from outside the county to vote. In another instance, one candidate tried to trick the supporters of his opponent into leaving the county on election day by luring them away with fake business deals.

Anyway, once the election date had been announced, then it was time to figure out who was actually running. The process was quite different than in New England. In New England, it was generally expected that people wouldn’t even announce their own candidacies. Instead, the ideal was that the townsfolk would meet and discuss among themselves who should serve. Then, a vote would be taken. Rational men deciding things rationally, without any partisan interference. In theory, the candidates themselves had nothing to do with the process, and in fact the towns did often nominate people who didn’t wish to serve, which we know because the nominees often turned down the job, which meant that the towns had to vote again.

But in New York and the rest of the colonies, it was becoming standard practice to announce your candidacy in advance, whether by making an announcement at your local church meeting, putting a notice on the courthouse door, or placing an ad in the newspaper.

However, it wasn’t just that individuals would decide to run on their own initiative. Often the prominent men of the county would talk among themselves beforehand to decide on a candidate that they could all support. These discussions included not only the richest guys in the county, but other important men as well, such as government officials and clergy. So, in many cases the real decisions were being made privately, before the average voter ever had a chance to give his opinion. Ideally, a single candidate would be put forward, but in times of factionalism, each faction would pick its own nominee and then voters would decide between them.

This was a fairly informal way of choosing candidates. Not much more than some letters being sent back and forth between these prominent men. But it was quickly proving to be inadequate in larger towns like New York City, Boston, or Charleston. There were just too many people involved for that kind of open ended discussion to be practical. And so the colonists came up with the idea of caucuses. That is, instead of just sending letters to each other, the leaders of a particular faction would physically get together in a room to decide on who they’d support.

There aren’t any clear records of when the first caucus was held, since at the time it would’ve just been some guys meeting together in secret. The first one we know of for sure took place in Charleston in 1735, but there are indications that they may have occurred in Boston during the 1720s, and maybe even earlier in New York. We don’t really know how big they were or who attended. They weren’t exactly open to the public.

We do have a description of a later caucus in Boston in 1763, from none other than John Adams. “There they smoke tobacco till you cannot see from one End of the Garrett to the other. There they drink Phlip [a cocktail] I suppose, and there they choose a Moderator, who puts Questions to the Vote regularly, and Selectman, Assessors, Collectors, Wardens, Fire Wards, and Representatives are Regularly chosen before they are chosen in the Town.” So, it was a literal smoke filled room where leaders would secretly make deals to get people elected, well out of the public eye, just like the later stereotypes of how political parties chose their candidates well into the 20th century.

Naturally, people complained about this sort of behavior. If the factions all nominated their candidates in advance, then the choices of the average voter were restricted. They could vote for someone else, but most of the time that would be a useless gesture, like voting for a third party today. But there wasn’t much that could be done to stop it, short of breaking up the caucus meetings, and that would just cause even bigger problems.

In New York City, the first regular caucuses were held in the 1730s. During that decade, the colony was divided into factions either supporting the governor or supporting some of his opponents in the Assembly. Both factions began to hold caucuses to choose their candidates, announcing their picks in the newspaper.

At first these meetings were small, limited to a few men, but over time the number of men attending grew and grew, until by the 1760s, they were practically open to the public. What had started out as a private affair was coming to resemble a proper political party, with mass participation. Well, a few hundred men wasn’t exactly mass participation, but still.

This sort of process happened in all of the big cities in America. Not every caucus had become an open meeting like in New York City, but the basic idea was similar. Outside of the big cities caucuses were still rare, except in Rhode Island. There, caucusing had become standard by the 1740s.

But once the candidates had been chosen, whether by caucus or otherwise, there wasn’t yet that much in the way of campaigning, at least not in the way we think of it. No political rallies, no going door to door, no debates, nothing like that. If you had to campaign it was a bad sign. In the words of one New Yorker, “To ask a man for his Vote is a Confession in the Candidate that he is suspicious of his own merit. 'Tis proof of his Apprehensions that the Sense of the Public is against him.” You still had to put in an effort, you just couldn’t be so open about it. You might give voters food and drink, you might hire carriages to take voters to the polling site, but you couldn’t just go around and tell people why they should vote for you.

An odd set of norms by modern standards, but I suppose it made sense at the time. In any case, even if you weren’t “campaigning”, running a campaign was still a very expensive proposition.

Let me give you one example in particular, an unusually intense election in 1733 to fill a vacant seat in Westchester County, just north of New York City. On one side you had Lewis Morris, who had recently been dismissed from the supreme court by the governor, and was looking to vindicate himself by being elected to the Assembly. On the other side, you had William Forester, a schoolmaster who was backed by the governor. A classic example of factionalism in colonial New York.

Morris planned for this election very carefully. The sheriff was friendly to the governor’s faction, and so Morris had 50 men camp out overnight around the election site to make sure that the election wasn’t secretly held before he and his supporters had actually arrived. He organized multiple parades to bring in voters from every part of the county.

According to historian Nicholas Varga, when the men arrived that morning, “At the edge of the green, a new point was added to the parade. Two trumpeters rode at the head of the column; then came three violins; next came four "leading" freeholders. One of the freeholders waved a banner which had "King George" emblazoned in gold capitals on one side and "Liberty and Law" on the other. Following these came the candidate, Lewis Morris. Two flags were carried behind him. Then came the body of the parade which reportedly included about three hundred horsemen. They all circled the green three times. After so brave a show, the formation disbanded to consume the food and drink which Morris had thoughtfully provided at two nearby houses. One can well imagine the backslapping, guffaws and shouted greetings which must have punctuated the gulps of food and swallows of liquor.”

A little while later, William Forester's parade arrived, but it was a much less spectacular affair, with only 170 horsemen. Both sides shouted insults at each other. This sort of behavior was common. In another election, one voter threatened to cut out the tongues of anyone who voted for the opposition candidate. But I think it’s safe to say that this was all just trash talk, rather than serious threats.

The sheriff arrived at noon and everyone finished up their food and booze and walked out onto the village green. After another two hours, everything was set up and the voting began. Men lined up and made their votes out loud, so that everyone could hear, while inspectors from each faction watched to make sure that the vote was properly counted.

37 Quakers were disqualified from voting because they refused to swear that they met the property requirements. Remember, Quakers refused to swear oaths for religious reasons, which could cause them legal problems. They were often allowed to vote anyway, but in this case the sheriff wanted to exclude them in order to weaken Lewis Morris’s vote count as much as possible. But anyway the year after this a law was passed allowing Quakers to vote.

Normally the voting only took a few hours at most, but this time things dragged on for nine full hours. It was clear that Morris, the former supreme court justice, was going to win, but Forester refused to concede defeat, so the count kept going and going until he finally gave in, when the vote was 231 to 151. The winner was announced, the crowd applauded, and everyone went to celebrate in the nearest tavern.

Two days later, Morris made a triumphant entrance into New York City, as his supporters cheered and merchant ships fired their cannons in the harbor.

Most elections wouldn’t have been that dramatic. Most elections probably weren’t contested at all. But I think that still gives you an idea of what things were like, and how elections in New York differed from those in New England. Rowdier, shoutier, but still ultimately well behaved, even if there were a few punches thrown sometimes. And the candidates spent a lot more on food and alcohol.

There’s one other topic we need to discuss real quick: local government.

Unlike in most of the other colonies, local government in New York was a complicated mishmash. Most colonies had a standard unit of administration -- towns in New England, counties in the Chesapeake -- but in New York local government had developed organically over time, without much in the way of centralized control, partly because the settlements were so spread out, partly because of the frequent changes in government, and partly because there had never been a colony-level assembly to sort things out. As a result, local governments in New York had a lot of independence, independence that they didn’t want to give up, so the system was never fully rationalized.

There were only two cities in the province: New York and Albany. They had similar governments. The governor, with the approval of the council, appointed for each city a mayor, sheriff, clerks, and other offices as needed. The voters in each town elected a number of aldermen -- basically city councilmen -- plus some other minor officials. So it was a lot like the government of New York itself, with an executive appointed from outside and a legislature elected from within the city itself.

Given the importance of New York City especially, these offices were very important and they were frequently filled by some of the most prominent men from some of the most prominent families.

In Albany, the government was controlled by local Dutch merchants, who had a monopoly on the fur trade.

Outside of the cities, New York was divided into large counties. At first, these counties were run by officials appointed by the governor: sheriffs and justices of the peace and so on. But over the course of the century, elected officials gradually took charge, leaving the unelected officials with little to do.

These counties were then subdivided into smaller units, either towns or precincts. Towns if the population was dense enough, precincts if the area was rural. The towns, especially the Puritan towns, were governed somewhat similarly to the towns in New England, with annual town meetings where the citizens could vote on important matters and elect officials. The men they elected were called trustees instead of selectmen, but otherwise I think things were close enough.

The precincts also elected a few officials of their own, such as constables and overseers of the poor, though not as many officials as in the towns.

And on top of this system of counties and towns and precincts, there were also these large private estates which were being set up in the Hudson Valley by some of the biggest landowning families. And when I say large, I mean large. One of them was bigger than Connecticut. Anyway, I’ll talk more about these estates later, but the important thing is that some of them were large enough to comprise voting districts of their own, even large enough to send their own delegates to the Assembly. In theory, the tenant farmers living there could vote for whoever they wanted, but in practice, these elections were controlled by the family which owned the estate. Very undemocratic, to have a seat in the Assembly in the hands of one family like that.

So, in summary that’s two big cities, plus counties that were divided into towns and precincts, some of which were also large private estates. Got it? Good. We’re never going to talk about it again. I just wanted to show you a bit of the diversity that existed back then.

In practice, the outlying communities were pretty independent from the central government. The city of Albany in particular remained a world apart, which isn’t surprising, given its status as the center of Dutch-speaking America. And not only was Albany different ethnically, it was also different geographically, being so far inland and close to the Iroquois and the French, and different economically, thanks to its reliance on the fur trade. And they stuck with their own religion. It was basically a mini-colony within a colony.

For example, we’ve already heard about how Albany was the main holdout against Leisler’s government, until an attack by the French forced them to capitulate in the name of colonial unity. And in general, Albany often wanted different policies than everyone else. While the English wanted to conquer Quebec, Albany preferred peace when possible, since war would upset their profits and leave them dangerously exposed to attack.

To the English, this attitude bordered on treason. They spoke negatively of the “Albany spirit”. To them the Dutch were a bunch of greedy merchants who acted selfishly at the expense of everyone else. They stuck to themselves and were biased against anyone who wasn’t Dutch. One English official called them “Dutch reptiles”.

Often these tensions could become pretty heated, though I don’t think it ever broke out into violence.

You might think that the ethnic tensions between the English and Dutch would be the main division in New York politics, with each side forming its own faction to fight the other, but in fact, the rivalry between the two groups was only one of the many fault lines which split New York in the 1700s.

The history of New York during this period is rather complex and hard to characterize. Historians themselves seem to have had a hard time discerning patterns and figuring out what was actually going on. I’ve seen it described as a time of “chaotic factionalism”. That is, there were a lot of factions constantly forming and dissolving, without much in the way of continuity between them. The issues people fought over in the 1720s were completely different from the issues fought over in the 1730s, and all the old alliances would be completely scrambled as a result. I’m not even sure that the politicians at the time had a clear idea of what they were fighting for.

It was a contentious time, much more so than in New England, and people were fighting over everything, instead of just the same few issues over and over. The historian Robert J. Gough describes some of the conflicts that were important at various times throughout this period: “English-versus-Dutch tensions, the clash of pro- and anti-Leisler factions, disputes over restricting the fur trade with Canada, efforts to secure lucrative land grants from governors, personality clashes, conflicts between Churchmen and dissenters, quarrels between landed and overseas trading groups, and persistent family rivalries”.

So that’s what we’ll be covering for the next few episodes: looking at a few of the most prominent bouts of factionalism. Next time, we’ll begin with the two decades of factionalism which followed the suppression of Leisler’s Rebellion, as the colony tried to regain its footing. So join me next time on Early and Often: The History of Elections in America.

The podcast is on twitter, @earlyoftenpod, or go to the blog at earlyandoftenpodcast.wordpress.com for transcripts of every single episode. And if you like the podcast, give it a good review on iTunes. That helps. Thanks for listening.

Sources:

The Varieties of Political Experience in Eighteenth Century America by Richard R. Beeman

Themes and Directions in Middle Colonies Historiography, 1980-1994 by Wayne Bodle

A Factious People: Politics and Society in Colonial New York by Patricia U. Bonomi

Lord Cornbury Redressed: The Governor and the Problem Portrait by Patricia U. Bonomi

From Puritan to Yankee: Character and the Social Order in Connecticut, 1690-1765 by Richard L. Bushman

Voting in Provincial America: A Study of Elections in the Thirteen Colonies, 1689-1776 by Robert J. Dinkin

The Myth of the “Middle Colonies”: An Analysis of Regionalization in Early America by Robert J. Gough

Colonial New York: A History by Michael Kamen

Governor Fletcher's Recall by James S. Leamon

The American Colonies in the Eighteenth Century, Volume I by Herbert L. Osgood

The American Colonies in the Eighteenth Century, Volume II by Herbert L. Osgood

Election Procedures and Practices in Colonial New York by Nicholas Varga

19 notes · View notes

digital-mark · 3 years ago

Text

Ukrain War

OPINION

THOMAS F. Ultsuma

Putin Had No Clue How Many of Us Would Be Watching

Almost six weeks into the war between Russia and Ukraine, I’m beginning to wonder if this conflict isn’t our first true world war — much more than World War I or World War II ever was. In this war, which I think of as World War Wired, virtually everyone on the planet can either observe the fighting at a granular level, participate in some way or be affected economically — no matter where they live.

While the battle on the ground that triggered World War Wired is ostensibly over who should control Ukraine, do not be fooled. This has quickly turned into “the big battle” between the two most dominant political systems in the world today: free-market, “rule-of-law democracy versus authoritarian kleptocracy,” the Swedish expert on the Russian economy Anders Aslund remarked to me.

Though this war is far from over, and Vladimir Putin may still find a way to prevail and come out stronger, if he doesn’t, it could be a watershed in the conflict between democratic and undemocratic systems. It is worth recalling that World War II put an end to fascism, and that the Cold War put an end to orthodox communism, eventually even in China. So, what happens on the streets of Kyiv, Mariupol and the Donbas region could influence political systems far beyond Ukraine and far into the future.

Indeed, other autocratic leaders, like China’s, are watching Russia carefully. They see its economy being weakened by Western sanctions, thousands of its young technologists fleeing to escape a government denying them access to the internet and credible news and its inept army seemingly unable to gather, share and funnel accurate information to the top. Those leaders have to be asking themselves: “Holy cow — am I that vulnerable? Am I presiding over a similar house of cards?”

Continue reading the main story

Everyone is watching.

In World War I and World War II, no one had a smartphone or access to social networks through which to observe and participate in the war in nonkinetic ways. Indeed, a large chunk of the world’s population was still colonized and did not have the full freedom to express independent views, even if they had the technology. Many of those residing outside the war zones were also extremely poor subsistence farmers who were not so heavily affected by those first two world wars. There weren’t the giant connected globalized and urbanized lower and middle classes of today’s wired world.

Now, anyone with a smartphone can view what is happening in Ukraine — live and in color — and express opinions globally through social media. In our post-colonial world, governments from virtually every country around the globe can vote to condemn or excuse one side or another in Ukraine through the U.N. General Assembly.

While estimates vary, it appears that between three billion and four billion people on the planet — almost half — have a smartphone today, and although internet censorship remains a real problem, particularly in China, there are just so many more people able to peer deeply into so many more places. And that’s not all.

Anyone with a smartphone and a credit card can aid strangers in Ukraine, through Airbnb, by just reserving a night at their home and not using it. Teenagers anywhere can create apps on Twitter to track Russian oligarchs and their yachts. And the encrypted instant messaging app Telegram — which was invented by two Russian-born techie brothers as a tool to communicate outside the Kremlin’s earshot — “has emerged as the go-to place for unfiltered live war updates for both Ukrainian refugees and increasingly isolated Russians alike,” NPR reported. And it’s run out of Dubai!

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s government has been able to tap a whole new source of funding — raising more than $70 million worth of cryptocurrency from individuals around the world after appealing on social media for donations. And the Tesla billionaire Elon Musk activated his SpaceX company’s satellite broadband service in Ukraine to provide high-speed internet after a Ukrainian official tweeted at him for help from Russian efforts to disconnect Ukraine from the world.

#NoWar #U.N. General Assembly.#democracy

0 notes

coralsgrimes · 3 years ago

Note

I have to agree, the fan pics have not been great, no they haven’t. That could just be rubbish phone cameras, bad angles or bad lighting though. Here’s my theories re the past couple of fan pix:

The fan is apparently from Vienna and mentions ‘her favourite café’ so yes, it could have been local to her. But I’ve often referred to places in cities I’ve only visited as my favourite café/bar/restaurant so that could also be the case, and it’s somewhere she found and likes to hang out in on her trip to Budapest. She won’t say where it was taken so we probably won’t ever know. Unfortunately Jessie and Daisy are even less active on SM than Benny so no hints from them either!

The rest of the cast were on a field trip a couple of days ago, so maybe Benny & Co also headed out on one (train pic with mum/baby). It’s a possibility. I would also expect to see at least one or two more fan pix emerging of them in Vienna as no doubt Benny would insist on some sightseeing and/or museum trips and they’d surely be recognised. None so far!

Or, he never left Budapest and was on a local Metro/tram/bus for the baby pic and in a local café for this most recent one.

You decide! 😁

YEPPP! the fan pics are just meh meh ;c me thinks that boy is just meh meh lately ;ccc and being in public does him no favor. mood tho

NOWWWW WOW why I'm not surprised? We are not stalkers but tell us where boy is right now and if there is a diamond on that finger x.x how many times we been through it by now?

All I can see for sure is that the pic is not from today as is said in the tweet and the instagram linked to the twitter acc is saying 'the fran lebowitz of vienna'.

Beside that I have seen fan accounts stating the pic was taken on Saturday in Vienna. So maybe they bullied the poor girl enough to get that info?

Mind ye that the baby pic was posted on the 12th which was Saturday lol and the same accounts screamed that it was taken the same day as well, meaning Saturday but in Budapest x.x might been taken the same day in two capitals anyways lol but boy deff wears different rags in both ;cc sooo no idea what is true and what is not x.x not sure if we will ever know lol but boy popping out on a trip? HMMMMMMMMM boy knows how to go undercover soooo dead end id say ;c

Fun to follow Benny trail tho xddd been a while ;c

Good to know that even when Benny is working hard, and he has a moment free, instead of working on more music he takes breaks to get a massage or go sightseeing to another country during pandemic that is still very much here but no one cares anymore... Too many war refugees in Budapest to leisurely enjoy the city? Ma poor boy :c people protesting and screaming about orban/putin connections, two weeks before the elections, right outside his windows probably ain't helping either. His life so fucking hard rn I can't even imagine 🙊 as they say in them internets //s but not really tho

#and rly #the fact that the bio says from vienna #made ppl say she;s from vienna?#like I can't see any other indication of her being Austrian even ;c #not that i looked lol #cuz i care not at all xd #INSTEAD #CAN WE TALK ABOUT PEOPLE PHOTOSHOPPING THE PIC???#LIKEEEE?#why?#just so benny and not his sunshine could finally stand next to each other for yer viewing pleasure?#and ye bitches tell me im crazy like

0 notes

fr-martin-gospel-reflections · 3 years ago

Text

4th March - ‘The time will come for the bridegroom to be taken away’, Reflection on today’s gospel reading (Mt 9:14-15)

Friday after Ash Wednesday

In the gospel reading, Jesus affirms the value of fasting for the time after his death and resurrection, the time of the church, ‘The time will come for the bridegroom to be taken away from them, and then they will fast’. Only Ash Wednesday and Good Friday remain as days of fast and abstinence, but the whole season of Lent has been traditionally understood as such a time. We deny ourselves something so that we can give ourselves more fully to the way of the Lord. The saying ‘no’ that fasting involves is always in the service of a greater ‘yes’ to the Lord and his people. This is what the prophet Isaiah stresses in today’s first reading. He makes a firm connection between fasting and the service of the Lord through the care of the most vulnerable, breaking unjust fetters, letting the oppressed go free, sharing our bread with the hungry, sheltering the homeless poor, clothing the naked. Jesus declares in the gospel that whatever we do for those in greatest need we do for him, and whatever we do for him we do for God, because he, Jesus, is God-with-us. Within the Christian tradition, Lent, the season of fasting, is also the season when we give ourselves in a special way to those in greatest need. The Trocaire Lenten campaign is one expression of that dimension of Lent. Showing hospitality to the refugees of war, such as the current one in Ukraine, is another expression of the care of the needy that both Isaiah and Jesus stress so strongly. Isaiah declares to the people in that first reading that if they care for the vulnerable, those wounded in some way, their own wound will be healed over. We ourselves are healed when we work for the healing of others. As Jesus declares in the gospels, when we give to others, it will be given to us in abundance.

Twitter: @SJtBClontarf RC

Facebook: @SJtBClontarf

Tumbler: St-John-the-baptist-Clontarf-Rd

0 notes

jordanianroyals · 6 years ago

Photo

Harper’s Bazaar Arabia March 2019: Queen Rania of Jordan on 20 Years of Intelligence, Integrity and Intuition (x)

By Louise Nichol | Photographer - Alexi Lubomirski

Her Majesty Queen Rania of Jordan is determined to forge a bright future across the Arab world

"I'm not ready to give up on humanity,” says Queen Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan, the steel in Her Majesty’s voice belying her softly smiling eyes. It’s a position that must have been sorely tested over the 20 years that her husband King Abdullah II ibn Al Hussein has ruled Jordan, the Arab nation that shares its borders with Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Israel and Palestine, placing it at the heart of some of the most harrowing global conflicts of recent times. Yet amid five ongoing conflicts and two of the world’s biggest humanitarian disasters – in Syria and Yemen – Jordan remains a beacon for resilience and optimism in the Arab world; its Queen, a globally-revered symbol of modern Arabia.

Sitting in her office in the capital Amman, photographs of her four children beaming out from amid the whispered hush of the chic Middle Eastern-inspired surrounds, 48-year-old Queen Rania gestures as if to the beige environs of the city, musing, “It isn’t really about the magnitude of the crises we face, but what we choose to learn from them, and how we use those lessons to become better leaders, citizens and human beings.” Since the onset of the Syrian crisis in 2011, Jordan has taken in 1.3 million vulnerable people, bringing its current population to around 10 million, according to UN estimates. The strain on the resource-poor nation’s infrastructure has been immense, with schools forced to operate double shifts to accommodate around 150,000 Syrian students. “We couldn’t turn away innocent people fleeing war, death and despair,” Queen Rania states simply, “I think the choice Jordan, its leadership and its people made when Syrians started fleeing across the border will go down in history as an example of moral leadership and moral courage.”

Her Majesty’s role is as far away from the storybook ideal as one could imagine, despite her fairy tale princess exterior. It is Queen Rania’s integrity, intelligence and intuition that arm her to battle the giants that history has placed at her door. “If I were to be queen in a different time, I do not expect that it would be any different,” she says pragmatically, “The world will always bear witness to catastrophic events, some naturally occurring, others man-made. Giving up or even slowing down is not an option, neither for me, nor for His Majesty.”

Born in Kuwait to Palestinian parents, Rania Al Yassin was working in Amman when she met the then prince Abdullah at a dinner party in 1992. They married the following year but it was not until 1999, when Rania was 28, that the line of ascension was changed by King Hussein on his deathbed and her husband ascended the throne. Over the latter half of his reign, His Majesty King Abdullah has steered the country through the fallout of the global economic crisis in 2008, the Arab Spring in 2011, the rise of Islamic extremist factions across the region and the ongoing civil war in Syria.

Jordan’s open-arm position towards its neighbours pushes back against the tide of global populism that erects walls at borders and sees countries turn in on themselves, ostensibly out of fear of what lies beyond. “Fear is a powerful emotion, and, in today’s uncertain world, it has become a potent political force,” Her Majesty explains. “People are worried about the economy, social and technological disruptions, violence and terror attacks… They’re worried about their future, and the future of their families.” In times of seismic change, she explains, it is natural to seek comfort in the familiar as people can feel left behind, which creates “room for others to capitalise on their unease, and to sow divisions and hatred.”

It is all too easy to sense the tremors of isolationism that threaten to rip humanity apart as would-be leaders espouse a rhetoric of division masquerading as patriotism. “After all, one of the simplest ways to win people over is to validate their anxiety by giving them someone else to blame, like globalisation, foreigners or refugees,” Queen Rania explains, “that’s certainly easier than finding real and lasting solutions!” Yet find lasting solutions to humanity’s woes we must, she asserts. “Our world is too interconnected for any nation or group to succeed on its own. Turning inwards and trying to keep the world out is no longer a viable option. Climate change, economic downturns, the global refugee crisis… These challenges transcend borders. So instead of indulging prejudices or playing the blame game, we need to come together to seek sustainable solutions to the issues plaguing our world.”

As a Muslim, Queen Rania is acutely attuned to the divisions propagated by religious separatists. “There are over 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, yet many people continue to confound this diverse group of people with a small minority who commit heinous crimes in the name of Islam,” she says. “Our religion preaches compassion, tolerance, forgiveness and embracing people of other faiths; it condemns hatred, prejudice and bigotry.” To those who would spread dissonance, she counsels, “There can be no true understanding or trust in a world divided by walls – and not only those walls built of concrete and stone…But the walls we erect in our minds.” She urges Muslims to “speak up and reclaim our religion’s true values and principles which – not too long ago – built a thriving and diverse intellectual civilisation.” Only by Muslims and non-Muslims addressing their growing intolerance and fear of the other can they move past their divisions, she says, adding with innate optimism, “I would like to believe that extremism falsely committed in the name of Islam has reached the apex, and that if we as Muslims continue to reject the extremists’ mangling of our faith, they will eventually lose their sway on the ground.” “There can be no true understanding or trust in a world divided by walls"

In an era of fake news, Queen Rania warns that our human instinct to judge those different to ourselves has been amplified by social networks, leading to the global spread of false stereotypes and divisive discourse.“The danger here is substantial,” she says, “but is even more so when this online debate starts gaining ground offline; when negativity on Facebook or Twitter becomes fodder for negativity on the streets, schools or in conversations with friends and even strangers.” Her measured response is not to blame or ban social media itself but to reassess the way we use it. “The repercussions of misusing social media have already permeated our daily lives, and now we are a little in over our heads,” she cautions. “Our best bet is not to dial down our use of these platforms, but to become more discerning about what we are exposed to online. If destructive discourse is being brandished around us, we need to question whether it can be validated and think before we share in the conversation.”

At its most base level, social media can be an easy tool for bullying, and as an outspoken woman in the Arab world, Queen Rania is wide open to negativity and criticism, which she handles with grace and insight. “Listening to criticism is part of my job,” she smiles. “It’s important to respect all different viewpoints, and sometimes it’s the people who disagree with you who are able to point out something you may have overlooked. But criticism is constructive only when it is based on fact. Sadly, in today’s media landscape, false information can become irrefutable fact in a matter of hours.” She admits that when she first stepped into the role of royalty she was reluctant to speak out or take risks for fear of opening herself up to scrutiny or attracting censure. “With time and experience, I’ve become more comfortable in my own skin. There is nothing more important than being authentic, saying and doing what we believe in, and owning our narrative. If we don’t, others will fill in the gaps on our behalf,” she says. “I’ve learnt that the path to progress is long, hard, and often thankless – if you let fear of criticism paralyse you, you’ll never make it out the door. The difficult choices – the ones we most fear – are often those that need to be made.That fear is there to let us know that they are worth it.”

One of the most politically candid first ladies in the Middle East – if not the world – Queen Rania muses, “I never really made a conscious decision to be outspoken, I feel it’s something that I have to do because any voice raised against injustice erodes the power of that injustice.” She urges us all to follow suit. “I think it’s the most important thing in the world to be authentic, to live according to your beliefs and to speak your truth. Particularly at this time because the public discourse is dominated by hatred and intolerance and anger and fear, and so we need to provide a counter-narrative to that, particularly for people in public positions.”

Beyond those in the public sphere, Queen Rania encourages individuals to speak out, particularly women in the Arab world whose voices may have been hushed by cultural restraints. “For too long that voice has been quite muted,” she says.“When it comes to women from the Middle East you’ll find a lot of international experts ready to jump in and speak on their behalf, but you get narratives that are either inaccurate or just stereotypes. Women are usually painted with two broad brushstrokes, whether as dangerous extremists or oppressed victims; the nuance is lost in the narrative. Authentic voices from the Middle East are few and far between and it’s absolutely critical that women do speak for themselves because the stereotypes really don’t capture what women in the Middle East are all about.” Few would deny the yawning chasm between the perception of Arab women that proliferates in the West and the reality of the female experience across the Middle East.

“The women that I see and interact with are so strong, they are so determined, they are so ambitious, they are resilient. A lot of them are extremely well-educated. A lot of them are high achievers,” Queen Rania agrees, adding, “We can’t expect the rest of the world to recognise our successes and our achievements until we recognise them ourselves. We have to do a better job of celebrating Arab women, of highlighting their successes, of creating environments for them to thrive and express themselves and build on each other’s successes. Then we can start to reset global perceptions about Arab women.” Are observers in the West aware, for example, that in many Arab countries there are more females enrolled in universities than males? “In Jordan girls are much higher achievers academically than boys are, but the challenge is how do you transform those academic achievements into successful careers? All the time we see women bumping into glass ceilings and barriers in the work place. A lot of times it is because there is just a bias and a lot of times it’s because the working environment is not helpful or not conducive for women.” Such obstacles, however, can forge iron wills. “I think cultural and familial barriers really hold women back but I’m always inspired by how determined Arab women are. Because we are faced with all these challenges we try that much harder, so they’re very resourceful.”

One third of start-ups in the Arab world are headed by females, a higher percentage than in Silicon Valley. “That tells you a lot about how determined Arab women are to succeed in spite of their barriers. And how little of a victim mentality they have, contrary to what many in the western world think,” Queen Rania smiles. “So there’s a lot to be celebrated in the Arab world. But we need to amplify those successes. We need to talk about them. And we need to create linkages between these women because it’s like the reverse domino effect where one woman lifts another woman up and we all end up standing together. The greatest support that a woman can get is from another successful woman who lifts her up and tells her, ‘You can dream, you can succeed.’” We all have a role to play, she says, in encouraging, listening to and sharing a diversity of women’s voices from across the region, “so they can speak of their own story whether it’s the good, the bad, the triumphs or the trials. All of it. It’s part of the picture of who Arab women are and we’re so diverse; there isn’t one stereotype of an Arab woman. In different parts of the Arab world each woman is her own unique person. I would love to hear more voices coming up. Increasingly we’re seeing them but I think we still have a long way to go before we really leave a mark on the world stage.” "A meaningful life is a life where you have made things better for people around you"

As recent times have highlighted, it is not only in the Middle East that the female narrative is silenced, subdued or subjugated. “Women all over the world see the subtle and sometimes not so subtle ways that gender discrimination can hold us back,” Her Majesty says. For women in the Middle East, however, the stakes can seem so much higher. Surrounded by war and conflict, women face issues of displacement, barriers for movement, and the severe economic challenges that result. “And whenever those things happen, there is a disproportionate effect on women; they tend to bear the brunt of the fall-backs. We see women and their needs and their status fall down the priority list,” she explains. The battle for equal rights, for education, for gender parity is forgotten when a battle of bombs and bullets is raging outside. “If you look in a lot of the countries where there is conflict, people don’t talk about how the rights that women have worked so hard to acquire are now taken away from them,” she says.

For the daughters, sisters and mothers who are thrust into life-destroying circumstances – whether Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslims forced to flee child murder and rape, or those touched by atrocities in neighbouring Syria – the effects of such butchery are unimaginable. Yet while the rest of us can switch the channel on the television or turn the page of a newspaper when faced with images too horrific to process, Her Majesty has witnessed first-hand the suffering inflicted on humanity across the Muslim world, encounters that must levy an enormous emotional toll. “Every day we’re bombarded with images of human suffering and injustice and that can turn you into a cynic,” she agrees, “but we need to remember that even in the worst of circumstances you still see incredible acts of humanity and sacrifice. Even in the darkest places – particularly in the darkest places.” By seeking out the compassion of mankind, Queen Rania refuses to let the darkness overwhelm her. “I’m not ready to give up on humanity. Against all the terrible things that we see, there’s incredible goodness in people,” she says, “and it would be good for all of us to focus on that, and also our faith, in prayer. I feel that at times of reflection you find a lot of the answers, and our religion teaches us to face these kinds of situations with patience and determination and acceptance. That’s a great source of comfort for me and it keeps my faith.”

Cocooned by the zen surroundings of the Al Husseiniya Palace compound, where elegant cypress trees line the drive and the air is softly scented, the ills of the world seem a million miles away. Bringing up four children – Crown Prince Hussein, 24, Princess Iman, 22, Princess Salma, 18, and Prince Hashem, 15 – the temptation to be protective must have been strong. “Like any mother, I want my children to be happy and fulfilled and challenged but also I really want them to be decent human beings,” Queen Rania says of her drive to instil compassion and empathy in her children. “As parents we’re always very protective over our kids and eager to take care of their needs but I think we need to teach them from a young age to balance their needs with other people’s needs. Whether it’s standing up to a bully or sharing a toy; those are qualities that you instil in your kids from a young age.”

The playing field is skewed, however, when you have the word Prince or Princess before your name. “I want them to be normal kids. Sometimes I feel like I’m swimming against the current because obviously they’re royals and people sometimes treat them that way, but I try to make sure that they have an identity outside of their title,” Queen Rania says. “I always tell them, ‘You carry your title, it doesn’t carry you’ and to think of it more as a responsibility and not a privilege.” Ultimately, she explains, honorifics are not character defining. Children’s true identity is derived not from a title but through values, morals and principles, and “making sure that they’re aware of their history and heritage and their faith.” These are the things, Queen Rania says, that create a sense of identity for a child. “Although we can’t shield our kids from all the things that life is going to throw at them, when you instil those things in your kids they become resilient. That’s what I want for my kids, to have that kind of resilience.”

Raising a future king must present its own set of challenges, ones that Queen Rania has experienced first-hand. “There’s plenty of personal sacrifice,” she says of life as a royal. “When you’re in the public eye you do get exposed to a lot of criticism, a lot of judgment. A lot of times my decisions are based on things that I can’t do rather than what I can, because there are certain restrictions or you just can’t go there because it’s not accepted, whether culturally or in any other context.” Queen Rania understands the gravity of duty. “When you are in the public eye your choices are not yours because you’re not living for yourself. But nothing that’s worthwhile is necessarily easy; you take the good and the bad, and I feel like it’s an honour and a privilege to be able to have a positive impact.”

Despite the human rights abuses she has witnessed around the world or the ongoing economic struggles of her fellow Jordanians, Queen Rania is motivated by the prospect of betterment for her country and those that surround it. “Ultimately what we all have in common is that we all want to have a meaningful life. People spend so much time trying to look for that meaning but I think it’s actually quite simple; a meaningful life is a life where you have made things better for people around you. And I think we all can do that whether you’re a public personality or a private citizen.” That’s not to say that she doesn’t allow herself some respite. “I’m more conscious now of making sure there’s a balance in my life. When I started out I didn’t understand fully the impact of emotional stress; how much that impacts your physical health, your energy, your outlook. Now I see when I am run down from too much work or too much stress that I suddenly become exhausted. So I make a much more conscious effort to create that balance. I make sure that the evenings are for my kids and for my family, watching TV. And also weekends, sometimes we’ll go to Aqaba or something like that.” With half of her children in Jordan and half studying abroad, she admits that it is hard to carve out family time. “I make sure that we somehow organise our schedules so that we’re together for a few weeks as a family over summer, and I must say that it is the most fulfilling time for me. That’s when I really fill up the tank. Just being with my kids, having that interaction every day, I love it. There’s nothing more important.”

Queen Rania was an employee of technology giant Apple when she met her future husband and today she embraces social media, where she describes herself as ‘A mum and wife with a really cool day job’ to 10.4 million Twitter followers, 16 million on Facebook, and 5.1 million on Instagram. But as her own children come of age in a newly digitised world, she is aware of the tightrope between empowerment and subversion that such connectivity brings. “When my kids started becoming old enough to be on social media and on the internet, as a mum my protective antennae shot up. But then I realised that snooping around is not going to be helpful because it will erode the trust between us and they will stop sharing things with me, so I’d rather we have an open dialogue and channels of trust that allows us to give and take,” she says. “At the end of the day it’s about moderation. It’s the same boring advice that you heard from your mum and your mum heard from her own mother: be moderate. I tell my kids to spend less of their lives on the phone and more of their lives being in the present, being in nature, picking up a book. It is hard because a lot of our lives are slowly migrating online but every now and then you just need to remind them that’s what is happening so they can be conscious of it and try to keep that balance.”

In addition to balancing time on- and off-line, the digital sphere can be a double-edged sword, Queen Rania explains. “The internet has unleashed a lot of potential for a lot of kids and sometimes when I look at YouTube channels or websites that are run by children they’re incredibly inspiring. But it is also a dangerous space where kids can be exposed to unsuitable content and negativity, to bullying, to content that makes them doubt themselves, or their self-image,” she says.“Increasingly, I try to guide my kids to look at the marvels of the internet and really steer them away from the dark corners.” The two-dimensional nature of platforms such as Instagram can be a battering ram in the face of wavering self-esteem, something that Queen Rania is also acutely aware of. “One thing that I’m very conscious of is that it’s become a very visual world and you really have to guard against your kids either becoming too superficial or unaccepting of who they are and becoming critical of themselves. Physically, emotionally; people start to think that other people’s lives are better than their own. I see that all the time, how people become incredibly insecure.” And it’s not only children who are susceptible, she warns. “Sometimes it really surprises me when I see people whose characters online are so different from their characters offline. And it makes me wonder, ‘Why do you feel you have to wear that mask? Why do you feel you have to project a certain image to the rest of the world? Why can’t you just be comfortable with who you are?’ Because ultimately your authentic self is what matters. And the closer you remain to the trueness of who you are, the happier you will be at the end of the day.” Despite what Snapchat filters would have us believe, “You don’t deceive anybody by trying to portray some kind of image on social media,” she counsels. “The number of likes that you get ultimately doesn’t matter. The validation that really matters comes from a sense of self-acceptance, achievement, doing something, developing your own skills.”

For these portraits taken for Harper’s Bazaar Arabia by photographer Alexi Lubomirski, Her Majesty was keen to stay true to her own sense of style, a style that is always secondary to substance. “I am very passionate about my work, and the clothes I wear don’t have any bearing on that. I am also very mindful that I have a duty to represent my country well. So, rather than follow the latest trends, I aim to dress in a way that reflects who I am,” she says. “I find that I’m most comfortable in modest wear – partly because of my position, but mostly because it feels right for me, as a woman.” Her Majesty just wishes that the emphasis would be on what she says, rather than what she wears. “Of course, one of the downsides of being a woman in the public eye is that there will always be comments about my outfits and appearance. Sometimes, there is a lot of exaggeration as well. I suppose it comes with the territory,” she says, “But at the end of the day, I hope it is my work that defines me, not my wardrobe.”

Chief among her work achievements is Her Majesty’s focus on education across the Arab world. Away from the images we see of starving children, displaced families and people in desperate need of medical aid, Queen Rania believes there is another less visible crisis unfolding in the Middle East, one that doesn’t make front page news. “Across the Arab world there are millions and millions of children who are receiving education that is inadequate, it’s outdated, it doesn’t prepare them for today’s job market, let alone tomorrow’s. So they really don’t stand a chance,” she says. “People don’t see it as a crisis. I see it as an emergency.” The slowly unfolding repercussions of failing to educate the region’s youth could decimate a generation. “What will become of them? Will they become vulnerable to extremist ideology, will they be a burden on society? What kind of impact will they have on our collective future?” She has seen first-hand how Jordan’s own education reform efforts have been strained by the pressure of accommodating Syrian refugee children in the country’s schools. “There isn’t anything more urgent for us in the Arab world than education because at the end of the day it’s about the individual being able to have the skills to participate in today’s economy, to feel competitive. There shouldn’t be a conflict between the sense of, ‘I’m an Arab, I’m a Muslim but I’m able to compete on the international stage’ and you can only achieve that through a quality education.” She urges a communal effort to revolutionise education across the Arab world. “If we put our hands together we can all muster up the resources that we need for our kids. Obviously some countries have more resources than others, but ultimately when it comes to the education of our kids we all have the same vested interest. If I’m in Jordan, it’s in my best interest that kids in Syria get a great education because if they don’t, that’s going to become a problem for me in the future.” While the challenge is huge, there is also great potential. Just imagine what strides a well-educated workforce could make. "The greatest support that a woman can get is from another successful woman who lifts her up and tells her, 'you can dream, you can succeed'"

“A large percentage of our population are young and therefore with the right interventions, what we see as a challenge could become an opportunity for very quick change,” she says. The digital world also makes it easier to reach students, train teachers and modernise learning. In 2014 Queen Rania launched Edraak as an Arabic online educational platform for adult learners, who were starving for engaging digital content in their native language. Since then, Edraak has reached more than 2.2 million registered users. Last September, the platform was expanded to schoolchildren too, with the Edraak K-12 platform, which will offer e-curricula in all major subjects to Arab children everywhere. “We’ve already rolled out mathematics, and there is much more to come. The platform will eventually include thousands of Arabic instructional videos, quizzes, and practice exercises covering everything our children learn in schools, all available free of charge to anyone with an internet connection,” Her Majesty says. The aim is to provide all Arab school-aged children with free access to quality education by 2020, whether they are in urban centres, refugee camps or conflict zones. “It is a tremendous undertaking, but it is one that our region cannot afford to put off,” she says. “A child denied an education is not a tragedy for just that child – it sets us all back. So we owe it to them, and to ourselves, to give them a fighting chance.”

By taking on as mammoth a responsibility as education reform in the Arab world, Queen Rania is setting herself a gargantuan task. “Sitting still is not who I am. You can ask my team, you can ask my mum,” she smiles. “The easy life is not something that I ever aspired to. And I think the easy way is never really the right way.” The education crisis can’t be solved overnight, and reform is fraught with resistance and cynicism, she says. “I could feel discouraged when those who are resisting the change have got the upper hand, but then there are days where I feel that we’ve really moved the dial, even if it’s for an inch. Where I see teachers who have just taken a course and are feeling empowered with their new skills and I see how their students are becoming inspired by this new atmosphere in the classroom.”

With the dreams and ambitions of a generation in her reach, Her Majesty Queen Rania's lasting influence over the Arab world has the potential to be prodigious. “I don’t believe in legacy; you’re not there to see your legacy,” she muses. “What I do believe is that you need to leave good deeds behind. Do whatever you can to positively impact other people’s lives.” We may not all be queens, but as Her Majesty says, the end game is the same for all. “Really we’re all here to leave a decent mark behind.”

Photography: Alexi Lubomirski Fashion director: Belen Antolin Hair: Alain Pichon Makeup: Valeria Ferreira Photography team: Diego Bendezu, Maximilian Hoell and Jeremy O’Donnell Producer: Neha Mishra

#Queen Rania #magazine #interview

27 notes · View notes

sexydeathparty · 3 years ago

Text

Radio 4's Today Programme Facing Backlash Over Syria Comparisons In Ukrainian Coverage

Radio 4′s Today programme became the latest broadcasting show to be in hot water for its commentary around the Ukrainian invasion on Monday.

Speaking during the ‘Thought for the Day’ segment, Tim Stanley, historian and Daily Telegraph writer said: “Ukraine has touched the West in a way that Syria or Yemen did not.

“And one of the reasons is that being a European country, it looks so familiar.

“Those streets, being dug up for trenches, could be our streets. And the young men volunteering or being conscripted, could be our sons or fathers.”

The suggestion that this war was somehow more damaging than previous conflicts simply because it was taking place in a European country left some people deeply frustrated on Twitter.

More of the ‘it touches us because they could be us - in a way Syrians and Yemenis can’t’ being given airtime on #bbctoday this morning. Why don’t they just call it Thoughtless of the Day?

— Krishnan Guru-Murthy (@krishgm) February 28, 2022

I hope @BBCNews#r4today think very hard about whether they should ever again invite Tim Stanley on for Thought for the Day

— Ian Callaghan (@iancallaghan) February 28, 2022

Ah yes the “they’re just like me! White and heroic!” fantasy line from some. It’s pathetic. Everyone is just like us, because we are all *humans*. We are one species and we need to take care of each other. How have people not yet worked out this fundamental?

— Mike Galsworthy 🇺🇦 (@mikegalsworthy) February 28, 2022

It’s possible to stand with Ukraine AND investigate allegations of poor treatment of some non-white refugees/students AND condemn racism in some news coverage. These are not mutually exclusive positions. Nor is it irresponsible to air those concerns.

— Sangita Myska (@SangitaMyska) February 28, 2022

Other shows have faced the same criticism in recent days for taking a similar stance.

The BBC was in hot water over another programme when a guest speaker discussed the race of the Ukrainian people at the weekend.

Ukrainian deputy chief prosecutor David Sakvarelideze said he was emotional “because I see European people with blue eyes and blonde hair being killed” during his BBC interview – a detail which was not called out by interviewer Ros Atkins on air.

[Thread] The most racist Ukraine coverage on TV News. 1. The BBC - “It’s very emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blonde hair being killed” - Ukraine’s Deputy Chief Prosecutor, David Sakvarelidze pic.twitter.com/m0LB0m00Wg

— Alan MacLeod (@AlanRMacLeod) February 27, 2022

US channel CBS News faced similar backlash after foreign correspondent Charlie D’Agata pointed out: “This isn’t a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan, which has seen conflict for decades.

“This is a relatively civilised, relatively European – I have to choose those words carefully too – city where you wouldn’t expect that or hope that it’s going to happen.”

D’Agata did later apologise during a Saturday report, admitting: “I spoke in a way that I regret, and for that I’m sorry.”

He said he was trying to point out that Ukraine had not experienced conflict for years, compared to other areas of the world.

“Civilized” pic.twitter.com/AiU7uVmjMr

— Imraan Siddiqi (@imraansiddiqi) February 26, 2022

A presenter for Al Jazeera also faced criticism when he said: “What’s compelling is looking at [the refugees], the way they are dressed. These are prosperous, middle-class people. These are not obviously refugees trying to get away from the Middle East or North Africa.

“They look like any European family that you’d live next door to.”

Al Jazeera did later tweet to apologise, noting these were “unfair comparisons between Ukrainians fleeing the war and refugees from the MENA region”.

It added: “The presenter’s comments were insensitive and irresponsible. We apologise to our audiences worldwide and the breach of professionalism is being dealt with.”

3. Al-Jazeera "What's compelling is looking at them, the way they are dressed. These are prosperous, middle-class people. These are not obviously refugees trying to get away from the Middle East...or North Africa. They look like any European family that you'd live next door to." pic.twitter.com/LnopOTaDrA

— Alan MacLeod (@AlanRMacLeod) February 27, 2022

BFM TV, a French channel, then aired comments from a presenter who said the Ukrainian attacks were “as though we were in Iraq or Afghanistan”, adding: “Can you imagine?”

The channel has not yet apologised.

4. BFM TV (France) "We are in the 21st century, we are in a European city and we have cruise missile fire as though we were in Iraq or Afghanistan, can you imagine!?” pic.twitter.com/SzSlJJ9JfR

— Alan MacLeod (@AlanRMacLeod) February 27, 2022

Another reporter speaking from Poland told ITV: “The unthinkable has happened to them [the refugees]. This is not a developing third world nation; this is Europe!”

6. ITV (UK) "The unthinkable has happened...This is not a developing, third world nation; this is Europe!" pic.twitter.com/Bot92XT9vN

— Alan MacLeod (@AlanRMacLeod) February 27, 2022

The US channel, NBS, echoed the same message over the weekend. Reporter Kelly Cobiella tried to explain why Poland was willing to accept refugees from Ukraine despite being reluctant to do so during the 2015 refugee crisis.

She said: “To put it bluntly these are not refugees from Syria, these are refugees from neighbouring Ukraine.

“That, quite frankly, is part of it. They’re Christians, they’re white, they’re very similar to many people who live in Poland.”

9. "To put it bluntly, these are not refugees from Syria, these are refugees from Ukraine...They're Christians, they're white. They're very similar [to us]" - explaining why Poland is accepting refugees. pic.twitter.com/UgTTAstkmt

— Alan MacLeod (@AlanRMacLeod) February 27, 2022

Away from broadcast, the world of print media has been under scrutiny over the connotations of its Ukrainian coverage too.

Writer and journalist Daniel Hannan wrote in The Telegraph: “They seem so like us. That is what makes it so shocking. Ukraine is a European country.

“Its people watch Netflix and have Instagram accounts, vote in free elections and read uncensored newspapers. War is no longer something visited upon impoverished and remote populations. It can happen to anyone.”

Related...

Ukrainian Troops Who Told Russian Warship 'Go F*** Yourself' May Still Be Alive

Ben Wallace Warns West 'Must Brace Itself For What Comes Next' With Ukrainian Invasion

Ukrainian Refugees Will Be Allowed To Join Immediate Family Members In UK

from HuffPost UK - Athena2 - All Entries (Public) https://ift.tt/8zIX4nx via IFTTT

#IFTTT #HuffPost UK - Athena2 - All Entries (Public)

0 notes