#trump is similar to king george

[konzenkoryuu]

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

"He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers."

"He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation"

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers . . . whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

Who did you think I was talking about here? Who was the first person that came to mind on reading that? I was revisiting the actual Declaration of Independence for America's birthday...a document some 248 years old, and several of the crimes we charged King George with sound suspiciously familiar to a current former president, just changing a word here and there to match modern times.

This came to mind today when I was watching the musical 1776. Granted, it is historical fiction. However, as I was watching, the dissenters for American Independence were sounding familiar, and it finally occurred to me that people who were against American Independence were saying the same things then that the modern Republican party is now. And if your modern, 2024 political party sounds like the slightly fictionalized version of people who were against American Independence...

I will leave you with the song that Richard Nixon wanted cut from the musical because he thought it would give Republicans a bad name. And I will leave you with one last quote from the Declaration:

"A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

[1americanconservative]

@WallStreetApes

George Carlin Spoke On Assassination In America, The Reasons Are Eerily Similar To Donald Trump’s Unity Messages “Assassination. You know what's interesting about assassination? Well, not only does it change those popularity polls in a big f**king hurry, but it's also interesting to notice who it is we assassinate. Did you ever notice who it is? Stop to think of who it is we kill. It's always people who've told us to live together in harmony and try to love one another. Jesus, Gandhi, Lincoln, John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, John Lennon. They all said, try to live together peacefully. Bam. Right in the f**king head. Apparently, we're not ready for that. Yeah. That's difficult behavior for us.”

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Michael Deacon

Published: Apr 3, 2024

For young people today, finding a partner of the opposite sex must be dreadfully hard. But this isn’t because of the pressure to look like an Instagram gym buff, or the horrors of dating apps, or the fact that no one under the age of 30 seems to drink alcohol any more.

It’s because these days, young men and women have got absolutely nothing in common.

Seriously. All of a sudden, they appear to have developed completely different values. It’s unprecedented. In the past, the two sexes tended to hold roughly similar views on politics. But research compiled over the past five years shows that in Britain – and indeed other Western countries – young women have become more progressive, while young men have become more conservative. And the resulting ideological gap is now staggeringly vast. 

Alice Evans, an academic at King’s College London, is writing a book on this phenomenon, entitled The Great Gender Divergence. She says it’s been caused by a variety of factors, including “social media bubbles” and “economic resentment”. Whatever the reasons for it, though, I think there is a vital point we’re in danger of missing. Which is that only one of the two sexes is strictly responsible.

Recently, the Financial Times published some charts illustrating how the gulf between young men and women has grown in each Western country. And in every chart, there is an unmistakable pattern. The political views of young men haven’t actually altered all that much. Their drift to the Right has been really quite gentle.

The political views of young women, however, have changed dramatically. Their move to the Left has been abrupt and profound. In truth, then, this cavernous ideological divide is almost entirely attributable to them.

Which is curious. Because, whenever the divide is discussed by politicians and commentators, they make it sound as if the problem is young men. They fret endlessly about how young men today are being “radicalised” by nasty Right-wing YouTubers such as Andrew Tate, or horrid Right-wing politicians such as Donald Trump. 

Yet they never apply this word “radicalised” to young women. Why not? I suspect it’s because these politicians and commentators tend to be progressive themselves. Therefore, they see no problem with young women becoming drastically more progressive. In their view, the more progressive someone is, the better. So the fault lies entirely with young men, for failing to emulate young women’s lurch to the Left.

Personally, though, I think this lurch Leftwards should alarm us all. The future of Western civilisation is already threatened by our collapsing birth rates. And this sudden ideological chasm between the sexes is only going to make the crisis worse. No one’s going to be forming couples at all any more, if, on every first date, the woman asks, “What do you think of Gramsci?”, and the man replies, “He’s the type of striker Man Utd are crying out for.”

It’s a chilling thought. So clearly something must be done. Politicians must spend less time obsessing over the radicalisation of young men, and start paying attention to the radicalisation of young women, instead.

As it happens, the Labour Party has announced that, when it’s in power, it will help to combat the influence that Andrew Tate has on boys. Surely it would make more sense to help combat the influence The Guardian has on girls. 

Otherwise, the only way young men are going to get a girlfriend is by frantically boning up on George Monbiot and Owen Jones. And if that’s what the future has to hold, perhaps Western civilisation isn’t worth saving, after all. 

[ Via: https://archive.md/WlLXk ]

==

Apparently, it's not "radicalization" when you're calling for the extermination of the Jews; so sexist and racist that you call everyone else "oppressors"; teaching kids about the objectively true mythology of metaphysical "gender" thetans; advocating for the compulsory elimination of all privately-owned property and its forcible redistribution; and/or chanting for the dismantling of society itself.

No, that's not radicalization. It's just the self-evident values of all right-thinking people.

🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️

[polinbridgertonsocute]

I think King George and Colin are similar! I watched Queen Charlotte and Bridgerton and can see multiple instances that shine through.

Both George and Colin have moments of hurt from separation from their loves. Colin when he dramatically flops (rightly so) on his bed in pain, doesn’t eat, being apart for hours each day, wanting sleep better than reality. George when he watches her from afar, when he goes at his “treatment” alone, when he pushes her away thinking of her safety and mind.

They both put Charlotte and Penelope’s feelings before their own happiness for some time. But eventually Colin and George are in love and deeply loved in return.

Their good moments are shown to mostly trump the bad times. George when he has seizures, mighty forced expectations as king, is tortured and abused by the evil doctor, his delusions, not wanting Charlotte to take on his mentality as a burden, and forcing himself to be away from Charlotte. Colin when he tries to adopt a rakish uncaring attitude, watching Penelope try to find a match that isn’t himself, her saying she wants distance, him thinking he lost Penelope, when he thinks she’ll reject him in the carriage, struggling with her LW identity.

Colin and George are also happy when they are able to feel free and at peace AWAY from social rules and expectations. George loves astronomy and farming. Colin loves writing and traveling. Though escaping society is not forever, like how they want.

Ooh plus, Colin and George love unconditionally and with everything they have! And better still, no apologies for their love for their partner! And what’s so cool is Penelope and Charlotte love their partners in return 110%!

George and Colin aren’t afraid of their emotions either! They are extremely caring for their ladies. And don’t hide forever when confronted by Charlotte and Penelope. Colin may say he doesn’t want to feel anymore in the carriage, but doesn’t try to ghost or ice out Penelope because of his feelings.

Oh my gosh I almost forgot one of best parts! Both George and Colin make Charlotte and Penelope laugh! They are corny dorks who joke and tease!

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Michael de Adder :: @deAdder:: All the King's men

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 28, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

APR 29, 2024

On Friday, in an interview with CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins, Trump’s former attorney general William Barr brushed off the recent news that Trump, furious that the story he had taken refuge in a bunker during the Black Lives Matter protests in summer 2020 had leaked, called for the White House leaker to be executed. 

“I remember him being very mad about that. I actually don’t remember him saying ‘executing,’ but I wouldn‘t dispute it, you know,” Barr said to Collins when she asked him about it. “The president would lose his temper and say things like that. I doubt he would’ve actually carried it out.”

Collins followed up, asking if Trump would call for executions on other occasions. “He would say things similar to that on occasions to blow off steam. But I wouldn’t take them literally every time he did it,” Barr answered.

Why not? Collins asked. 

“Because at the end of the day, it wouldn’t be carried out and you could talk sense into him,” Barr said. “I don’t think he would actually go and kill political rivals and things like that.” Barr said he intends to vote for Trump. 

“Just to be clear,” Collins said, “you’re voting for someone who you believe tried to subvert the peaceful transfer of power, that can’t even achieve his own policies, that lied about the election even after his attorney general told him that the election wasn’t stolen.… You’re going to vote for someone who is facing 88 criminal counts?”

“The answer to the question is yes,” Barr said. “I think the real threat to democracy is the progressive movement and the Biden administration.”

The contention of the former attorney general—who had been responsible for enforcing the rule of law in the United States of America—that a man who has demanded the execution of people he dislikes is a better candidate for the presidency than a man who is using the power of the federal government to create jobs for ordinary people, combat climate change, protect the environment, and promote health and education, illustrates that Republican leaders have abandoned democracy.

In November 2019, in a speech to the right-wing Federalist Society, Barr ignored the Declaration of Independence, which is a list of complaints against King George III, to argue that Americans had rebelled in 1776 not against the king, but rather against Parliament. In the modern world, Barr argued, Congress has grown far too strong. The president should be able to act on his own initiative and not be checked by either congressional or judicial oversight.

That theory is known as the theory of the “unitary executive,” and it says that because the president is the head of one of the three unique branches of government, any oversight of that office by Congress or the courts is unconstitutional, although in fact presidents since George Washington have accepted congressional oversight. 

The theory took root in 1986, when Samuel Alito, then a 35-year-old lawyer for the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice, proposed the use of “signing statements” to take from Congress the sole power to make laws by giving the president the power to “interpret” them. In 1987, president Ronald Reagan issued a signing statement to a debt bill, declaring his right to interpret it as he wished and saying the president could not be forced “to follow the orders of a subordinate.” 

In 2004, when Congress outlawed the newly-revealed U.S. torture program at remote sites around the world, President George W. Bush issued a signing statement rejecting any limitation on “the unitary executive branch.” In April 2020, to justify his demands for states to reopen in the face of the deadly pandemic, Trump told reporters, “When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total….” Now, in 2024, Trump’s lawyers are in court arguing that the president has criminal immunity for his behavior in the White House, possibly including his right to order the executions of those he sees as enemies. 

As Republicans have embraced unlimited power for the president, they have also turned against the right of American citizens to have a say in their government. Beginning with so-called ballot integrity measures in 1986, they embraced methods to knock voters off the voting rolls. That policy intensified after Democrats passed the so-called Motor-Voter Law in 1993, making it easier to register to vote. 

After voters nonetheless elected Democrat Barack Obama in 2008, the Supreme Court handed down the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, permitting unlimited donations to political campaigns, and corporate money flowed into them. In that same year, Republican operatives launched Operation REDMAP to elect Republicans to state legislatures ahead of the redistricting required after the 2010 census. Operation REDMAP resulted in extreme partisan gerrymandering that would make it virtually impossible for Democrats to win elections even if they won a majority of the vote. 

Then, in 2013, the Supreme Court decided Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That law had required states with a history of racial discrimination to get clearance from the Department of Justice before they changed their voting laws. The court said that preclearance was no longer necessary. Within hours of the decision, Republican-dominated states proposed new laws that discriminate against voters of color.   

In 2019, Barr explained to an audience at the University of Notre Dame the ideology behind the strong executive and weakened representation. Rejecting the clear words of the Constitution’s framers, Barr said that the U.S. was never meant to be a secular democracy. When the nation’s founders had spoken so extensively about self-government, he said, they had not meant the right to elect representatives of their own choosing. Instead, he said, the founders meant the ability of individuals to “restrain and govern themselves.” And, because people are willful, the only way to achieve self-government is through religion. 

Those who believe the United States is a secular country, he said, are destroying the nation. It was imperative, he said, to reject those values and embrace religion as the basis for American government. 

The idea that the United States must become a Christian nation has apparently led Barr to accept the idea that a man who has called for the execution of those he sees as enemies should be president, apparently because he is expected to usher in an authoritarian Christian state, in preference to a man who is using the power of the government to help ordinary Americans.  

Saturday night, journalists, politicians, and celebrities gathered for the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, an annual fundraiser for the White House Correspondents’ Association, which protects press passes for journalists who regularly cover the White House, assigns seats in the briefing room, funds scholarships for aspiring journalists, and gives awards for outstanding journalism. It is traditionally an evening of comedy, but last night, after a humorous speech, President Joe Biden implored the press to take the threat of dictatorship seriously. 

“I’m sincerely not asking of you to take sides but asking you to rise up to the seriousness of the moment; move past the horse race numbers and the gotcha moments and the distractions, the sideshows that have come to dominate and sensationalize our politics; and focus on what’s actually at stake,” he said. “Every single one of us has…a serious role to play in making sure democracy endures….  I have my role, but, with all due respect, so do you.” 

George Stephanopoulos of ABC’s This Week apparently took this reminder to heart. “Until now,” he said in the show’s opener on Sunday, “[n]o American president had ever faced a criminal trial. No American president had ever faced a federal indictment for retaining and concealing classified documents. No American president had ever faced a federal indictment or a state indictment for trying to overturn an election, or been named an unindicted co-conspirator in two other states for the same crime. No American president ever faced hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments for business fraud, defamation, and sexual abuse….

“The scale of the abnormality is so staggering, that it can actually become numbing. It’s all too easy to fall into reflexive habits, to treat this as a normal campaign, where both sides embrace the rule of law, where both sides are dedicated to a debate based on facts and the peaceful transfer of power. But, that is not what’s happening this election year. Those bedrock tenets of our democracy are being tested in a way we haven’t seen since the Civil War. It’s a test for the candidates, for those of us in the media, and for all of us as citizens.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[undignifiedpopemobile]

my driver hotness rankings

besties and behateds of the jury, this is maybe the most unhinged thing i will ever post but it is my sistine chapel it is my mona lisa. this is to me what citizen kane was to orson welles. i will prove to you today that my driver hotness rankings are objectively correct. i have assembled the evidence i have constructed my argument. (love you ell this one's for you.)

20

nyck (i’m so sorry). look someone has to go last. i am not prejudiced against short kings but it must be acknowledged that in combination with the face he is giving gnome. also i have seen the shirtless pics, and he is more ripped than george for christ’s sake there are so many ridges on his torso. he looks, to steal a phrase from patton oswald, “painful to fuck.” and i don’t have a vibe check on him yet so there is nothing else to compel me (benoit blanc voice) also i am not yet convinced he’s fast, which would increase his standing, because, say it with me, being good at things is hot. check back in after a few races. the thing where they tied him to a wheel rack was funny but not enough.

19

pierre. he’s fooled so many people into thinking he’s attractive with his beard contour and his donald trump ass haircut covering a truly atrocious hairline but there is no force on earth that can cover being a crypto bro. i have known so many and they are, without exception, the worst and more irritating people on the planet. if you own an nft you are not hot. if you TALK about it you are less hot. he has abs or whatever but i honestly think he is too ripped, similar to nyck. and i haven’t even mentioned the fact he’s a pedophile! his narrative used to be compelling to me because he got kicked out of red bull and i love redemption but he is a mid driver and a bitch and christian was right to fire him.

18

lando. this one may be controversial but i’m right and i can prove it: he looks like he’s twelve years old. who am i, pierre? i think the fuck not. admittedly he has nice eyes but he has a very oddly-shaped head. i could snap him like a twig, which looking at my dating history is not necessarily a deal breaker, but it is if he’d whine like a little bitch the whole time. he has never known the touch of a woman and he never will. the vibes are also atrocious: he’s a spoiled brat, and his interests are twitch and golf?????? he might not say racial slurs but he definitely crosses the street if he sees a black man. says he feels “uncomfortable” being around gay men with his shit off. bitch. i must clarify that i don't actually hate him but he has committed the worst crime to me: being a little irritating.

17

checo. people say he looks like tom cruise with a double chin but i just watched top gun and no he fucking does not. he looks more grizzled than fernando but in a haggard way not in a rugged cowboy way and he’s got a dad bod but not in a hot way. and the vibes are fucking off, absolutely swagless. fucking come on he’s had two seasons of getting his ass HANDED to him by max every week. i know it’s hard to be max’s teammate or whatever but i am pointing to him and saying MID. i don’t know anything about him personally except he’s got rich sponsors, he probably cheated on his wife, and he’s a homophobe. however he will move up if he goes full rosberg in 2023 and ruins christian’s life i do not pretend to be unbiased. the thesis of this one is that it is not hot to be boring. but if he becomes interesting i will change my mind.

16

oscar. see lando. he looks like a child! i do not believe he is 21 they are LYING because he's actually 14 and it should be illegal to let him drive. i do not believe he remembers obama’s first election. he’s up higher because i believe he is considerably more attractive than lando he has a sweet honest face i would kiss his little cheeks. but is he hot? ask again in five years. the narrative is also compelling to me because he did said “fuck the french” and that is hot that is HOT, but again, as of yet no vibe check. i see something in his eyes that indicates to me he may win the twink war but until first blood is spilled that is only hypothetical. sorry oscar nothing against you honey.

15

kmag. ok look. maybe i just don’t remember what kmag actually looks like but the picture on the f1 website is not flattering he looks like the stock photo wincing old man. i don’t think he’s unattractive really but i cannot put him above the rest of this list i fear! when he got pole that was really hot but what else is he giving? talking about balls? that wasn’t hot when dan did it and it’s not hot for kmag either. the vibe check should have enough data to produce something but it is coming up empty!!! i just do not know i’m sorry kevin. you do not have the x factor. you are not irritating, but to me, you are boring.

14

estie! you know he was below kmag but today i saw that gifset of him with long hair…. i could fix him (get him a hair stylist) he’s uncomfortably lanky. rat man may be affectionate, but rat man nevertheless. also i played myself by comparing himself to the flushed away rat because now i cannot see him without thinking about that. he’s got a really hot girlfriend which means he’s probably a feminist (will go down on a woman) and i know he doesn’t come from money. both of these things compel me tis true! but they are not enough to overcome the tragic truth that he looks like a cartoon character

13

hulkenberg. look ell i know i said he was conventionally attractive and i stand by that. he IS. but he also looks like a fucking ken doll. he has the GR wax doll disease. he went into the uncanny valley and he fucking founded a city-state there he’s building fucking governance structures and supporting a small private army to defend trade routes. his skin is so like….. tight. uncomfortable. and he is not redeemed by the vibe check. a million fucking races and no podium? and he wasn't only in shit cars! he was supposed to be a world champion coming up through the feeder series and he fell short of his potential. falling short of your potential is narratively compelling, but not in a hot way. i am pressing the big buzzer that says MID. boring.

12

lance. literally forgot about him until i got to number seven and then i was like….. wait a minute wait a fucking minute. he and nando are mirror opposites lance is here purely by virtue of his conventionally attractive little face. i can hear the ghosts of my jewish ancestors telling me to settle down with the nice billionaire jewish boy. but you know what? his voice is fucking irritating as shit and he has the least interesting variety of daddy issues. he’s got no fucking personality and he’s a nepo baby and he’s a mid ass driver and lawrence will not convince me otherwise by holding a gun to nando’s head and making him say shit about how good his stupid little failson is. 

11

NANDOOOOOOO ok i know this one is controversial but i don’t give a shit it’s my list. i know he’s fucking eighty do you think i care? no. i couldn’t give less of a shit what he looks like. all that matters to me is that he wakes up every single day and chooses to be a mischievous little bastard who foments….. something. el plan etc etc. yes he fucking blackmailed mclaren yes he has committed war crimes yes he is a misogynist. what is this twitter? i do not have to be morally correct here. and lest we forget he is in fact a fantastic fucking driver (hot). let the slow dismantling of the stroll dynasty begin. and he has the most important variable in my calculations: he is interesting.

10

guanyu. my problem here is vibe check coming up empty. he’s reasonably good looking, he’s nice, he seems to be in love with val (good taste! see the coffee video) he’s the second most stylish man in the paddock mostly by virtue of the competition being fucking pathetic. he’s a little short but i am not prejudiced against short kings! but personality wise i fear there is not much there although probably this is on me for being a dumb american and not speaking chinese. also he’s like. ungodly rich. like richer than stroll. and the CCP of it all is not beautiful. perhaps most damningly: is he a good driver? i do not know! give him another year, but the jury remains undecided. he is right in the middle but i reserve the right to move him up pending developments

9

logan. you don’t know how much it pains me to put this motherfucker in the top ten. he looks like he was recruited into the us military directly out of high school because he was failing english and knew he couldn’t get into college, but unfortunately he is also objectively very handsome. he’s not higher for obvious reasons (florida. donald trump.) but i cannot put him lower purely off the virtue of his captain america fucking face. fuck him i hope alex makes him cry real tears on track by lapping him in every single race. but he is hot. maybe he'll prove me wrong and he can stay here! but if he brings fucking..... jd vance or whatever as a guest to a gp it's straight to 20 i shit you not.

8

alex. out of all the men on this list alex is probably the one i would most like to date. he’s nice, he’s reasonably charming, he’s a feminist, he’s got the angst of losing that red bull seat without the pierre of it all, he’s got the compelling homoerotic friendship with george but you know what this is not sash’s list of dateable men it is driver hotness and we must acknowledge the fact that he is not particularly good looking! like estie he has a fucking banana nuts hot girlfriend, but facially he is not always giving. he’s cute; he’s not necessarily hot. he’s this high only because i kept bumping him up because i was like “well i can’t put him below fucking LOGAN”. also, while i believe he’s a good driver, is he REALLY good, or just good? beating the shit out of latifi does not convince me of anything! like mick beating the shit out of mazepin it’s pretty much guaranteed to happen.

7

max. ok ell hear me out. right now he is not looking too hot but it's because of the bad haircut and he’s not racing. being good at things, say it with me, is hot and the only thing, the ONLY THING in max’s life is being good at racing. he’s fucking fast. also, he seems like he’s actually kind of a fun guy. when he laughs at his own jokes that is very cute i think. the little eye crinkles. the cheeks. when he’s got his hair grown out a little and a five o’clock shadow going… he can fool me into thinking he’s actually good looking and doesn't a little bit resemble sid the sloth from the ice age movies (sorry. but it's true) and the version of him i have made up in my head and convinced myself is real is extremely fucking compelling!!!! admittedly the kelly dynamic almost knocked him down but it takes two people to make a dynamic and i guarantee you i would not be giving any maternal energy at all. i think i could fix him (introduce him to pegging)

6

yuki. that’s right fuck you. he’s funny as fuck and we could do karaoke together. i would carry him around in my tote bag and he could eat off the children’s menu at restaurants (cost of living is high you save where you can.) he’s giving face and he’s giving body he’s actually so fucking handsome and the reason people are sleeping on how beautiful he is is because of the particularities of anti-asian racism, where “western” people read traditionally east-asian features as unmasculine, and therefore they are either fetishized or dismissed as romantic/sexual partners entirely. well i’m anti-racism bitch! yuki is HOT! also i know he’s not that good at driving or whatever but do you know what’s even hotter than being good at things? not giving a SHIT!!!! yuki is the spiritual successor to kimi raikonnen on this grid i’m fucking right and i’m the only one brave enough to say it. f1 is a hobby for him and he treats the sport exactly as it should be treated (with disdain, like it’s a mild inconvenience or errand on par with vacuuming) maybe this is inconsistent with my "being good at things is hot theory" but you know what? fuck you. it's my list i do what i want. if i contradict myself than i contradict myself

5

george. yeah…… i’m quite frankly a little shocked and upset he’s this high. i know i made this list myself but i’m not keeping track very well in all honesty and i’m about four drinks in. but you know what? i’m not blaming alcohol. this is accurate for my hotness rankings. i’m a bit of a george girl at the moment. every new fact i learn about him makes him more compelling to me. he's the george bit of alex's homoerotic relationship with george! really i only need one story about him to compel me: getting himself into the merc driver program with the power of microsoft powerpoint. he’s the most “he’s just like me fr” driver on the grid for me and i’m a big enough woman to admit that. the version of him i’ve made up inside my head has a personality and you know what? unfortunately for the haters he has proved them all wrong and he’s an excellent fucking driver. i don’t think he’s better than lewis but he stood up to the pressure of that second merc seat fucking fantastically even with his biological father there judging his performance the whole time! and i know he looks a little bit like a robot but it must be admitted! he is attractive! he’s got a great body! idk i’m gaslighting myself i guess it’s my deep-seated american desire to infiltrate the upper classes of england and bring it all down from the inside. but i’m keeping him in spot number five. and fuck anyone who disagrees.

4

valtteri. i mean. other than yuki the closest to kimi we can get on the current grid. lost his merc seat and immediately said “my ass will be fully out for the rest of my life and there is nothing you can do about it” can you imagine the amount of time toto wasted just saying “no valtteri you cannot post hole on instagram”. he’s a feminist he’s an icon! he’s not an outstanding driver but he’s solid! by number of wins currently fourth best cunt on the grid i believe! the mustache! he has alex albon energy in that i would actually date him but i think he’s more attractive. he is the only blond-haired blue-eyed man on the list who does not even a little bit activate the “nazi detector” in my brain which is admittedly a little overactive in the current political climate. i don’t know love isn’t rational. but i love him. i love him, your honor. and you will not convince me otherwise with facts (he's not really objectively all that physically attractive)

3

carlos. look the ferrari boys were pretty close together and ell i know you disagree with me here but ultimately it comes down to one thing i will discuss in the charles ranking and a couple things i will discuss here. yes he’s hot. fucking obviously. it’s barely worth pointing it out he’s outrageously attractive. but as i have said many times hotness is about more than the physical! and the vibe check is mixed. he does have the most compelling flavor of daddy issues (father is loving and supportive but still an unattainable ideal. the closest thing to god on earth for carlos sainz jr is carlos sainz sr and what a terrible legacy that is to bear) but on the other hand golf! and he has a weird and not very sexy voice! and he’s probably violently catholic! and there’s stories about him being kind of a dick to fans! i did not verify either of those things but fuck you this isn't journalism. and, most damningly, i believe that when it comes to driving he is…… FUCKING MID. there i said it. he got lucky his first year with and he’s still in denial about being the second driver to charles leclerc. have you seen the fucking instagram? girl fred vasseur may say he'll let it be decided on track but charles is coming to family dinners in the vasseur household. delusion is not hot unless it’s in a funny way (see: fernando, el plan). and i swear to christ if he messes up even a single race for charles this season because he thinks he’s better i will knock him down to the bottom of his list without remorse.

2

charles. it’s my list fuck you. other than george, charles (the version of him i have made up inside my head) is the most like me on the grid. he is— pause for dramatic effect— fucking COMPELLING. (benoit blanc voice) you know i love a narrative and he’s got a fucking narrative. he plays the piano (hot) he’s got the sexiness of the french language without the lameness of being french (yes i believe monaco is a historical mistake and a geopolitical aberration and should be incorporated into france and all those cunts should pay taxes but objectively monaco is very sexy!!! walt whitman i contain multitudes) and he’s got the catholic guilt of driving for ferrari without the lameness of actual catholicism (looking at you carlos) is he the most interesting bitch in the world? no. but he can hold a conversation, he has more interests than just racing and video games, and he’s much funnier in french, and as these boring ass guys go he’s pretty funny even in english. also, again, takes two to make a dynamic and i am funny enough for any two people on the planet. also, and this must be said, he’s a fucking excellent driver. BEING GOOD AT THINGS IS HOT! AND we have not even mentioned the fact that physically speaking he is what we call a Specimen. he’s got body, he’s got face. i know you don’t think he does ell but with respect you are wrong. he’s got the cheekbones he’s got the nose he’s got the fucking ridiculous shoulder to hip ratio, he’s got the hand porn. he has literal protagonist eye syndrome (they appear to be different colors depending on the lighting) he’s fucking insanely hot.

1

Lewis. I mean it’s just quite literally the only correct answer. he’s giving face, he’s giving body. the tattoos! dan thinks he has cool tattoos but he has pete davidson disease lewis actually has really cool tattoos. but his hotness is literally the least compelling thing about him. he’s multi-talented (music??? so hot) he’s not just a racer, but like, let’s not discount the fact he is the best f1 driver of all time. like i’ve established it’s hot when people are good at things (except golf). he’s not a businessman he’s a business, man. he’s got mad fucking drip. his politics are.............. of mixed quality really but by comparison he's practically bernie sanders. of all the drivers he’s the one i think i could make a socialist if i had a twenty minute conversation with him. i could get him to read marx i could get him to read zizek. not even to mention the compelling fucking narrative of his life. the karting years the brocedes of it all the mclaren civil war he is producing CONTENT. yes he speaks like a motivational poster and the dog account is cringe but the flaws make him human. if he were too perfect he would be less hot. 

this is the judgement of the court

[edmundhoward]

How is the relationship between Katherine Howard and her family? Does she have any close friends?

✨ terfs/zionists fuck off ✨

we unfortunately don’t know who katherine was close to. that’s not to say she had no friends, but we don’t have enough surviving information to identify any.

possibly she was close with jane rochford — it is interesting how little the notion of a genuine friendship is considered when examining their relationship. you could make a similar (probably stronger) argument for katherine tilney.

charlotte merton in her chapter ‘women, friendship, & memory’ has pointed to katherine howard as a small case study for the social culture for female friendships: “the women who were to play a crucial role in katherine howard’s fall — alice wilkes, joan ackworth, katherine tilney, and margaret morton — had all been outplaced in the old duchess of norfolk’s household at the same time […] rank trumped kinship, and friendship trumped both. […] once outplaced in the company of other girls, nearness and shared self-interest might lead to friendship, much like the ‘two artificial gods’ helena and hermia, ‘a union in partition’, but equally there might have been fertile ground for abiding hatred”.

i think it’s also reasonable to categorise thomas culpeper here, as a friend — if nothing else.

as for family, well, that’s also difficult to trace. wilkinson points out individuals in katherine’s household who she may have had a positive relationship with: “some of [her household] were family or friends, such as sir edward baynon, vice-chamberlain, and his second wife, her half-sister, isabel; her cousin mary howard, duchess of richmond, daughter of the duke of norfolk; and margaret, lady howard, the wife of lord william howard and katherine’s aunt”. but it’s not actually clear if she had much of a relationship with all these relatives — there’s a good chance she only got to know some of them once at court, and “life in this splendid maze brought katherine into more regular contact with other members of her family” (russell).

we could speculate that her siblings rewarded at the point of her marriage were suggested by katherine, and not exclusively henry — but this could only be speculation. for example, on the eve of katherine’s wedding, her brother charles received five properties in london, and her half-sister isabel got a manor house in wiltshire and all the lands formerly belonging to malmesbury abbey. perhaps katherine assented to this, if not nominating them to henry entirely of her own accord… but no evidence survives to tell us this, and it’s worth remembering that overall katherine’s siblings did not profit hugely from her marriage: “katherine did not possess the influence necessary to promote them into government. a few years later, courtiers agreed that katherine parr’s brother had done better out of his sister’s marriage to the king than the howard brothers had in 1540” (russell). her brothers charles and george obtained positions at court, but her brother henry did not: “henry howard, the brother katherine had spent most of her time with when they had both been attached to the household of the dowager duchess, does not seem to have joined their other brothers at court […] for reasons which are unknown” (russell).

we know that her sister (wilkinson claims mary, taffe claims margaret) originally held the position then taken by jane rochford: “lady jane, however, had not been the first choice for the post of lady of queen katherine’s privy chamber: the position had originally been held by one of katherine’s sisters” (wilkinson). we also know she had a poor relationship with her uncle norfolk — she complained to her ladies about him, he told courtiers he wished she would be burned alive. we can also surmise a lack of closeness with her half-sister, isabel, who waited upon katherine while she languished in syon. this is notable as, while katherine was allowed to select the women she took with her, isabel was the only one imposed upon her at henry’s insistence — she also seems to have been rewarded for this service, receiving a land grant from the king. as russell supposes (and i am inclined to agree): “sir edward’s willingness to assist the council in their investigations of queen anne boleyn in 1536 and his antipathy towards the household he served made him a reliable gaoler and a trustworthy informant. baynton was the one who told cranmer how katherine behaved when the archbishop left her rooms in the first few days of her disgrace. […] henry’s men did not doubt isabel baynton’s innocence, but that he gifted isabella with land in the same month as her half sister was incarcerated and their brother charles was banished from court leads to a conclusion that she had done far more than clear herself of complicity. edward baynton’s appointment to syon and the grant to isabel suggest that they sent the privy council reports on katherine’s behaviour”.

then of course we have her relations from the dowager duchess’ household…

[monkvyasaa]

World Famous Leaders and their Zodiac Signs

World-Famous Leaders with their Zodiac Signs

People born under the same Zodiac sign have some, so it’s not uncommon for world-famous people to share a few Zodiac signs. This article will attempt to determine what these star signs are, as well as explore some current and historical leaders and the star signs they bear. The first section of the article, divided into two parts, will list some of the people who have demonstrated outstanding leadership in their chosen sector. The second section of the article will look at it from the perspective of the Sun Signs. From the individual leader’s point of view, the following list enumerates the different leaders and the similarities that they possessed with the characteristics of their sun signs:

Napoleon Bonaparte (Leo)

He was a Leo who was born on August 15, 1769, and he was the one who made his enemies fear him. Leos are represented by lions for a reason; they are the zodiac sign with the most royal leaders. Extroverted Leos are quick to attract others’ attention.Because Leos are controlled by the Sun, they naturally expect others to revolve around them. They are fiercely ambitious and courageous, qualities that helped Napoleon realize his aim of conquering all of Europe at the time.

Martin Luther King, Jr. (Capricorn)

Martin Luther King, Jr., one of America’s and probably the world’s most famous citizens, characterized the civil rights movement for generations to come. MLK was born on January 15th, which made him a Capricorn.MLK was a staunch supporter of black people until his assassination. As a Capricorn, he was careful, calm, and disciplined. His dedication to the subject aided America in reducing, if not eliminating, racial abuse. He was a great leader who received the Nobel Peace Prize before being killed.

George Washington (Pisces)Another important historical figure, George Washington, was instrumental in the victory of the American Revolution. General George was born on February 22nd, 1732, and possessed great military strategy and leadership qualities. George Washington, like the real Piscean, was idealistic and altruistic. He could have been the king himself, but he opted to step aside after two terms as President, establishing the norm of Presidents stepping down after two terms.

Joseph Stalin (Sagittarius)

Joseph Stalin was born on December 18, 1878, in the sign of Sagittarius, and is credited with conquering Berlin and finally defeating the Nazis. Sagittarius is noted for being philosophical, even to the point of losing touch with reality. That would explain why Stalin was a firm communist believer who argued that it was the only way out. Sagittarians are often perceived as having contradictory features, such as being obsessive yet not religious, serious but lacking tact, to name a few. This nicely sums up Stalin’s actions and strategies during the conflict.

From the Sun Sign’s point of view

different because sun signs have varied characteristics, it’s only natural that the following list enumerates the various renowned leaders that each sun sign has had in the past.

Scorpio-

Scorpio is the most powerful sign, possessing the presidents of 22 different countries. Scorpios are known for their determination, but they are also secretive and stubborn. The following are some of the notable countries on Scorpio’s list

Australia || Oman || Iran || Nicaragua || Vietnam || Bolivia || Croatia || Honduras || North Korea || Lithuania || Grenada || Mozambique

Leo–

Leos are a close second, and they are one of the most powerful and faithful zodiac signs. Before Donald Trump, President Barack Obama was a Leo. Leos are known for being patronizing, but they are also energetic and warm-hearted. Currently residing in 18 nations, Leo’s list includes the following notable countries.

Algeria || Colombia || Tanzania || Seychelles || Palestine || Nepal || Mali || United States || France || Greece || Portugal || New Zealand

Sagittarius-

The typical Sagittarius is idealistic in temperament, valuing freedom and philosophy. Winston Churchill was one of the most prominent Sagittarians. Stalin, as previously said, shared the same solar sign as Hitler, intensifying the rivalry between the two. Sagittarius, like Leo, is represented by 18 countries; prominent countries in Sagittarius’ list include:

Brazil || Denmark || Belgium || Poland || Bahrain || Ghana || Jamaica || Nigeria || Haiti || Panama || Vanuatu || Venezuela || Moldova ||

The majority of countries are represented by these three sun signs, with the remainder distributed among the remaining nine sun signs.

[royal-confessions]

“As much as I wanted the Romanovs saved by George V, I completely understood why they weren't rescued. Their Russian Imperial Family's reputation in GB at the time had a similar feel to Trump's image at the present, and even I would save my own family first. I know it's heartbreaking to see the other relatives try to save them, but on a rational viewpoint George V did the right thing.” - Submitted by Anonymous

“I hate people that take jabs at George V for not giving Tsar Nicholas asylum. How was he supposed to know their fate? He was the King! Its obvious his priorities were to the people and the people didnt want the Tsar in Britain.” - Submitted by Anonymous

[pinelife3]

An investigation: if supermodels are so dumb and vapid, how do they pull artistic geniuses?

This is a picture of Nick Cave and his wife leaving the inquest into their son’s death. Their 15 year old boy fell from a cliff after taking acid and becoming disoriented. 

I cannot even conceive of how terrible it must be to lose a child. The drugs and the cliff make it an episode of Skins (or Euphoria for the zoomers) but that’s your little boy. It was a stupid accident and now you never get to see him again. A teenaged tragedy. Unendingly unfair. 

Ghosteen, the 2019 album from Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, is a complex, existential album in conversation with the death of Nick’s son and his feelings of loss and grief. Nick Cave is an artist - his life’s work is to share how he feels and what he thinks. What he’s expressing with Ghosteen is sorrow and longing - and some larger angst about the purpose of existence.

Through all this tragedy, I’m sure you couldn’t help but notice... who’s the babe with the shiny hair and the fabulous gazongas? That’s Nick’s wife, man! Susie Bick - or sometimes Susie Cave. She was a major model in the 80s and 90s. A model and an artist - it’s actually fitting. 

And what’s more, Susie is the founder of The Vampire’s Wife - a label which has become super popular in the last couple of years. (Fashion people eyeroll The Vampire’s Wife because every dress has the same silhouette, but that’s out of the scope of this blog.)

There is a perception that models are are vapid and unserious. Their job is to look good, keep their mouth shut, and move merchandise. They cannot offer anything profound because their value is surface level. Men and women both push this way of thinking. 

For example, when Brad Pitt was recently revealed to be dating 27 year old model Nicole Poturalski, people were disappointed. Brad Pitt has been a cultural fixture for decades - after all this time, people still find him fascinating. And they expect him to date someone who is equally compelling. Clooney married a human rights lawyer - why is Brad dating someone who makes posts like this on Instagram...

This was Lainey Gossip’s take on the new girlfriend: 

A model, younger, it’s so predictable it’s almost boring.

Nice! I guess we’re all feminists until the woman in question is young and hot. 

It's easy to assume the worst of a person who is unknown to us, but is beautiful and hooking up with someone famous. A million mean thoughts spring to mind. “A model, younger”. That’s scorn. You know exactly what she’s saying: hot but dumb. An uninteresting person. We know what Brad really wants her for... 

If Brad Pitt is compelling to you, how compelling must Nicole Poturalski be to have won and held his attention? Brad Pitt has not been celibate in the four years since he separated from Angelina Jolie, but not until Nicole did we have confirmation of someone who he was definitely seeing. He allowed himself to be photographed with her en route to his French chateau. And what ensued was a weird story - she’s in an open relationship with some old German restaurateur and she has a son? She’s a sugar baby? Why would Brad fucking Pitt get publicly involved with someone who has a messy personal life: why hook up with a married 27 year old and weather months of stories about her open marriage if he didn’t actually like her? Why even be seen with her? The relationship is a little weird - but the reporting on it has been nasty. The new sugar baby angle which has emerged in the last week (late October 2020) is basically calling her a whore. This is the level of suspicion and derision directed at a model dating a public fixture like Brad Pitt. The notion that Brad Pitt would pay for female company or sex is patently absurd. 

If our assumptions about models are correct, why do so many models end up with artistic geniuses? I don’t care about the Victoria’s Secret models who hooked up with the bassist from Kings of Leon. I’m talking about beautiful women who made it with icons, the premier humans of the past century:

MUSICIANS

Nick Cave and Susie Bick

David Bowie and Iman

Kanye West and Amber Rose

Bob Dylan and Sara Lownds

Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall

Mick Jagger and Carla Bruni

Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin

Eric Clapton and Pattie Boyd

George Harrison and Pattie Boyd

Madonna and Jesus Luz

MISC. POWERFUL PEOPLE

Salman Rushdie and Padma Lakshmi

Donald Trump and Melania (lol)

Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni

Evan Spiegel and Miranda Kerr 

Hitler and Eva Braun (What?! She had a brief career an artist’s model...)

Michael Jordan and Yvette Prieto

Rupert Murdoch and Jerry Hall 

ACTORS (perhaps not artistic icons... but still creative and interesting)

Matthew McConaughey and Camila Alves

Johnny Depp and Kate Moss

Bradley Cooper and Irina Shayk

Bradley Cooper and Suki Waterhouse

Robert Pattinson and Suki Waterhouse

Vincent Cassel and Tina Kunakey

Halle Berry and Gabriel Aubrey

Leonardo DiCaprio and half the VS roster

Huge congrats to all the models with more than one entry on the list. You’ll note that there is a dearth of female icon/male model pairings - this is kind of interesting but not something I feel like getting into.

To some extent, the prevalence of the artist and model pairing makes sense. Men like good looking women. Rich, powerful men are high status and have access to good looking women. Plus, an artist needs a muse.

Many of the models in the list above are actually iconic in their own right. Like, when someone is having a great day on RuPaul’s Drag Race and looking sleek and skinny and flawless RuPaul might compare them to Iman. People pay $10,000 USD for handbags named after Jane Birkin. 

Conversely, in the case of Amber Rose, she became the most desired woman in the hip hop industry c. 2010 because she was with Kanye. And most especially because she broke Kanye’s heart. Everyone wanted the girl from “Hell of a Life”. People point to that song as being about Kim - it was prophetic, yes, but not written about her.

Anyway. Could an icon, a legend, a genius, make it work with someone who had nothing to offer but a fast metabolism and a beautiful face? Do poreless skin and puffy lips make up for never finishing high school? 

Wouldn’t being with someone superficial or unserious mean the artist was fundamentally boring in some way too? This is increasingly the assumption about Leonardo DiCaprio - seen above photographing his 23 year old model gf for her Instagram. Even Reddit mocks him for his age gap relationships with models.

And here’s where I try to make my point: 

Kate Moss’ daughter, Lila, recently had her modelling debut during Paris Fashion Week. It was big news because she’s celebrity spawn - and of course her mother is one of the most iconic models ever. She was eviscerated. 

On The Daily Mail, the comparisons to her mother flowed. What’s interesting is that Daily Mail readers do not like Kate Moss but they will defend her 90s modelling career with their life. They laud her bone structure, her waifish figure. An irresistible, undeniable face. 

It seems silly to praise someone for the shape of their head and the way their skin fits over it... it’s not a talent, is it? Maybe it is! There is no shortage of hot girls in the world - but there may be a shortage of girls with preternatural charismatic beauty. Lila Moss (left above) is attractive - she even looks quite a bit like her mum. Perhaps in the pic above she even looks hotter than her mum (right above). But Kate Moss is more interesting: less perfect - half her eyebrow is missing, she’s less manicured. She exudes some kind of darkness, newness. Lottie Moss, Kate’s younger half-sister, is a similar story. Obviously attractive, obviously interested in modelling - but she’s lacking something. 

Bella Hadid came from a similar-ish background to Lila Moss (Bravoleb parents, frequent appearances on Real Housewives of Beverley Hills in her teen years, groomed by her ex-model mother) but Bella Hadid has it. She may have risen through the ranks due to nepotism and cosmetic surgery but she is someone people want to look at. She is sought after - not foisted upon us. Again, it’s not because she’s the hottest woman on the planet. She is gorgeous, but on top of that, there’s something beguiling about the angles of her face.

What’s this thing that clicks in your head telling you that Kate Moss’s face is more interesting than her daughter’s? It’s an intrusive thought: her skull shape is pleasing, let your eyes linger. A command: you will not forget that face. 

Iman has it. Look at her. On meeting Iman, Bowie said: "I was naming the children the night we met... it was absolutely immediate." How many beautiful women had Bowie met in his life? How many had this effect?

Can you imagine trying to keep David Bowie or Bob Dylan interested in what you’re saying? Or Madonna? Or Michael Jordan? Most of us do not have a single thought in our head which would be of interest to these people. The models I listed earlier transfixed them. Mick Jagger could have romanced every woman on the planet - but he only wanted Jerry Hall (pls disregard affairs so I can make my point). 

When a model hooks up with an artistic genius, it’s illogical to assume she’s vapid or that the icon is with her for shallow reasons. What we should assume is that she is the most interesting woman that icon has crossed paths with in a long time - which would make her very interesting indeed.

[hereisisa]

I love that remark you made about Elizabeth II's father being able to accomplish his duties despite his shyness and initial insecurities. But no doubt there'll be arguments like "But look! George and Anna are spares to the throne! If George can do it, Anna can too!" And maybe that'll be true (at the suspense of her own personality, of course), but them having no formal training to be a monarch (they'll still have similar lessons as backup, in case anything happened to the firstborn) and being

Part 2: spares is where the similarities end. Anna is an extrovert, merry and easy to talk to, friendly and approachable, as was George's brother, David (though he's far less likable than Anna). George is Anna's opposite, he wanted nothing more than to remain an officer and be with his family. In many ways, he was like pre-II Elsa, perform the duties assigned to them and stay with their family. They never wanted "more" out of life. And I only realized that these two former spares have one more

Part 3: more thing in common - both had to step up to the plate because their elder siblings turned away from responsibility, David ran away to be with Wallis, Elsa ran off to be the fifth spirit, dump the Crown on Anna, and do god knows what in the forest with the Northuldra. What does she need to protect exactly? Does she need to appease Bruni's wrath by making snow for him every day? 

-----------------------------------

Mmmm yes and no anon.

Yes, King George was shy, introvert, and had to work hard to keep his stutter in control. (Elsa had easier way with her magic now).

He was an introvert like Elsa proving that introverts can be good leaders.

He was a second choice as Anna, but no, “He was the spare as Anna and he did it!” doesn’t work because Anna being queen proves nothing because OUR SOCIETY ALREADY BELIEVES THAT EXTROVERTS ARE NATURAL LEADERS EVEN IF THEY ARE IDIOTS.

Look at Trump! ;)

So what’s the message here?

Socialite is good at...socialize?

LOL!! No shit Sherlock!

What a brand new and wonderful message here! LMAO!!

So I’m sorry, I’m not buying the “Anna as savior of Arendelle” idea you’re bringing in my DMs.

If F2 wrote Elsa as an asshole, do I have to pretend 3 movies and dozens of books don’t exist cause some KA idiots believe Elsa is an asshole?

No. I prefer to ignore the retcons.

Anna as queen brings absolutely nothing new to the table but the hetero princess becoming an hetero queen with dude and kids.

We saw it the first time with Snow White in 1938.

What a new concept!

You are free to like it, but you’re just ridiculous to praise how sense it makes and how new and wonderful idea this is.

It’s litterally CRAP.

[insidewarp]

In a recent outburst at a reporter who asked a question he didn't like, President Trump angrily insisted that "I'm the President of the United States! Don't ever talk to the president that way!" This is far from the worst Trump temper tantrum. But it caught my eye because of the similarity to a famous scene in Season 3 of Game of Thrones where King Joffrey throws a very similar tantrum and insists "I am the king!" As Joffrey's grandfather Lord Tywin points out in response, "any man who must say 'I am the king' is no true king." He then makes Joffrey go to bed. ... Trump is not the only politician who inspires Game of Thrones analogies. Last year, I critiqued Sen. Elizabeth Warren's article praising Daenerys Targaryen and trying to analogize parts of her own political agenda to that of the Dragon Queen. Warren's attempt to claim the mantle of Dragon Queen became even more problematic after what the latter did in episodes that aired a few weeks after the article was published (though, in my view, this plot twist was badly flawed). Sadly, life imitates Game of Thrones all too often. Though they differ in various other ways, one thing Joffrey, Trump, Daenerys, and Warren all have in common is an aversion to structural limits on government power—especially when they themselves are the ones wielding it.

Ilya Somin,  Professor of Law at George Mason University.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

May 20, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

President Joe Biden is trying to model a normal presidency as he stabilizes the nation after the drama of the past four years, rebuilds from the devastation of the coronavirus pandemic, and deals with crises around the world.

Today, Biden signed into law a bill to combat hate crimes, especially against Asian Americans, sparked by Covid-19. After former president Trump began blaming China for the coronavirus pandemic—calling the virus the “kung flu” for example—hate crimes against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders spiked to more than 6600 between March 2020 and March 2021. “Hate has no place in America,” Biden tweeted.

Vaccine rates are up: more than 48% of the population has gotten at least one dose of the coronavirus vaccine, and in 19 states, more than half the population is fully vaccinated. This week, for the first time since March of last year, the seven-day average of deaths from Covid-19 has fallen below 500.

The economy is healing. Fresh claims for unemployment insurance fell again last week, by 34,000, showing an improving job market. Now at 444,000, they are still higher than they were before the pandemic. Nonetheless, more than 20 states have announced they are rejecting the $300 a week boost in federal unemployment benefits, insisting that the extra money is keeping people from going to work.

Biden is also dealing with foreign policy crises, to which he brings a longstanding interest in foreign affairs, including 34 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and 8 years in the vice presidency, dealing with foreign countries. He is the president most experienced in foreign affairs since at least George H. W. Bush, who had been U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

In managing foreign affairs, Biden appears to favor private pressure over public statements, leaving room for other governments to change direction without losing face domestically by backing down to the United States in public, a tendency he showed when he declined to sanction Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman personally for the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, instead increasing pressure on MBS by imposing penalties on 76 of the people around him.

Private pressure over public statements appears to have been Biden’s approach to the recent crisis between Palestinians and Israeli military that broke out on May 10, killing at least 230 Palestinians in Gaza (the 25-mile-long, 4- to 8-mile-wide strip on the Mediterranean side of Israel) including 63 children, leaving tens of thousands homeless, and badly damaging hospitals, schools, roads, and water and electrical systems. Twelve Israelis, including two children, have also been killed.

Biden has pressured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end Israel’s bombing campaign against Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that controls Gaza. Through allies, especially those in Egypt, which borders Gaza, the administration has told Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israel. Today Israel and Hamas agreed to a cease-fire brokered by Egypt. It is not clear if the cease-fire will hold: after similar hostilities in 2014, it ultimately took 9 truces to end the fighting.

But while there is a normal—and largely successful—presidency underway, politics in America is not at all business as usual. The Republican Party is radicalizing into a pro-Trump force that is throwing the country under the bus to defend their leader.

Dramatically, Republicans have come out this week against an investigation into the January 6 insurrection. This is a transparent attempt to protect former president Trump, as well, perhaps, as some of their own members; House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) today refused to say whether he thought members of his caucus had communicated with the January 6 rioters.

This objection to an investigation of an attack of such magnitude is breathtaking. We have always had investigations of attacks on our country; Republicans themselves held 7 congressional investigations and 33 hearings about the 2012 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, that killed 4 Americans.

Today, journalist David Freedlander reminded us that in January, a number of Republican lawmakers, including McCarthy, argued against impeaching then-president Trump for inciting the January 6 insurrection because, they said, a “fact-finding commission” was important. “I believe impeaching the president in such a short time frame would be a mistake,” said McCarthy. “No investigations have been completed. No hearings have been held….”

And yet, McCarthy and the Republican leadership are now opposing the creation of a bipartisan commission, although the Democrats gave them all their demands: equal representation on the commission, the power to subpoena witnesses, and a final report before the end of the year.

The story is the same in the Senate. On February 13, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), tweeted: “The 1/6 attack on the Capitol was horrific & appalling. Those who planned & participated in the violence that day should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I agree w/Speaker Pelosi—a 911-type investigation is called for to help prevent this from happening again.”

And yet, Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT), whom Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman intercepted and led away from the mob on January 6, today told journalist Manu Raju that he wasn’t sure whether he will block debate on the commission bill. This indicates there will not be enough Senate votes to break a filibuster on the bill.

Today, Senator Angus King, Jr. (I-ME) came out and said it: “We need answers on the 1/6 insurrection—but many of my [Republican] colleagues are indicating they will vote against an independent investigation. When people start moving heaven and earth to block an investigation, I have to wonder if there is something to hide.”

—-

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[popolitiko]

Enemies, a Love Story: Inside the 36-year Biden and McConnell Relationship

The two 78-year-old deal-makers have been parties to the collapse of Capitol culture. Now they’ll need to make Washington work again.

By ALEX THOMPSON    01/22/2021

The last time Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell faced off, Biden blinked first.

It was the winter of 2012. Then, as now, Democrats had just won a presidential election, had a narrow Senate majority, and Biden was earnestly proclaiming that the election would break the Republican “fever” of opposing the Democratic agenda.

The first test came immediately.

A cascade of deadlines on December 31, 2012, set up a world economy-level battle known as the “fiscal cliff.” Without any action by Congress, the next year would bring about $700 billion in combined tax hikes and budget cuts—extreme austerity measures that could cripple the recovering economy.

The Democratic Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, was willing to go over the cliff if McConnell didn’t agree to tax increases for the highest earners, one of Democrats’ signature campaign promises. Reid reasoned that if taxes were to rise automatically, McConnell would have to negotiate from a weakened position. Obama and Biden, however, feared an adverse reaction from the markets and a potential recession.

In a move that angered Reid, Biden took over the negotiations with Obama’s blessing. The outcome—a continuation of the Bush-era tax cuts with a relatively modest hike of 1.8 percent, weighted toward higher earners—was the kind of deal both negotiators could celebrate.

McConnell did, crowing to his fellow Republicans that “in a government controlled two-thirds by the Democrats, we got permanency for 99 percent of the Bush tax cuts.”

Biden did, boasting in a June 2019 debate that “I got Mitch McConnell to raise taxes $600 billion by raising the top rate.”

But many Democrats weren’t celebrating at all and still haven’t gotten over it. At the same 2019 debate, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado called it “a complete victory for the Tea Party. It extended the Bush tax cuts permanently. The Democratic Party had been running against that for 10 years.”

Now, eight years later, Biden and McConnell are entering a new phase of their 36-year relationship, and the Democratic left fears a repeat of the 2012 dynamic. Once again, their party wields most of the levers of government. They control the White House and Senate, albeit by the slimmest possible margin. Unlike 2012, they have a slim majority in the House, as well. Nonetheless, they seem destined to be bargaining for half a loaf, at best, for anything that requires 60 votes in the Senate, the level necessary to defeat a filibuster.

That’s because between them and their agenda stands McConnell, an acknowledged master of Senate procedures, famed for his ability to block presidential agendas.

Even as McConnell has seen some of his power ebb away—losing his Senate majority on the clay fields of Georgia, breaking with Donald Trump in the final days of his presidency—he still finds himself an essential figure in Biden’s Washington.

He is the key to the new president’s ability to turn the page from the Trump years. After years of legislative stasis, Biden is betting big that the Senate can return to the deal-making body he and McConnell came of age in. He hopes that he and his 2012 negotiating partner can plumb their shared history to locate a workable middle in a hyperpolarized time.

That’s a special challenge for McConnell, who is already at odds with the Trumpian wing of the Republican Party after defying Trump on Biden’s victory and even privately being open to impeaching him. Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Tuesday called for a new leader in the Senate and said McConnell had revealed himself to be the “king of the establishment Republicans.”

Even if McConnell wanted to cut deals with Biden, any compromise could further undermine his and his members’ position with the Republican base ahead of the 2022 midterms and the next presidential election. Several Republican senators eyeing their own runs in 2024 are already signaling unapologetic opposition to the entire Biden agenda.

Meanwhile, Biden’s allies are loudly insisting that finding common ground is possible and exactly what the American people want after the past decade of partisan warfare. The Biden team is aware that many in their own party are rolling their eyes but argue that it’s just the latest instance of the Democratic establishment underestimating Joe Biden.

“People said it was naive, you know, 18, 19 months ago as he was running, he was criticized for it. But you know what? It's one of the reasons he won,” said a senior Biden White House adviser. Other Biden allies argue that voters will punish Republicans in 2022 if they look like they are being obstructionist in the middle of a crisis.

“A majority of senators have never served in a functional Senate,” said Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a close Biden ally and friend. “This is the best chance the Senate will have in our lifetimes to get more functional, because we have an incoming president who knows and respects the Senate.”

But what constitutes functionality may be considerably less than Biden’s ambitious campaign promises.

“There are many examples of things that are just really beyond partisanship,” the senior adviser said. Asked for examples, the adviser pointed to second-tier issues like infrastructure spending and broadband internet access.

Jason Furman, who chaired President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers and is an occasional outside adviser to the Biden team, lowered expectations. “I’m not sure they can accomplish big things together, [but] I do think they can work together to keep the wheels on the bus,” he said.

McConnell, Furman believes, could be a willing partner in the basics—getting budgets passed in a timely manner, not playing chicken with the debt ceiling, and other incremental, good government measures.

Most skeptical of all is Obama himself, no fan of McConnell and someone who has chafed at the idea that his vice president might be able to achieve things that he himself could not.

“I’m enjoying reading now about how Joe Biden and Mitch have been friends for a long time,” the former president quipped to the Atlantic shortly after the 2020 election. “They’ve known each other for a long time.”

Washington friends aren’t normal friends. While some outliers like Ted Kennedy or John McCain genuinely relished their personal relationships across the aisle, the more enduring bond between long-serving senators is having belonged to such an exclusive club, and respect for its unwritten rules. Among these institutionalists, outsiders just don’t get it, whether they’re an earnest reformer like Obama or an imperious novice like Trump.

Biden, who joined the Senate in 1973, won his third term in the same year a former Senate staffer named Mitch McConnell won his first.

Like Biden, who began his Senate career by surprising the pundits with a razor-thin, upset win over two-term Republican Sen. J. Caleb Boggs, McConnell surprised much of the political world by edging out two-term Democrat Walter “Dee” Huddleston in the 1984 Senate race in Kentucky.

Despite being born nine months apart and sharing an interest in Senate history, the two men weren’t initially close during the 24 years they overlapped in the chamber, according to aides to both men.

“They are both good politicians, but they couldn't be more different as politicians and that was from the get go,” said Janet Mullins Grissom, who managed McConnell’s 1984 race against Huddleston and was one of the Senate’s first female chiefs of staff when McConnell appointed her in 1985.

Biden was loquacious, while McConnell was a man of few words. Biden had the grip and grin of a salesman, while McConnell displayed a tactician’s discipline climbing up the leadership ladder. Biden was a people pleaser, while McConnell at times reveled in criticism, even decorating an entire wall of his office with negative newspaper cartoons about himself.

In high school and college, Biden had been a popular kid, a jock and senior class president. McConnell was more of a nerd—he wore an “I Like Ike” button in his 5th-grade school picture—but with an enormous drive to figure out how to win over his peers in elections.

When facing off against a popular kid to be his school’s senior-class president, McConnell outmaneuvered him by courting the endorsement of other popular students. “I was prepared to ask for their vote using the only tool in my arsenal, the one thing teenagers most desire. Flattery,” he wrote in his memoir.

But there are some similarities, too.

Both have clan loyalties. Biden’s are mainly to members of his family, such as his sister Val, who managed all seven of his political campaigns before 2020. In later years, his sons joined his inner circle, as well, along with longtime aides like Ted Kaufman and Mike Donilon.

McConnell regards his political team as family. “He has a posse,” said Mullins Grissom. “It’s like the opposite of Donald Trump, but I think that that speaks to the person, and that he is an incredibly, incredibly loyal person.” Aides say that, for decades after they have left his office, they still refer to him as “boss.” And while McConnell’s daughters seem to be liberals like their mother and shun his politics, his second wife, two-time GOP Cabinet member Elaine Chao, is a Washington power broker and a political partner as well as a romantic one.

“When I picked Elaine up at her apartment at the Watergate, I was taken by her beauty, and proud to have her on my arm that evening,” McConnell wrote of their first date, a party for then-Vice President George H.W. Bush hosted by Saudi Arabia’s ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

Former aides note that Biden and McConnell are also similar in that they are ideologically flexible: Each started off as a moderate and then moved left and right with their parties.

KEEP READING.....

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/22/joe-biden-mitch-mcconnell-relationship-460385?utm_source=pocket-newtab

[whentherewerebicycles]

The scenes have been disturbingly familiar to CIA analysts accustomed to monitoring scenes of societal unraveling abroad — the massing of protesters, the ensuing crackdowns and the awkwardly staged displays of strength by a leader determined to project authority.

In interviews and posts on social media in recent days, current and former U.S. intelligence officials have expressed dismay at the similarity between events at home and the signs of decline or democratic regression they were trained to detect in other nations.

“I’ve seen this kind of violence,” said Gail Helt, a former CIA analyst responsible for tracking developments in China and Southeast Asia. “This is what autocrats do. This is what happens in countries before a collapse. It really does unnerve me.”

Helt, now a professor at King University in Tennessee, said the images of unrest in U.S. cities, combined with President Trump’s incendiary statements, echo clashes she covered over a dozen years at the CIA tracking developments in China, Malaysia and elsewhere.

Other former CIA analysts and national security officials rendered similarly troubled verdicts.

Marc Polymeropoulos, who formerly ran CIA operations in Europe and Asia, was among several former agency officials who recoiled at images of Trump hoisting a Bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington after authorities fired rubber bullets and tear gas to clear the president’s path of protesters.

“It reminded me of what I reported on for years in the third world,” Polymeropoulos said on Twitter. Referring to the despotic leaders of Iraq, Syria and Libya, he said: “Saddam. Bashar. Qaddafi. They all did this.”

The impression Trump created was only reinforced by others in the administration. Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper urged governors to “dominate the battlespace” surrounding protesters, as if describing U.S. cities as a foreign war zone. Later, as military helicopters hovered menacingly over protesters, Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, toured the streets of the nation’s capital in his battle fatigue uniform.

“As a former CIA officer, I know this playbook,” Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) said in a tweet. Before her election to Congress last year, she worked at the agency on issues including terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

One U.S. intelligence official even ventured into downtown Washington on Monday evening, as if taking measure of the street-level mood in a foreign country.

“Things escalated quickly,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitive nature of his job. He emphasized that he went as a concerned citizen, not in any official capacity. After seeing tear gas canisters underfoot, he said, he “knew it was time to go” and departed.

Former intelligence officials said the unrest and the administration’s militaristic response are among many measures of decay they would flag if writing assessments about the United States for another country’s intelligence service.

They cited the country’s struggle to contain the novel coronavirus, the president’s attempt to pressure Ukraine for political favors, his attacks on the news media and the increasingly polarized political climate as other signs of dysfunction.

Trump supporters have defended his handling of the unrest, and his trip across Lafayette Square as a display of the strength needed to restore order in dozens of cities where protests have led to looting, fires and violence.

[...]

Even away from the cameras, Trump has assiduously cultivated the aura of a strongman. Earlier Monday, he had chided governors as “weak” for failing to employ adequate force in the face of mounting protests.

“If you don’t dominate, you’re wasting your time,” Trump said. He offered no words on how to ease tensions in crowds that have massed largely in anger over the death of George Floyd, an African American man who was killed while being pinned to the ground, a knee against his neck, by police in Minneapolis.

Brett McGurk, a former top U.S. envoy to the Middle East who spent two years in the Trump administration, said the president’s words — recorded by participants and shared with news organizations — would only embolden the world’s autocrats and undermine U.S. authority.

“The imagery of a head of state in a call with other governing officials saying, ‘Dominate the streets, dominate the battlespace’ — these are iconic images that will define America for some time,” said McGurk, who led U.S. diplomatic efforts to counter the Islamic State terrorist group. “It makes it much more difficult for us to distinguish ourselves from other countries we are trying to contest” or influence, he said.

In recent years, U.S. officials have urged restraint or denounced crackdowns against protesters or vulnerable groups in Russia, Iran, Turkey, Malaysia, Syria and other countries.

Even this week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lectured China about its efforts to prevent citizens of Hong Kong from holding a vigil to mark the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests.

“If there is any doubt about Beijing’s intent, it is to deny Hong Kongers a voice and a choice,” Pompeo said in a statement that was met with derision on Twitter because it coincided with crackdowns urged by Trump in the United States.

The seeming hypocrisy in the U.S. position has not been lost on foreign targets of American pressure or criticism.

Ramzan Kadyrov, a Chechen leader who has faced U.S. sanctions for alleged human rights abuses, said Tuesday that he was “watching with horror the situation in the United States, where the authorities are maliciously violating ordinary citizens’ rights,” according to reports from Moscow.

Article link here

[netlex]

Selma à Montgomery, 1965

The viral video that set Los Angeles on fire in 1992 - Rodney King - L.A riots

Black Lives Matter  : Trayvon Martin, the verdict that changed everything #BlackLivesMatter hashtag ignited a national movement for racial justice in 2013 - Time magazine cover

The Dream Defenders : “We have nothing to lose but our chains.”

The death of George Floyd: What video shows about his final minutes (Washington Post) :  On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man died after a white officer holding his knee on Floyd’s neck pinned him to the pavement while Floyd was in handcuffs [Mort de George Floyd,  afro-am��ricain de 46 ans à Minneapolis le lundi 25 mai 2020]

Mass racial violence in the US see (1992-2020)

Anatomy of a rebellion : a political-economic analysis (pdf) : similar allegations of police brutality had sparked massive unrest in Harlem, Watts, Newark, and Detroit during the 1960s.

President Trump Announces Antifa Will Be Declared A Terrorist Organization buff.ly/2Bceucj - The American Civil Liberties Union opposed the resolution at the time, according to the Washington Post.

Donald Trump’s interpretation of an important shield from liability for online platforms known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) which protects people’s ability to create, communicate, and build community online. The Executive order (Wired)

Ledisi Releases Emotional Black Lives Matter Tribute Song “I Can’t Breathe”