#very troubling for a class on ‘learning to think critically about politics and evaluate the veracity of research claims’

[unreal-unearthing]

The professor I’m teaching with this quarter is VERY pro-AI and spent probably a half hour talking about how much she loved it. Sounded like she was sponsored. This Political Analysis Seminar is Brought to You by Microsoft Copilot.

[cocoanovel9]

Jameswritesbest On HubPages

When a automobile breakdown or does not run, it is usually of no use for anyone. Everybody loves to save money. Some just have to greater than others. Since mechanics can charge you as much as ninety dollars an hour for labor alone, even easy issues can rapidly turn into expensive to repair in the event you take your automobile to a mechanic. Typically, the value for labor basically pays for your time in the event you do it your self. If you realize what's mistaken along with your car, you can discover ways to repair it yourself by purchasing a do-it-your self restore guide (Haynes and Chilton are both good selections) or asking a good friend who is good with automobiles that can assist you. Have to learn how to flush your oil strains? Change a timing belt? Bleed air out of your brakes? The web is in fact another wonderful supply of options for specific automobile problems. For this, within the context of a socio-historic method, one ought to attempt to reply the next questions: What are the psychological and cultural invariants that political and social revolutions, even the most radical ones, go away intact, not solely among the people, but among the very leaders of the revolution? If one tries to reply such a question from the analysis of the historical conditioning of a given people and of the African peoples typically, one then already arrives at some results comparatively better elaborated than before. The Quality Evaluation Course of is ongoing and dynamic. An article's Featured standing may change and is predicated on scores by HubPages Moderators and attention from readers. If one in every of your Featured articles is de-Featured, edit it to catch previously-missed grammatical errors, add extra media, improve its layout or group, or update it with new data. Once edited, your article will then be re-evaluated, and if your changes were sufficient to improve its total high quality, it could as soon as again be Featured. You could not like having auto restore work achieved however your check engine mild won't resolve itself if ignored. Seek the advice of with a mechanic and try to resolve the difficulty while it is still potential to resolve issues cheaply and shortly. Pathologically committed to the consumption of White-owned manufactured merchandise and gaining unadulterated approval of Whites as well as its self-effacing assimilation into White society, this influential group unwittingly enters into an alliance with the exploiters African group in managing its continuing disempowerment. Secure and cost-effective: By hiring a car service you'll be able to journey alone, economically, and safely. On the off chance that you're possible going to rent the automobile service with journey companions, you may divide the fee between those on board which should result in a very cheap option to reach the airport. In the event you're parking open air, be sure that to use a water-resistant car cowl to guard your vehicle from the elements. Also, keep in mind to position a sunshade on your windshield to protect the dashboard and steering wheel in opposition to harmful UV rays. If you are fascinated with studying the fundamentals of auto repair as a way to lower your expenses by doing it yourself, you will have a number of options. One of the crucial popular methods of acquiring information is thru a website, which is typically free. You may also read traditional books or e-books. Discover out the pros and cons of every technique that's out there for you to learn more about automobiles.

Your teen is perhaps excited to have his or her first vehicle, however it's essential ensure that the teen has all the tools needed to be a profitable vehicle proprietor. Along with an emergency equipment, you must teach the teen what to do in case there is trouble on the road. Some teenagers take courses during which they study defensive driving strategies, but not all teens learn about correct vehicle upkeep. Teach your teen how one can inform when the automobile is not working properly. It may additionally be helpful to have your baby accompany you during automotive restore trips on your vehicle. A rotary valve engine has the very best intake air management. The rotary valve rotates mechanically in a circular motion. This movement permits the intake port to be opened and closed at the very best time. The rotary valve also allows the port to haven't any restriction such as the reeds trigger. The timing of the rotary plate will be changed by the shape of the valve and is completed in some racing engines. http://paradisecardetailing.com/ supplied by a automobile restore business is tire alternative and upkeep. Since they come into direct contact with the street, tires will lose their tread and efficacy in time. Many people have experienced that fearful moment of driving alongside and seemingly out of nowhere, the tire goes flat. By working with knowledgeable car upkeep supplier you could possibly minimize down on the frequency of such an unlucky occurrence. You'll also be capable of get tire rotation companies and replacements if need be, but garages may supply insight and advice into sustaining your tires. Sometimes that is just an increased consciousness on your a part of your tire's step by step deteriorating condition, but perception of this type might help you intend forward and avoid failures that affect your day-to-day life. This may be the identical thing the shop mechanic does, however you will never know that for certain. The issue is that most of the time persons are in a hurry to have their cars repaired and the man at the shop is aware of that. He is aware of he can coax you into shopping for one thing increased just because he says he does not have anything and that it'll take a couple of days to get it. For those who search online, you are positive to search out precisely what you need. Take note of what the mechanic says, and see if you happen to can source the parts by yourself. It's going to be less expensive in the event you just need to pay him for his time alone. Now I do not mean the kind of " perspective " your parents criticized you for as a teen! In my case, that "perspective" did get in my approach! Instead, I am referring to the patterns of thought that form the backdrop of your life every single day. I think of perspective as the focus and expectations for all the things round you. For example, if you happen to count on people to be dishonest and imply, you should have an entirely completely different perspective than in the event you expect folks to be loving and sort. Should you anticipate to be successful at undertaking your objectives, you should have a special attitude towards taking motion than in case you anticipate to fail. It seems apparent, but many times our conditioned patterns of thinking are so deeply instilled, we don't understand we're falling to the old patterns. The state of the African South African nation is in dire straights. This is due to what we know and do not know. We know that modernity is in keeping up with the times. In all endeavors of man's existence here on earth, the goal has been more or less to better one's lot. This South Dakota-class battleship has spent more time as a museum ship then energetic service. Launched in 1942 after the US entered the second world conflict and loved a profession of escorting and coastal bombardment. Firing well over a 1,000 rounds of sixteen inch shells in her profession, Alabama reeked havoc on axis targets in the Atlantic and Pacific. The software program development group decided to offer it for sale to opponents on a really restricted basis. Folks from across the World obtained wind of the supply and the pressure was on to make it accessible to everybody. Engine Producers started using it in their R & D Labs. Engine Tuners started utilizing it of their on a regular basis engine modification companies. "Super Critical RC Rivals" began utilizing it to build and tune their personal engines. With all this energy and facilities, most individuals overlook or by no means knew that it is the same fundamental inner combustion engine used over a hundred years in the past. And, electric and hybrid automobiles require even less maintenance than conventional cars! Studying fundamental upkeep about your car can save you hundreds of dollars over time and reduce potential breakdowns.

[theagencyrp]

[[LOADING FILE]]

>>:// [[ACCESS GRANTED]]

ALIAS: AGENT MONROE NAME: [[REDACTED]] POSITION: FIELD OPERATIVE ACCESS LEVEL:  ONE

>>:// [[AGENT MONROE INTEL]]

>> Agent Monroe prefers to have blonde hair when possible, despite not being naturally blonde. >> Top Proficiencies: Stealth; Interpersonal Skills; Reconnaissance >> Peer Evaluation: Agent Monroe’s personality on missions has been compared to New England weather: If you don’t like it, wait five minutes; it’ll change.  In the bunker, while not an unpleasant person, she is not as deliberately charming. >> Agent Monroe has been known to do impressions of founders and other agents with mixed responses.

>>:// [[AGENT MONROE IS TAKEN]]

Faceclaim: Samara Weaving

>>:// ATTEMPTING TO ACCESS CODENAME: MONROE >>:// DECRYPTING >>:// TEMPORARY ACCESS GRANTED

Character’s real name: Anna Daphne Miller

First choice FC: Samara Weaving

Second choice FC: Skyler Samuels

Character gender and pronouns: CisFemale, She/Her

Character age: 25

Please list at least two reasons why the Agency looked to recruit your character:

Drama Queen:  Anna’s experience with theatre (and party crashing) taught her how to read people and situations and to have a very malleable outward persona.  Not only can she shift her apparent personality drastically, she can do so rapidly, allowing her to blend into different environments as she moves through them and gain people’s trust as she goes.  Studying theatre also required her to study movement, so even though she had no experience with hand-to-hand combat prior to being recruited, she was physically fit and flexible, leaving her in a good position to learn.

Behind the Scenes:  Anna also learned valuable skills from her involvement in the technical theatre.  Just as she knows how to bring attention to herself, she also knows how to send it away and direct it elsewhere.  She is resourceful, attentive to detail, good at working within a team, and focused under pressure.  Additionally, she has no trouble walking around oddly shaped spaces littered with obstacles in absolute darkness.

           Anna Daphne Miller was born to Christine Miller, a museum curator, on December 21, 1992.  Anna grew up as a latchkey kid in a nice suburb in Western Massachusetts.  Christine always loved reading to Anna, who inherited her mother’s love of books and ended up spending a lot of her spare time at the local library.  At school, she was focused and excited to learn and on weekends she loved going to the museum with her mother.

           She had her first experience with theatre at the age of ten.  Her fifth-grade class spent the spring preparing to put on (a significantly shortened version of) Peter Pan.  Anna was assigned to play one of the extra lost boys her teacher had invented so there would be enough rolls for everyone, but despite having only half of one line, she was instantly hooked.  When Anna started middle school, she quickly found more opportunities to participate, and it quickly became her primary extracurricular.  In ninth grade, when she didn’t get into the fall play (it was a small cast and seniors got priority), she was crushed until Christine suggested she could still be involved by joining the crew.  She loved it, and soon she was choosing to be backstage almost as often as she was on stage.

           Anna did well enough in her other classes, with particularly strong marks in English, but her true passion was theatre.  Still Christine insisted she go to college somewhere where she could study a range of subjects, wanting Anna to receive a well-rounded education.  She was accepted to a liberal arts college in the Midwest with a good theatre program, satisfying both women.  Everything seemed to be going perfectly.

           Christine died in a car accident about a month after Anna graduated high-school.  She was able to defer her enrollment a year, and took that year to get her mother’s affairs, and herself, back in order.  When she did start college, she was fine.  She made friends, got good grades, and quickly declared a major in theatre and a minor in literature.  Still she did her best to avoid coming home, staying on campus or with friends whenever she could, and she began to lose touch with the people she’d grown up around.

           Her junior year, she and her friends started crashing parties.  Maybe it was spurred on by a need for adventure, maybe it was a lack of parental guidance, maybe she’d started to realize that theatre wasn’t enough for her any more, or maybe it was just a desire for something that wasn’t dining hall food, she couldn’t tell you.  They started small, sneaking through the cocktail parties of on-campus weddings to grab hors d’oeuvres, but soon enough, they wanted more.  They started going off campus, going thrift shopping to match dress codes.  At the time, it seemed silly and harmless.  Occasionally one of them would get caught, get sent out with a light scolding and a “kids these days,” since they weren’t actually causing any trouble.  Sooner or later they each had a similar story.

           Except for Anna.  Anna never got caught.  Her friends would tease that she’d called in advance, bribed the host for a real invite.  She would just roll her eyes and tease back, “No.  I’m just good at this.”

           It was winter break her senior year when she broke her perfect record.  She was staying with one of her friends, Megan, who lived on a street lined with houses that were practically mansions.  Someone new had just moved in down the road, Megan explained, and they were throwing a big, fancy holiday party.  “We should go,” said Megan, knowing Anna wouldn’t object.  Then she added, “And we should take something, so that everyone believes us when we get back.”

           Megan got spotted within fifteen minutes of getting there, cover blown by a mutual neighbor, but Anna stayed.  Eventually, she found an opportunity to sneak further into the house unnoticed and was able to snatch a monogrammed hand towel and hide it in her purse.  She returned to the party for a few minutes, and once it wouldn’t have been suspicious, left and made her way back to Megan’s house.  She thought she’d pulled the whole adventure off unnoticed, and it was true, she hadn’t been noticed yet.  However, she had failed to recognize the security cameras tucked into the sconces in the hallways.

           The next day, the host of the party stopped by Megan’s house, but asked to see Anna.  He was an older gentleman, polite and amused, and only requested that Anna return the hand towel, which Anna was more than happy to do.  He didn’t tell Megan’s parents, and he didn’t call the police, he assured Anna.  What he didn’t tell her, was that he’d made a different call entirely.

           Anna thought that was the end of it.  She went back to school and continued life as normal, not realizing she was being watched.  It wasn’t until spring break that it came up again.  She was reading in the campus library when someone she’d never seen before approached her.  They knew all about her and about the holiday party too.  Apparently, they were a friend, she could hear the italics in their speech, of the gracious host, they explained.  Then they made her an offer.

           She started training as soon as she graduated.  At first, she felt out of place; her background felt so different from everyone else around her.  She wasn’t a science genius or an experienced fighter.  Still, she persisted, because she knew she wouldn’t get an opportunity so perfect again: it was everything she loved about theatre, and yet, so much more.  She learned what she needed to, practiced as much as she could, and graduated training feeling like she’d found a new purpose and maybe a new family as well.

Character personality:

           Pros: Determined, Passionate, Resourceful, Playful

           Cons: Impatient, blunt, abrasive

           Anna is happy and friendly, she’s just not always the best at expressing that.  She spends her assignments constantly pretending to be people she isn’t, so when she’s back at the bunker, she prefers to be as honest as she can.  It’s how she shows that she trusts people, but it can come off insensitive or critical sometimes.  She doesn’t mean to hurt anyone; she cares a lot about those around her, considering the agency her family.  She truly wants to be helpful, she just doesn’t have the patience to “sugar coat” anything; it feels like lying to her, and she does her best to leave the lies outside the bunker.

           That being said, she loves to make people happy whenever possible, especially by making them laugh.  She’ll do whatever she can: funny faces, bad puns, melodramatic responses.  If it’s safe and she thinks it’ll make a friend’s day at all better, she’ll do it, no matter how ridiculous.

           Anna is persistent.  She’ll try to do whatever it takes to complete a mission or accomplish a goal, and she hates feeling like she’s being held back or unnecessarily made to wait.

OTHER:

Her favorite suit (she has a few for different situations/dress codes) is a midnight blue evening gown.  The skirt is tear away, in case she has to fight, and makes a rather effective shield.

She has a solo room as she appreciates having a space where she can just get away from people.  Besides her bed, its main features are a simple vanity (with plenty of drawers), a couple of bookshelves filled with her ever growing collection of books and movies, and a flat screen TV with a DVD/Blu-Ray player and a fancy sound system.

While she doesn’t have a favorite, the most important book in Anna’s collection is a copy of The Hobbit.  It was one of the first books her mother read to her growing up, and they read it again together many times.  This copy is particularly special: Her mother wrote a letter (equal parts heartfelt and cheesy) on the title page and gave it to Anna as a graduation gift (at the time, she teased that it was just because she didn’t want Anna stealing her copy to take to college).  Anna keeps it in her bedside table, rather than on the shelf, because she likes to read the letter before she goes to sleep sometimes.

Her skin care routine isn’t insane, but she does have one.

She wears reading glasses when reading for extended periods of time.

She sings in the shower.

She likes tea (especially anything with jasmine).

She doesn’t bleach her own hair.  She tried it once in high school, and it went badly.  Really badly.  There are photos.  She won’t share them.

She picked up some ballroom dancing in college and is happy to teach anyone who want to learn, mostly because she wants someone to practice with.

She has a pretty serious sweet tooth, and a particular weakness for anything with dark chocolate.

She hates needles.

She’s very close to her mentor, as they provided the guidance and reassurance she’d been so sorely lacking since her mother died.

[roliviarrrr]

Final Concept Reflection

(Olivia Rogers and Alicen Potts)

I would like you to record (and elaborate—please do not simply list them) 2 things you learned in class that had an impact on you/your way of thinking.  One should be from a documentary/video and one should be from class lecture/note material or the article you read.

(Olivia)

It is definitely something I should have realized, and maybe I did in the way I viewed things, but I never had thinking like “these are mens problems, not women’s problems” in response to things like domestic violence, rape, or other oppressive and violent actions towards women. That quote is a main thing I took from “Tough Guise.” And no, I’m not saying I didn’t blame men for doing these things, I guess all my life I only saw mainly women fighting for these things to change, not men. And that is exactly the point! That overtime it has become OUR responsibility to fight against these horrible things, so men (and everyone else) sees them as “women’s issues.” It’s ridiculous. It’s the men primarily (statistically) committing these crimes against women, and yet it’s come to the women—who are going through it—to fight against it. This needs to change, and hopefully by saying that these are “men’s issues,” we can get more men to check their friends, family members, coworkers, etc in what they say and do.

Secondly, I was interested to learn the actual definition of deviance is not just doing crimes, but just straying from the norm in general. I really only thought about deviant behavior as something illegal, or something that could get you in trouble with the law. I never really thought that just violating social norms could be considered deviance.

(Alicen)

   Importance of family for socialization- “what’s different about Robbie”

“What's Different About Robbie” was one of the first videos we watched in class and the one that sat with me the most. While his story was tragic, demonstrating the failure of the mental health system and the lives lost due to Robbie’s actions, what I took out from the episode was how much the family plays a role in socializing their children. The episode showed the families inability to deal with Robbie's raging emotions from a young age and how the failure of his first socialization group led to a lack of identity and social skills which affected his success in other socialization groups. Due to his parents' decision to institutionalize him during key developmental years, his social success was greatly hindered later on in life.

Families are the first agent of socialization for children which influence our first values system, political socialization and form a sense of self. Ideally families will be able to pass on constructive lessons that children can take into the world to form their own opinions, however this transmission of beliefs and norms can break down, as it did in robbies case. Due to robbies lack of familial bond, he was unable to effectively learn from other sources of socialization like his peers, school and the media. The breakdown of robbies home environment led to a breakdown in his socialization pattern which, in my opinion, influenced him to make the drastic decision to harm others.

If Robbie had been able to learn and comprehend hurting others is bad, constitutive ways to deal with emotions and how to form successful relationships, I think Robbie's story would have ended differently. While there are many in’s and out’s that influenced Robbie to kill others, the breakdown of the family unit, demonstrated through the documentary, caused a domino effect as he was unable to fully flourish in other settings. “What's Different About Robbie '' impacted how I view individuals' creation of self as many of the opinions we hold of others and ourselves relates back to how we were raised. Further, the family plays a large role in the transmission of class as many families tend to stay in the same economic sector as their parents did. This example of socialization can affect many opportunities for individuals later in life based on their class and skin color and further demonstrate the importance of a positive and strong family unit.

2.   Race relations- white normativity- how my presence affects those of color

I took this class as a part of my requirements for my criminology degree and hoped to learn more about race relations, and I wasn't disappointed. I learned a lot of key terms and themes that are important to keep in mind when evaluating individuals positions in society and its relation to race and class. However, I found the document “Race-based Critical Theory and the “Happy Talk” of diversity in America '' to have the greatest impact as it opened my eyes to my white privilege and how it affects discussion of race theory. While I have always understood the discussion of institutionalized racism, discrimnaiton and prejudice being formed from the oppression of colored people at the hands of white people, I had not thought about how these definitions and theories were created out of white perspectives.

Colorblindness and white normativity were new terms that changed how I viewed my white privilege. Both of these definitions fail to recognize how race plays a large role in the creations of people's identities as race is connected to many different cultures. By ignoring race, as is done in color blindness, one is ignoring years of oppression in the united states based on “white superiority” and how formation of today's institutions, like the prison system, criminal justice system and even the job market are based on the oppression of another group solely based on the fact that they are not white. White normativity also focuses on white superiority but uses the idea to preserve white domination over colored people consciously or subconsciously. By focusing on white superiority to perpetuate systems of inequality one is obscuring the experiences of people of color and focuses on how whites have advantages.

This problematic analysis fails again to recognize the culture and identities of colored people and how systems today are influenced by past relations of dominance based on skin color. The host analogy does a good job at explaining how ideas of white normativity and color blindness make people of color feel like they are only guests in “our white space” and that we have to accept them into the space thus giving them “privilege.” By recognizing my white privilege I'm able to work to break down institutionalized barriers which prefer me over another because of the color of my skin. More realty i've learned how, at times, my whit privilege can be helpful for the black community in spreading news of racism and discrimination as, unfortunately, many institutions like the media and lawmakers give preference towards these stories. Ultimately though, the recognition of my white privilege has helped me learn how to be an advocate for change and a partner to communities of color when my white privilege can bring awareness to these struggles of discrimination and prejudice when needed.

I would then like you to share this with a classmate.

What is their response to what you learned? What do they think of it? Please document that.

My partner learned about how much of an impact family socialization can have on a child, as shown in the video “What’s different about Robbie.” She thinks that the lack of family bond and his home environment is what led him down the path of violence. While I think this could definitely be the case, I am of the opinion that his psychological state was more of a factor in his violent decline, as his family got him help to try to fix his issues, and showed that they wanted to help him get better (but he ultimately didn’t). I will say, however, that a few events in his home life could have just made things worse, like the ring incident with the stealing money situation. But overall, I lean more towards his brain being the main problem.

She also learned about the terms white normatively and color blindness, and how they can reduce the progress we’ve made towards true equality by “not seeing color,” which is really just ignoring the years of oppression that people have faced. I think it is important for all white people to be informed about the issues that people of color face, as we have to be allies to them to ensure that our society can move forward, because—as Alicen mentioned—sometimes stories or opinions from white people are taken more seriously, so we should use the privilege and power we have to help those that we can.”

What did they learn? How is thier perspective different from yours? How is it the same?

My partner Olivia learned the importance of not separating issues into “mens” and “women's” issues but rather having a combined effort to fight injustices like domestic violence, rape and other oppressive actions. By having men step up, take responsibility and advocate for less violence against women, which they have been statistically proven to commit more, there can be greater social responsibility and accountability between men to check on their friends and families actions. I think Olivia's point of view is very insightful and is similar to how I think there can be greater reform by changing the rhetoric around “women's issues” to instead be issues everyone faces and must take action against in order to see change.

Olivia's second point about learning that deviant behavior can include breaking social norms in addition to breaking the law was something new I also learned! It is interesting to see how small breaks from social script that we think are “weird” is actually deviant behavior and how minor actions don't carry the same consequences as breaking the law does even though they are both forms of deviant behavior. I also think it's interesting the types of ways people are influenced to partake in deviant behavior and the interesting implications that hanging out with a social group holds.

The subjects we discuss in Sociology are often sensitive, so people tend to not talk about them. How could you communicate about these topics with someone who had very different opinions than you do in an effective way? Why should we strive for this?

(Joint answer)

When talking about difficult subjects in sociology, for example gender or race, it's important to be aware of another person's point of view and instead of attacking them for their beliefs learn how to respectfully disagree and use more neutral words to describe why you hold your position. When having a difficult conversation about value systems or politics today it's important to go into the conversation with a goal of wanting to inform the other person not change their point of view because often these are beliefs they've held for years and a conversation framed around changing their view they most likely won't be as receptive too. But, if you are able to learn the reasons behind someone having a specific opinion and share yours as well, it helps give new perspectives and education that someone may not have heard before. Constructive conversations can be hard to have in today's political climate but if respectable conversations are able to be held it is productive for all of society because it will ultimately lead to greater acceptance of being different and greater societal acceptance to have these tough conversations.

[sitandbreatheitout]

Day 9/40: Politics

Start at Day 1

It may seem strange for the topic of *politics* to feature prominently in the story of my *faith* journey [heads up, there’s still two more posts about it, sprinkled throughout this 40-day series], but it’s not surprising if you came of age within the 90s evangelical subculture. In the world I grew up in, being a good Christian was synonymous with voting Republican. Love of God and love of Country were so thoroughly entwined that at church youth events we pledged allegiance to the American flag AND the Christian flag, both of them standing together on stage. 

Talking about politics requires me to step backwards from where we found ourselves yesterday, on the precipice of my faith deconstruction at age 30. The shifts that I’m going to describe today mostly happened during my mid-twenties. Because of the way evangelicals tie their religious identity to their political identity, my changing views had a deep impact on the rest of the journey, but at the time, they weren’t a deal-breaker for remaining in the evangelical church. 

The view from here is murky when I try to remember where and how I absorbed the political messages I did. I do remember a few sources. Some of the messages were directly expressed from pulpits on Sunday mornings. Some were implied by the dehumanizing language we used when referring to our political opponents. Some were printed in the history books at my Christian school. Some were even dramatized on Adventures in Odyssey, the beloved kids radio show from Focus on the Family.

I was taught that America was a Christian nation, founded by Christians, based on Judeo-Christian values, and that God’s hand of providence was the reason behind our nation’s success. We saw America as a New Israel, God’s most recent chosen people, blessed in order to be a blessing to the world. I was also taught that in modern times there had been an unfortunate rise in secular thinking and a rejection of Biblical values, and that was the cause of all sorts of problems in the world. 

Our job as Christians was to “take back” our culture and country for God. No one was better suited for the role of running the country (and everything else, for that matter) than Christians were, because we had the Holy Spirit guiding us from within. I’m so removed from this belief now that I can’t describe it without it sounding like a caricature or oversimplification, so bear with me, but we were very distrusting of all non-Christians. We believed that since they were being deceived by Satan, nothing truly good could come from them. Even people who claimed to be Christian but didn’t believe in the Bible the same way we did were suspect; “liberal Christian” was an oxymoron in our evangelical world. We believed all the things the Bible had to say about people who lived by the “flesh” instead of by the “Spirit”: that they desired to perform acts of “sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like” (Galatians 5:19-21). Yikes. No wonder we were scared of them. 

So what does voting for the Republican party have to do with all this? How did it become the de facto political party of choice for white American evangelicals? That is a long and surprising-in-places history lesson that’s unfortunately outside the scope of this post [but don’t worry, it WILL come up again in a couple weeks]. Anyway, for our purposes, as it relates to how I experienced politics growing up, there is one very simple answer to those questions: ABORTION. 

We understood abortion to be morally equivalent to murdering breathing babies who’d already been born. It was seen as a horrendously evil act, from the moment of conception on, regardless of the circumstances or effects of said conception. That was that: it was black and white. End of story. Kind of like how the seriousness of our belief in a literal hell overrode all other spiritual concerns, the seriousness of our belief that abortion was literally infanticide overrode all other political concerns. In both cases, the implications of our beliefs were gruesome to imagine. Ending abortion was the rally cry that united us, and at the end of the day (or rather: on Election Day), we were going to vote for the candidate who said they were "pro-life," no matter what. The Republicans reliably fit that designation, so they were our heroes, fighting the good fight against abortion. 

There wasn’t a lot of nuance to my political views growing up. It’s similar to how my own kids are *very* emphatic that they like whoever it is I just told them I’m voting for. It’s because I’m their mom, not because they know anything about the candidate’s platform. Humans are social creatures, and we feel safest when we stay in step with the views of our tribe. The views of my tribe seemed mostly black and white to me, up through high school. Republicans = good, Democrats = bad. Conservatives = good, liberals = bad. Traditional family values = good, feminists and gay people = bad. Ronald Reagan and George Bush = good, Bill and Hillary Clinton = bad. Small government = good, big government = bad. Prayer in public school = good, patriotism = good, abortion = bad, welfare handouts = bad. We justified all of these positions using verses from the Bible, so we felt confident we were voting how God wanted us to vote.  

So off I went to my conservative Christian college. There were several student-led clubs on campus, including a College Republicans group, and while I was a freshman, some students were petitioning to start a College Democrats group. This was shocking to a lot of us sheltered evangelical kids. At the time, I didn’t even know you COULD be a Christian and a Democrat. We debated amongst ourselves: what did it say about someone’s Christian witness if they supported the “godless" platform of the Democratic party? WHAT ABOUT THE BABIES?!

Where it got interesting was that I noticed the ratio of *minority students* was extremely high in the newly-formed College Democrats group. This troubled me, because it made me wonder that I might be missing some important piece of information regarding race and politics. Growing up in very white North Dakota (where there was a grand total of 5 black students attending my whole PreK through Grade 12 Christian school—I just counted in the yearbook), I had been blind to issues surrounding race. I was realizing I had a lot to learn, and that it might be wise to listen to the people whose voices had been overlooked by the dominant culture. 

Another way college influenced my political beliefs was one of my favorite classes: Introduction to Logic, where we learned about reasoning and making good arguments. This wasn’t directly related to any specific political affiliation; rather, critical thinking is essential for evaluating political claims, no matter which side you’re on. I was a happy little nerd when we got to the section on “logical fallacies,” because while their existence was obvious (they frustrated me to no end: hello, debates on the playground), I wasn’t previously aware that anyone had formally studied and *named* them! The class proved that it wasn’t just my imagination; people really were making errors in reasoning ALL THE TIME. 

By the time I graduated from college, I was still very much a Republican, but its link to my Christian identity was weakening. I was better equipped to spot bad arguments going forward, and I was starting to get suspicious of ones I had heard growing up. 

In the lead up to the 2008 election, when I was 25, I read a book called Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals. It was one of the most controversial books I’d read to that point, though being published by evangelical Zondervan, it still stayed safely within the Christian bubble. After growing uncomfortable with the religious rhetoric around the War on Terror, I was soothed by the book’s Christian pacifist leanings. I wasn’t sure how realistic nonviolence was, but it seemed exactly like the kind of countercultural thing Jesus would have been into. 

Most importantly, the book revealed a fascinating side of the Bible I’d never been exposed to before. I’d read through the entire Old and New Testaments, memorized whole chapters of it, heck, even graduated with Biblical Studies as my double major, and yet no one had explained in such interesting detail the socio-economic impacts of Old Testament laws and stories and Jesus’s teachings and ministry. Over and over the Bible shows God to be deeply concerned for the poor and vulnerable, and not all that impressed with powerful empires. It looked like evangelicals could come to different conclusions about politics, all while being faithful to the Bible. 

In the end, I honestly can’t remember who I voted for that year, Obama or McCain. Either way, the 2008 election, the first time I'd ever *favorably* considered a Democrat candidate, was a turning point for me. Over the next 4 years, especially as I approached the beginning of my faith deconstruction, my political affiliation would change to Democrat— officially, but mostly privately. This was my first big break outside the beliefs of my Christian bubble, away from the safety of my tribe.

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

[gwynne-fics]

wei50-blog replied to your post “wei50-blog replied to your post “wei50-blog replied to your post...”

So Hyun-Joo belonging to the king makes what Kim Won is doing even worse! Will we get to see what happened with the Kims, motivation for the coup, and details of the the coup itself in the main story?

Hence, why Young-Do was so upset. The person who will get in trouble is Hyun-Joo, as Won is the Prime Minister’s son, and almost as untouchable as Young-Do is >.>

And I want to say yes about the details. I have a plan and a few things will come out then but maybe not everything unless it is requested ^^;;;

Myung-Soo is really starting to intrigue me in BR. :) When the queen was saying how he slept with any woman he could, maybe because that was how he protected himself from the king. The king wanted his sons to demonstrate their ‘virility’ like he expected them to. There is something so ew about the king giving his sons permission to sleep with any court ladies they wish? Each son did what they could to shield themselves and those they loved from their father’s violence.

That is a fair assessment of Myung-Soo’s life choices. And it is very gross how the king treats people, especially women, as objects to have. Even Myung-Soo gets that even if he isn’t as moral as Young-Do is.

Virility important at that time or exaggerated importance in the kings mind? He already has the sons he needed, why should this a big deal? A person with power who needs to uphold his pride? If the kingdom were ruled well, it would shut down the criticisms directed at the king.

I think men, in general, when they are that powerful, have an exaggerated sense of how important their ability to fuck as many women as possible really is. Dong-Wook sees his ability to get his queens and concubines pregnant as an extension of that. If he were a better king, perhaps it would be less important, but knowing him, probably not ^^;;

Young-Do is a precious cinnamon roll!!! hahah love it! :D Young-Do only being with Rachel is going to totally upset how power is given and used in the palace. They are going to have to figure out how to accomplish things in an entirely different way than is traditional. :)

>.> He is such a soft cutie when he gets together with Hyo-Shin >.>

It is going to be a hard learning curve once Young-Do is king for his ministers to realize they cannot just offer him the pretty women in their families in order to manipulate him into giving them what they want. He closes a lot of doors when he refuses to take any other wives or concubines.

The door he does open though is to make Rachel a lot more influential. If the ministers want something, they need to go to her first and convince her it is a good idea.

OOohhhh, smart Young-Do knows about the intelligence reports! Puts a new light on his questions to Myung-Soo about how he knew about the Khitan! Almost like he was giving Myung-Soo an opportunity to come clean with him, or possibly testing his loyalty to the intelligence gathering ring? AND Young-Do knows what Rachel was tasked to do!!! Wow! And he accepts it? He still give his heart to Rachel, knowing the possibilities?

Young-Do became Ride or Die with Rachel when she stabbed Tan. He also knows the best way to avoid getting stabbed himself, is to be the man everyone wants him to be, keep his promises to her, and do everything to keep her in love with him. Rachel is ruthless but she isn’t heartless. He loves her so he has to trust her.

And he’s been trying to get someone to tell him about the intelligence ring for probably two years now. Young-Do does not like secrets and lies. But it’s his mother so he doesn’t really have much of a choice.

Glad that YD does know and R does not have to hide anything from him. That was bothering me! :) Aw, YD, you are doing a good job! You didn’t leave, and are trying your best to be what R needs! <3 Love YD mother henning all over R! So cute! :D Another, much bigger decision made together! True, releasing him from his promise will be ‘easier,’ but continue to drive the two of them apart. Wow, R’s plan is so bold! None of this subterfuge for her! Can it work?!?!

He likes fretting and providing so much >.>

And Rachel is done with this secret shit. So much of Young-Do’s life has been about not upsetting his father but Rachel is like No. Time to piss him off. Time for him to know he could die and we would be happy. We don’t need him. Fuck the king!

So, like, nothing could go wrong with this plan >.>

Would Rachel have cause to regret spending the night with Young-Do, even if they didn’t have sex? If she is going to be the crown princess very soon, why would it matter? Or is it more Young-Do absolutely determined to do things opposite of how his father did it?

Okay, Rachel would jump Young-Do in the middle of the courtyard if she could. This whole waiting until the wedding thing is Young-Do. She doesn’t understand it because she doesn’t think it matters and she loves him. Young-Do doesn’t want to risk Rachel not being his future queen. So, even though Rachel wouldn’t regret any of it, Young-Do wouldn’t be happy if anyone even thought they’d had sex, so she doesn’t push it and let’s him do cute things like carry her into her room.

Wow, uncomfortable truths coming out! With the king astute in his evaluation of Esther, why did he still want to marry her? For her powerful family, political ties, lands she holds, yes, but not for her abilities! He would not have listened to Esther, and probably done all he could to limit her influence. Just thinking of what could have happened if Esther did end up in the palace. Truly, she would have changed history.

Dong-Wook wanted to break her. He wanted to own her and control her very powerful father through her. He is very upset that Esther’s father thwarted him with the marriage to Lord Yoo. Dong-Wook is a monster and intended to be one towards Esther. She absolutely saved herself and he’s never forgiven her for it.

Wonder too, if the king were not abusive, would she have made a different decision when he wanted to marry her? Power of women totally tied into the men they marry or give birth to and Esther would have been able to extend her reach over the whole kingdom. Of course, just speculation, because nothing is worth being in an abusive relationship.

Obviously, if he were not making her uncomfortable or throwing up any red flags, Esther probably would have agreed to marry him. However, at the time, Dong-Wook already had two sons and two queens. Esther still would’ve been a concubine starting out and that’s not something her family could have accepted. If Dong-Wook hadn’t been so dangerous, she probably would’ve married Jae-Ho and ended up a general’s wife.

Awwww brotherly love! <3 Sigh, masks are so important the more powerful the individual. Thus the necessity for Young-Do and Myung-Soo to maintain a good relationship in public. Glad that it really is a good relationship in private too! :) Hints at future political machinations (Khitan, Lee Chan Hyuk, General Lee)!!!

>.>

YD has someone to fight with him, and it give him the strength to do so, even when he is terrified of the consequences. MS isn’t letting YS be that for him yet. He almost seems afraid to let himself love because of the possible consequences to those he loves. Also YS is a very different class than R, who has at least a little power. I think once R has proven herself to be loyal to YD and useful to the kingdom, MS will accept her fully.

<.<

Thinking a lot more about Myung-Soo and how he pretends to be like is father, while Young-Do tries his best to not be his father. Fear rules their lives. Myung-Soo is choosing to cope with the abuse by being who his father would want, sleeping around with women, not having exclusive relationships. Young-Do coped by loving a boy, being exclusive with a woman, and now wanting Rachel alone, which are all things that are not what the king would want to see.

:D Good assessment :D

Ok, don't not like Myung-Soo anymore. :) Wait, how did Myung-Soo and Ye-Sol already know the plan Rachel and Young-Do came up with? And if Myung-Soo already knew it, why did he push the issue? The two of them indeed are in a sad situation. Hope Myung-Soo will be able to have his happiness also, and allow himself to have it fully! <3

Ye-Sol’s solution, the same that Rachel came up with, is the one with more peril and danger. Myung-Soo’s solution is safer and doesn’t challenge tradition, status quo, or the king. That’s why he pushed it first.

So Rachel wanted to encourage Young-Do? Neat that what started this whole thing off in a negative way, ‘inspecting the bridge,’ turns into something so positive! :D Aww, the tears at the love and loyalty he is being shown! And for Young-Do, what he is is not a mask he is putting on to gain the favor of the people, but really who he is and will be as king! Also love how Go Nam-Il wants to know how Rachel is doing! <3

Rachel didn’t have anything to do with the bridge. She wanted him to inspect it to show leadership to people like Chan-Hyuk, who tried to sabotage him. She had no idea that Nam-Il had organized a push to get as much done as possible before the weather changed.

And Nam-Il is the closest thing Young-Do has to a good father-figure. So he’s kind of checking up on his son by making sure he’s taking care to be mindful of Rachel >.>

[thegloober]

Professors question big donation at Saint Louis University because of conditions attached

Saint Louis University administrators and faculty where thrilled when a wealthy local couple — Jeanne and Rex Sinquefield — donated $50 million to the institution. The gift would allow university leaders to pursue bold and ambitious goals for the next decade and “accelerate SLU’s rise as a world-class research university.”

Faculty and administrators alike agreed the infusion of cash could draw attention to the region and recognition of it as an emerging research hub. They also believed it would lure more scholars and students to the university.

The mutual excitement by the administration and the professors fostered a spirit of optimism and collaboration on campus, and a sense of shared aspirations. But the honeymoon ended almost as soon as it had begun after faculty members learned that the generous gift came with questionable and, to many, troubling strings attached: specific stipulations about faculty hiring and research funding that faculty leaders say violate university policies and academic integrity and freedom.

The donation, the largest in the Roman Catholic institution’s 200-year history, was announced in August, but university leaders had been in discussions about it with the Sinquefields for a year. The money will fund a new research institute that university officials say “will serve as the focal point for SLU’s strategic goal of growing the scale and eminence of its research and scholarship,” and a new Sinquefield Center for Applied Economic Research on the Missouri campus. It also will also provide annual funding for the university’s chess team, which happens to be located in America’s chess capital.

The agreement stipulates that Rex Sinquefield, a Saint Louis alumnus and trustee, and Mark Higgins, dean of the business school, would select the director of the new economic research center. The director, a professor at the University of Missouri, was named and given the title of Sinquefield Professor of Economics without any prior notice to faculty, and without the input of a faculty-led hiring committee, as required under policies outlined in the faculty manual. The agreement also allows for research grants from the institute to be determined by a four-member committee that includes the Sinquefields.

There is a long tradition in academe of donors stipulating what they want to support — a given department, building or program, for instance — but hiring and awarding grants are viewed as academic decisions that should be handled by faculty members and administrators.

“The bottom line issue being confronted across the country is what level of control or influence should a donor have over the operation or various operations based on them giving a gift,” said Douglas Rush, president of the university’s Faculty Senate and an associate professor of higher education administration. “Where do you draw the line between donor participation, donor influence and donor control over university matters?”

“Donors should be able to participate in every aspect of university life, but the issue is one of control — they should have no control over any aspect of academics. They can participate as long as the control rests with the faculty.”

Fund-raising experts say donations with strings attached — both visible and invisible — will likely become more common as state and federal higher ed funding stagnates. Megamillionaires and billionaires are increasingly stepping up to replace those shrinking public funds and, in the process, they are rewriting the rules of higher ed philanthropy, or at least aggressively trying to do so.

If the situation at Saint Louis’s seems familiar, it’s because these controversial agreements, once unheard-of in higher ed, are becoming more common. Donations from the Charles Koch Foundation — and the power that agreements have given the foundation — have been the source of controversies at Florida State University, West Virginia University, Clemson University, Utah State University and Chapman University. A decades-old agreement between George Mason University and the foundation is the subject of ongoing litigation.

While Koch Foundation gifts to universities and colleges are relatively modest, gifts from wealthy individuals tend to be very generous. In fact, they’re getting larger.

According to the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, a relatively small group of donors accounted for large portions of contributions to college fund-raising campaigns. For instance, the top 1 percent of donors to campaigns accounted for 79 percent of the total funds received through June 30, 2015, according to CASE. During that same time frame, the top 10 percent of donors accounted for 92 percent of the funds received.

No longer content to have buildings named for them — never mind small-potato departments or endowed chairs — some of these benefactors are demanding more say in the creation of new academic departments, programs or research centers. They want input on the hiring of the directors and faculty who will populate these departments and centers. They want to dictate the subjects that can be studied or taught, the political bent of the research pursued, and the selection of the scholars that will do the research. (Still, many other donors give generously without making any demands for involvement in academic decisions.)

As the amounts of money donated skyrocket, so too do the demands of the donor.

“It can become a slippery slope,” says James Finkelstein, professor emeritus of public policy at George Mason and an expert on development and advancement issues. “It becomes even more treacherous when donors personally are involved.”

He says agreements such as the one approved by Saint Louis University “step on academic freedom and violate the role of the faculty in determining curriculum. They make faculty hires difficult.”

Saint Louis administrators and faculty are still working through their differences over the terms of the donation from the Sinquefields. (He co-founded the investment firm Dimensional Fund Advisors, which has more than $525 billion in global assets.) After professors told university administrators that hiring the director of the research center violated faculty hiring policy, administrators acknowledged making a mistake and removed “professor” from the director’s title and replaced it with “executive director.” They also reclassified his position from “faculty to staff.” But they preserved the filled position, as the donor agreement dictated.

Faculty members were not impressed or appeased.

“I asked the dean if there was a pool of candidates and he said no, the donor recommended someone who is qualified,” Bonnie Wilson, an associate professor of economics, said of the naming of the director.

Wilson and another economics professor, David Rapach, are leading the opposition to the agreement.

“I don’t think the donors should be able to pick the person who will both conduct and direct the research at the center,” Wilson said. “The position hasn’t been posted as far as we know, so we don’t know how it conforms to EEO laws and the university’s own commitment to diversity and equality.”

She said the hiring of the director should have been handled by a faculty search committee “with expertise in an area of work that this employee is going to be asked to conduct.”

University administrators say critics of the donor agreement overlook the overriding benefits of $50 million in new funding that will allow the university to significantly expand its research footprint and enhance its academic standing.

“This is our first gift of this magnitude,” said Ken Olliff, vice president for research. “There’s some growing pains among our faculty on how contemporary philanthropy works.”

He said there were safeguards in place to protect the integrity of the research that the donation will fund, including a research council made of up of the chairpersons of the science and engineering, applied health, scholarship research, and other large departments across the university.

The research council will evaluate applications and send them to the research growth committee, which will then send them to the nonprofit board the donors set up. The board includes four people — the Sinquefields, Olliff and a retired professor of economics.

“They made no specifications about what kind of research we could do,” Olliff said. “They said we trust you, it’s more about ‘how do we help you move the institute forward?’ Let us provide the resources.

“We have goals, visions and metrics, but they are our goals, our vision and our metrics. The donors said that we needed to lay out what our goal and metrics were, so we laid that out and will hold ourselves accountable. The donors want us to move forward with our vision. It becomes a partnership. In my mind this is exactly how philanthropy should work.”

Michael Lewis, the acting associate provost for faculty affairs and development, and an associate professor of chemistry, said he, Olliff and Dean Higgins “are working hard to get everybody in the same place with regard to the gift.”

He noted that 165 faculty members signed a statement expressing their gratitude to the Sinquefields.

“The response from the majority of the faculty has been largely very positive by a long shot,” he said. “ They’re very excited about how it’s going to transform the university and transform their research agendas.”

In a statement for this article, Rex Sinquefield said, “Our only motivation in making this gift is to help SLU pursue excellence and grow in prestige. That not only benefits SLU and its students, but also the whole St. Louis region, which is a wonderful place to do research that can transform people’s lives.”

Said Wilson, “I would agree with the statement that many, perhaps most faculty, are grateful for gifts from donors. But it’s not at all clear to me that there is support for the donor being involved with hiring … or support for donors to have a role in granting of funds for individual projects by faculty.”

She noted that many faculty members also signed a resolution by the Faculty Senate expressing concern about the agreement flouting the principle of academic freedom. The resolution was distributed by word of mouth and was not shared with junior faculty and still got 70 signatories, she said. “Many people signed both statements,” she said.

A motion was subsequently approved by the members, stating, “Donors should not participate in employment matters of the university, nor should they play a role in determining the curriculum or in the direction of funding to particular students, faculty, or individual research projects.”

Lewis said the faculty concerns are being heard. He insists the donors will not be involved in employment, curriculum and research matters.

“I hear those concerns at Faculty Senate meetings,” he said. “We’ve said that won’t happen. I don’t know how else to address that. Faculty control curriculum and the hiring process; it’s in the faculty manual and will continue to be the case. I can’t make it any more clear than that.”

Rapach said simply reclassifying the director’s title from “faculty” to “staff” without changing his duties reflects “many word games being played.”

“The administration has emphasized that they viewed the director and the researchers as staff positions and not faculty. But the director still would direct and conduct scholarly research,” he noted. “The fact that the person is a scholar engaged in work similar to faculty compromises and violates the spirit and intent of the faculty manual.”

What’s more, donors having say even over staff positions “is a clear violation of academic norms,” he said. “We’re talking about donor influence, inappropriate donor influence.”

Rapach said the terms of the agreement lack transparency and risk the university’s reputation as an independent research institution.

“They violated accepted norms of academic integrity and independence,” he said. “I’m very concerned about my academic reputation, and I’m worried about the reputation of the university more broadly. Entering into these types of arrangements and granting these special privileges to donors will have implications to the university’s reputation and its scholars. It’s almost as if we’re inviting negative scrutiny.”

University administrators tried to reassure faculty members at a Faculty Senate meeting last month by telling them that Rex Sinquefield will have no say in hiring or firing faculty and that he and his wife also would have no role in directing or drafting research proposals. The administrators did not, however, change the role they had agreed to, allowing him to help select grant recipients.

Not everyone was convinced these steps would create a permanent and impenetrable wall between the donors and the administration of the research institute or the economic center.

Finkelstein said demands by big donors are likely to increase as more college and universities acquiesce to them.

“What’s happening in universities today is that presidents are looking for these eight- and even nine-figure donors,” he said. “That’s how they keep score and show their fund-raising abilities. Finding these donors and keeping these donors is also important to keeping your job as president. So, when you have someone able to write a $50 million check, you want to make sure you can keep them happy.”

And keeping donors happy is being prioritized over keeping faculty happy, he said.

“The distance between how to advance a president’s career is very far and very different from how faculty advance their careers, which is with research and scholarship,” he said. “Today what advances a president’s career almost more than anything else is fund-raising. They’re paying less and less attention to faculty in terms of these matters. They think if I can get a $50 million gift but it gets me grief from faculty, that’s OK, because the board isn’t going to fire me.”

Finkelstein noted that 70 percent of a typical college president’s time is spent soliciting outside funding.

“They’re increasingly divorced from the inner workings of the faculty,” he said. “That responsibility is increasingly being turned over to the provosts and dean.”

This is the case at Saint Louis, where the dean and acting provost are leading the meetings and discussions with faculty about the Sinquefield donation and trying to assure them that everything is aboveboard.

Rapach, who has taught at the university since 2003, is dismayed by the state of affairs.

“To the extent that academia moves in this direction, it compromises the ability of higher ed institutions to serve society,” he said. “These norms and standards that we have are precisely what makes academic research valuable to society … When these rules aren’t adhered [to], it compromises our ability to best serve society and ends up undermining the very research that the donors are supporting.”

Source: https://bloghyped.com/professors-question-big-donation-at-saint-louis-university-because-of-conditions-attached/

[memoryinsufficient]

Since Donald Trump won the US presidential election one year ago, the games sector has tried to work out how to use our medium to resist the rise of the far right. In March, Resistjam brought game developers together around the world to create consciousness-raising works of political art. Rami Ismail is one developer who has used his platform as a respected public speaker at games conferences to speak out against Trump’s discriminatory travel ban and elevate the voices of developers whose work has been affected. Games criticism outlet Waypoint’s remarkable first year included a week-long special feature on the prison-industrial complex.

Videogames and neoliberalism

Class politics of digital media

Art as political response

How to use games politically

References

One year on, it may now be a good time to evaluate the cultures of resistance that are growing in games. What does it mean to resist fascism with games and tech? How can the videogames and technology industries confront our role in fostering cultures of isolated young men who become radicalised? Does it still make sense to focus on videogames at a time like this?

Videogames and neoliberalism

“Duke Nukem’s Dystopian Fantasies” appeared on Jacobin on April 20th, marking a debut post for writer and artist Liz Ryerson on the leftist commentary site. In it, she makes the affirmative case for looking at videogames as historical and cultural artefacts while judging them on their own merits, and makes the connection between the male power fantasy the game embraces, the alienation people feel under late capitalism, and how that can translate into reaction without a coherent understanding of history.

“This is the power of the fantasy Duke Nukem as a cultural figure represents: that through raw machismo, the series of oppressive neoliberal forces that form the framework of our society can be conquered and transcended. Duke cannot exist in a rational world. He can only exist in a one filled with internal contradictions, crossed wires, and broken down buildings.

“His world is never stable. It can only ever be dominated by irrational fears of the unknown and one-dimensional, cartoonish archetypes. His world never resolves any of its cognitive dissonances, and sometimes even seems to be aware of its own self-destructiveness.”

Liz Ryerson (2017) “Duke Nukem’s Dystopian Fantasies”, Jacobin

For the most part, Ryerson’s piece received praise from leftist partisans whether or not they were particularly committed to videogames as a craft. But not everyone felt it was appropriate for a socialist journal like Jacobin to have published a close reading of something like Duke Nukem 3D.

https://twitter.com/garliccorgi/status/855241007692210177

It’s not as if they’d ever previously published pieces on the art, culture and business of games or tech, to relatively little backlash:

Les Simerables, Eva Koffman “SimCity isn’t a sandbox. Its rules reflect the neoliberal common sense of today’s urban planning.”

Empire Down, Sam Kriss “The player in Age of Empires II doesn’t take on the role of a monarch or a national spirit, but the feudal mode of production itself.”

“You can sleep here all night”: Video Games and Labour, Ian Williams “Exploitation in the video game industry provides a glimpse at how many of us may be working in years to come.”

In my own experience occupying the art fringe of the videogame industry–which is admittedly a highly reactionary space–I’ve learned that while there are a lot of young people pouring a lot of energy into their craft, it’s easy to feel lonely and beholden to a lost cause. I’ve worked as a writer and small-time artist and developer for almost a decade, focusing primarily on indie and alternative development communities and agitating in my limited capacity for more of a spotlight on them, their histories, and the labour involved in them. My political activity outside of my work consists largely of anti-fascist organizing in my city–that means participating in teach-ins, free food events, as well as protests and counter-demonstrations against the far-right. This work is voluntary, but can sometimes feel much more fulfilling than my actual profession. It’s easy to feel like no one really cares about fringe technical arts because, well, most people don’t. If the industry’s flagship mainstream titles give us very little to seriously engage with, then why bother digging any deeper?

[bctt tweet=”Political critique of AAA games is a lot of work, for something juvenile at worst, and culturally peripheral at best.” via=”no”]

As the Jekyll that is liberalism has once again fallen into crisis and gives way to its Mr. Hyde that is fascist reaction, I’ve felt increasingly insecure about the nature of my work and why I chose it. I laugh nervously and tell people what I do is bullshit before going any further. Luckily, most of the people I’ve encountered while organizing, or even just through having had a political affinity online, have expressed genuine interest in the medium, the inner workings of our opaque and cloistered industry, and its potential as an expressive and communicative tool. Still, I have met those who think of things like social media as “inappropriate technology”, who automatically assume that anyone who has any interest in videogames is a pepe nazi, or who think of any engagement with new media as a cultural and political dead end.

That said, some of the most personally influential leftist thinkers I’ve come across are also writers, artists and academics in this incredibly weird field. More often than not we organize and march together. This is not an attempt to scapegoat anyone specific or to do as so many desperate thinkpieces did after the election and try to reaffirm the dubious political importance of games as an artform through headlines such as “Trump as Gamer-in-Chief”.

I don’t think that making videogames, no matter how fringe or alt, should be conflated with tried and true forms of street activism. Game jams about the immigration ban are not a form of direct action in the way shutting down a consulate or doing an hours-long sit-in at an airport are. Your app is not saving the world.

ResistJam was an online game jam about resisting authoritarianism. Over 200 games were made by participants.

The dominant ideological expression of late capitalism is liberalism, or more specifically, neoliberalism. Liberalism prefers to try to diversify the middle class of the currently existing system, rather than try imagining something that might liberate greater masses of people. According to this view, capitalism fundamentally works, only needing a slight tweak here or there to make it more “accessible” to those who are deserving. A major way it seeks to accomplish this is by centering symbolic representation of various marginalized identities while also depoliticizing things like technological progress, framing them as inherently good and proof of societal advancement. All actual material concerns and real struggle can then be ironed away in favour of simply trying to optimize the level of participation for marginalized groups, as one would fiddle with a dial. This isn’t to say symbolic representation doesn’t matter, but to fixate on it strips us of the ability to think in terms of collective political power, and cultivate a real political program that fights for material improvements to people’s lived conditions.

Class politics of digital media

Media consumption doesn’t determine political outcomes, at least not in a direct sense, but it does help shape people’s political imaginations. Taking the time to unpack the media we consume can tell us a lot about the conditions of production–that is to say, the ways in which labour power is exploited in order to produce entertainment commodities. This may include the mining of cobalt to make computer hardware, or the manufacturing of consoles and other devices at Foxconn plants, or developers coerced into overwork in order to meet production quotas. There is a potentially international struggle of exploited workers even just when it comes to videogames, yet hardly a labour movement to speak of. That there’s hardly a union presence in the technical arts or in tech work broadly, and that these industries tend toward meritocratic, libertarian or even fascist thinking that tends to be expressed ideologically via their major cultural properties, is not an accident.

Conversely, if politics are the “art of the possible”, then media creation allows us to expand the conceptual scope for what’s possible. Most of the art we consume is conservative in character–even works we consider liberal or progressive are often deeply reactionary in their base assumptions. For example, David Grossman explains why diverse Brooklyn Nine-Nine can’t avoid being apologia for the NYPD, and why using progressive representation to paper over the faults of repressive institutions is indefensible.

Earlier this year, the Vera Institute of Justice polled young people in high-crime areas of New York, and found that only four in ten respondents would feel comfortable seeking help from the police if they were in trouble, and eighty-eight percent of young people surveyed didn’t believe that their neighborhoods trusted the police. Forty-six percent of young people said they had experienced physical force beyond being frisked by a police officer.

“Brooklyn Nine-Nine” tries to get around this problem by pretending the actual Brooklyn doesn’t exist.

David Grossman (2013) “If you think the NYPD is like Dunder Mifflin, you’ll love ‘Brooklyn Nine-Nine'”, New Republic

Videogames in particular have their own sordid history of using diversity rhetoric as a way to deflect criticism of unwieldy, increasingly shoddy games produced under highly exploitative conditions, and reflect profoundly disturbing ideological tendencies (sometimes with the help of the arms industry or the U.S. military.) This has led some leftists to believe that the interactive arts as a craft are inherently reactionary and devoid of creative potential. I sympathize to an extent with this position, but having spent significant time in tech and games spaces, I believe these problems arise from the same historical conditions that render most art conservative, as well as specific ones owing to the opaqueness of the industry itself. I think these are things that can be overcome, not without some effort, and part of what keeps me interested in games is its creative fringe, where artists are finding ways to use the medium to capture as well as suggest alternatives to our current predicament.

[bctt tweet=”Videogames have matured entirely within the context of late capitalism and neoliberalism.” via=”yes”]

Videogames have barely a labour movement to speak of, and are an appendage of the tech-libertarian culture of Silicon Valley. An important aspect of their heritage resides in engineers meddling with MIT military computers. They have never, in their production or conception, been entirely separate from the state or the military-industrial complex or from corporate interest, and as a result often exist as an ideological expression of these institutions.

Maybe this was unavoidable, the forces underlying the technical arts world too strong to ever be meaningfully opposed by a few dissenting voices, but I struggle to think of anything in the modern world for which this is not true. Maybe a game jam, or a book fair, or a block party should not be the centerpieces of our activism. These things have their place, but should not be confused for things like street actions (protests, counter-demonstrations against the far-right), grassroots electoral activism, coalition-building between social and economic justice groups, public disobedience (like the destruction of hostile architecture), accessibility and anti-poverty efforts, workplace organizing and so on. This work can be thankless and grueling, but it’s absolutely vital. Still, engaging with media and culture in a way that actually resonates with alienated people is a good way to let them know there’s something else available to them than resigned helplessness. Perhaps it seems like too much effort for too small and marginal a community, but going to any independent games site will bring up literally thousands of entries, much of it being made by people under the age of 30. Many of these people work multiple jobs while making their art for free or almost free, or work under precarious conditions (employment instability, contract work, etc,) and scrape by on crowdfunding, and many–as I’ve experienced both by playing their works and by actually building relationships with them–lean acutely left and hunger for more robust progressive spaces that reward creative experimentation, but often lack the time, energy or organizational guidance that would help them achieve those goals.

But even more broadly, more people play games than identify strictly as “gamers.” Plenty of people who do work in the industry recognize this term as a corporate invention, and don’t actually resemble the stereotype of the socially-awkward, emotionally stunted, self-pitying bourgeois recluses that so much of the industry has historically built its marketing around. While mainstream ideologies in the subculture tend to range from milquetoast liberalism to right-wing libertarianism to cryptofascism, quite a lot more people consume media like games, comics and even anime than are intimately involved with the worst elements of these subcultures. Snobbishly refusing to make any use of these “deviant” or “degenerate” new forms and reacting with hostility at anyone who tries to strikes me as missing an opportunity, and as needlessly ceding cultural ground to people we seek to oppose at every level.

Art as political response

Though GamerGate is nearly incomprehensible to anyone who hasn’t been following it closely, it’s unusual in that it captured the attention of people who have nothing all to do with video games when it’s ostensibly preoccupied with whether certain online blogs have properly disclosed their writers’ ties to indie game developers. A recent post at Breitbart, however, helps to explain GamerGate’s appeal: It’s an accessible front for a new kind of culture warrior to push back against the perceived authoritarianism of the social-justice left.

Vlad Chituc (2015) “Gamergate: A culture war for people who don’t play video games”, New Republic

Reactionaries–from bog standard republicans to the fractured jumble of fascoid revanchists that make up the so-called “alt-right”–have for a long time viewed nerd culture as part of the broader culture war. This is why Gamergate attracted conservative figures like Christina Hoff Sommers, Todd Kincannon and Milo Yiannopoulos (both disgraced), Paul Joseph Watson, Mike Cernovich and so on. I don’t think gaming or memes really impacted, say, the election, and I tend to think the way we talk about Gamergate–as though it’s the cause of, rather than a product of, the resurgence of the far-right–misses the forest for the trees. I don’t think leftist and labour activists ought to go out of their way to address these hard-identified gamers either. There’s no reason for us not to remain critical of the industry and the ideologies it reproduces.

But it’s obvious that this is a group that gets really anxious when they start to feel like they don’t have control over “nerd culture” anymore, and who have in many ways acted as shock troops to dissuade people from asking too many questions about the industry’s inner practices. In retrospect, there was an opportunity with Gamergate for those in and around the industry to really interrogate the relationship between its issues with labour and its issues with incubating angry reactionary nerds, and for the most part that didn’t happen. It couldn’t, because those who were most likely to suffer professional and personal attack weren’t organized, and still aren’t. It’s no wonder so many YouTube celebrities turn out to be fascists. Actually embracing those who work in or around these fields and who are desperately trying to inject a little grace and intelligence into the medium may help weaken that stranglehold. Not such a terrible idea considering how many kids are watching the likes of PewDiePie and JonTron.

https://twitter.com/liberalism_txt/status/894978105021956096

We’ve seen this work to an extent: bots that tweet out liberal self-owns and dank communist memes can help bring together people who feel their concerns aren’t otherwise being articulated and addressed, and find if nothing else in this a bond with other like-minded souls. I don’t think these things are necessarily directly persuasive, but they do allow us to give voice to that which both invigorates us and that which causes us to despair.

https://twitter.com/ra/status/828686383623593985

Tim Mulkerin (2017) Nazi-punching videogames are flooding the internet, thanks to Richard Spencer

They’re also a natural consequence of a diverse mass of people all feeling the same disillusionment and disgust in their everyday lives, needing solidarity but also craving catharsis. Taking a second look at these commodities we mindlessly consume may not in itself be movement building, but it can help put things in perspective. (And if these things are in your estimation not meaningful, why waste time getting angry at the people who do find value in them, especially if those people are your comrades in every way that does matter? Don’t we value a diversity of skills and tactics?)

We know this can work with podcasts, publications, flyers, banners, zines, comics, and music, despite the problems endemic to all creative industries. Not only can these things let people know that in fact they aren’t alone, but they also give us an opportunity to craft a compelling alternative vision. Unfortunate though it is that the most visible videogames tend to express the vilest characteristics of the industry, certain indie critical darling games have proven that the same tools can be used to vividly illustrate the daily grind of making ends meet while working a minimum wage job, the dehumanizing procedure of immigration bureaucracy, or the desperate, soul-crushing banality of office work.

Games of labour and the avant-garde

Richard Hofmeier Cart Life

Lucas Pope Papers, Please

Molleindustria Everyday The Same Dream

The Tiniest Shark Redshirt

Jake Clover Nuign Spectre

micha cárdenas Redshift and Portalmetal

Paloma Dawkins, Gardenarium

Colestia Crisis Theory

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

  Even more avant-garde works like Nuign Spectre or Redshift and Portalmetal use mixed media aesthetics to illustrate the grotesqueness of prevailing ideologies and conditions, while the dreamy work of an artist like Paloma Dawkins allows us to envision worlds which are seemingly impossible but nonetheless worthy of imagining. Colestia’s Crisis Theory subverts the tech world’s own obsession with Taylorism and systems, specifically using flow chart representation of capitalism to lay bare its inherent instability.

This isn’t to repeat the canard about games being more inherently capable of producing empathy than other art forms, or that we ought to focus on one art form to the exclusion of others. But I do think the exercise of ranking different art forms according to how sophisticated they are is inherently reactionary, arbitrarily limits the scope of expression, and constrains our ability to cultivate the new and different when it’s staring us right in the face.

As film critic Shannon Strucci pointed out in her video “why you should care about VIDEO GAMES”–which was made in response to the very attitude I’m describing–no conservative holdout in the history of the arts has ever been vindicated by a wholesale dismissal of a new form or movement as delinquent and therefore not worth engagement.

All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war. War and war only can set a goal for mass movements on the largest scale while respecting the traditional property system.

Walter Benjamin (1936) The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction

But this is just regular old art criticism. Not all art is or should be explicitly used toward political ends, and games are no different. Walter Benjamin famously warned about confounding aesthetic with politics, and how doing so creates space for fascism. Grossman’s piece mentioned above ultimately links the dopey neoliberalism of Brooklyn Nine-Nine to an underlying apologia for a racist police state; this sort of prioritization of representation and aesthetics is commonplace in liberal bourgeois rhetoric (the fixation, for example, liberal pundits have with condemning bigotry as being a “bad look” rather than being actively harmful in calculable ways). The tech world, too, is remarkably consumed with style over substance–it’s a world where rainbow capitalism and tokenism reign supreme while the oligarchs who run it not only would be too happy to work on behalf of fascist governments, but have in the past and are in the present.

make this into a footer link

rainbow capitalism

tokenism

“IBM ‘dealt directly with Holocaust organisers'”, The Guardian

“Peter Thiel, Trump’s tech pal, explains himself”, The New York Times

In Ways of Seeing, art critic John Berger tracks the history of the reification of dominant ideologies through art, from colonialism to sexism to capitalism. Berger describes the nostalgic yearning for more “legitimate” forms of art displaced by newer technology as fundamentally reactionary and regressive, writing:

“The bogus religiosity which now surrounds original works of art, and which is ultimately dependent upon their market value, has become the substitute for what paintings lost when the camera made them reproducible. Its function is nostalgic. It is the final empty claim for the continuing values of an oligarchic, undemocratic culture.”

How to use games politically

Suffice it to say, there is little in the history of games or the arts generally that should stop them from expressing reactionary tendencies. It can’t really be helped, after all, if art is to be a reflection of current and historical conditions. By extension, the most regressive elements of gaming culture tend to value only those games that functionally and aesthetically resemble classic games, and classical forms of art. If games are a reflection of an industry full of people who literally want to suck the blood of the young and think unions are a trick of the devil, that’s at least in part true because art forms that preceded them, like oil painting, are a reflection of an inbred aristocracy that believed in the divine right of the propertied classes to rule and thought that they were justified in pillaging entire peoples because of their superior skull shape. That doesn’t mean we ought to deny subversive art where it exists, and it’s a piss poor reason for refusing to support its cultivation in new forms which are as-yet barely understood.

I want socialist, feminist, anti-racist, anti-fascist art to exist anywhere art is being produced, even if it’s with computers, and especially if its core demographic is young people and kids.

Supporting bold, avant-garde and subversive art is a much bigger social project than simply using what exists toward political ends, but I think if we are going to use what exists for political ends it’s useful to think about how what we create can reconfirm our reality. It’s also worth pointing out that plenty of political art is embarrassing, ineffectual or just plain preachy. The same has been true for lots of “serious” games (maybe even some of the ones I listed above), which may be accused of being boring, simplistic, or worse at conveying their overall point than a book or article on the same subject. (I would counter that games should not try to be like articles or books, but more like paintings, where being simple and straightforward isn’t such a big deal. I would also caution that it’s possible to engage serious subject matter while maintaining a sense of humour.) Conversely, when political operatives try to make use of games–rather than game developers trying to portray current events–this also runs the risk of coming off as condescending, tin-eared and trite. For example, the Clinton campaign made use of a “game-style app” called Hillary 2016 that Teen Vogue described as like “FarmVille but for politics”.

https://twitter.com/emily_uhlmann/status/757570149490761728

But I don’t think this is a bad way to approach politics because they used a game–it’s a bad way to approach politics because it avoids addressing constituents and answering simple policy questions. It betrayed a valuing of data over people that so many find bloodlessly reptilian about tech evangelism. Also, Christ does it sound boring.

A politically meaningful use of interactive art could mean the creation of workshops for marginalized communities, similar to the Skins Workshop for indigenous kids run by AbTec, a research network based in Montreal. Or, it could mean the kind of partnerships like the one Subaltern Games had with Jacobin to promote their game No Pineapple Left Behind, thereby using games as yet another way to engage people about issues like colonialism and capitalism in the global south. I’ve personally recently become involved with the Montreal collective behind Game Curious, an independent annual gaming showcase and workshop that seeks to bridge the gap between the medium, non-gamers, and radical activist groups organizing around real-world political struggles.

Initiative for Indigenous Futures | Workshops: Bringing Aboriginal Storytelling to Experimental Digital Media  The Skins workshops aim to empower Native youth to be more than just consumers of new technologies by showing them how to be producers of new technologies.

Subaltern Games | Jacobin sponsorship “We are proud to announce that we will be collaborating with Jacobin Magazine to help promote our upcoming game, No Pineapple Left Behind. […] Jacobin will tell all of the leftists about our upcoming Kickstarter campaign (even YOU). They are also providing copies of their book Class Action: An Activist Teacher’s Handbook as backer rewards.”

Game Curious | Are you game curious? “Game Curious Montréal is a free, 6-week long program all about games, for people who don’t necessarily identify as “gamers.” Sessions are two hours long and will provide an introduction to a wide variety of games, as well as open discussions and group activities, in a zero-pressure, beginner-friendly environment.”

Likewise, mainstream gaming symbolism can be subverted toward leftist messaging–the appropriation of famous imagery or characters for “bootleg” leftist art could be a means for engaging youth culture and kids. Even having something like a YouTube channel or Twitch stream to engage young people on their interests from a left perspective could help shape healthier, more progressive perspectives. And, although the use of incubators and game jams are not inherently radical, and in many ways benefit the industry by training new exploitable workforces, there’s still no reason we can’t sometimes use some version of them for social and teaching events in the future.

[bctt tweet=”Why should we use games to engage and give voice to people, when other art forms exist?” username=”meminsf”]

There remains the question of why we should use games when we can use any other art form–and especially literature–to engage people on ideas and give exploited or marginalized communities more tools for making themselves heard. My answer may not be satisfying, but it’s this: why not?

I want to use all of these tools and more. I want to use whatever’s available to me and whatever works. I want to go wherever there’s movement and culture, and especially where there’s a mass of alienated, unorganized young people looking for an alternative. I see no reason to leave that on the table, or to throw fledgling modes of expression to people who post videos of themselves drinking a gallon of milk to prove their manhood and long for the Fatherland to cleanse itself in the blood of the degenerate races, or the corporations that love them.

Of course it means more to me because it’s my regrettable industry and subculture, and I don’t blame anyone if they read this and still can’t find it in themselves to give a shit. Still, these cultural properties aren’t going away, so we might as well engage with them. More than that, we can make good on the promise of so many oleaginous tech disruptors that Gaming is revolutionary in how it makes possible different and exciting new worlds. Isn’t a new world what we want?

References

ResistJam brings game devs together against authoritarianism

Your app isn’t helping the people of Saudi Arabia

George Monbiot on neoliberalism (a fantastic article that both introduces neoliberalism to those unsure what the word means, and gives those who have been using the word for years an enriched perspective)

Eleanor Robertson (2016) Get Mad and Get Even, Meanjin Quarterly

Jonathan Ore (2017) “Viewer discretion advised? Your child’s favourite YouTuber may be posting offensive content”, CBC News

Laura Stampler (2016) “Hillary Clinton campaign launches ‘Hillary 2016) game app”, Teen Vogue

The Gamer Trump Trope

Patrick Klepek (2017) “The power of video games in the age of Trump”, Vice

Christopher J. Ferguson (2017) “How will video games fare in the age of Trump?”, Huffington Post

Asi Burak (2017) “Trump as Gamer-in-Chief”, Polygon

Back to text

Labour issue examples

Children as young as seven mining cobalt used in smartphones, The Guardian

Chinese university students forced to manufacture PS4 in Foxconn plant, Forbes

Back to text

Otto von Bismarck, Wikiquote

Prince Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck, Duke of Lauenburg (1 April 1815 – 30 July 1898), was a German aristocrat and statesman; he was Prime Minister of Prussia (1862–1890), and the first Chancellor of Germany (1871–1890).

Die Politik ist die Lehre vom Möglichen. Politics is the art of the possible.

Interview (11 August 1867) with Friedrich Meyer von Waldeck of the St. Petersburgische Zeitung: Aus den Erinnerungen eines russischen Publicisten. 2. Ein Stündchen beim Kanzler des norddeutschen Bundes. In: Die Gartenlaube (1876) p. 858 de.wikisource. Back to text

Politically meaningful games under neoliberalism Since Donald Trump won the US presidential election one year ago, the games sector has tried to work out how to use our medium to resist the rise of the far right.

[tortuga-aak]

Both conservative and liberal groups are hoping to capitalize on Trump backlash to get women elected

Matt Rourke/AP

Both on the left and the right, prominent donors and strategists are building new organizations to promote female candidates in the lead-up to the 2018 midterm elections. 

On the left, a new initiative led by Sen. Bernie Sanders' former deputies and surrogates will focus on electing working class women and women of color. 

And on the right, the GOP is eyeing an opportunity to promote conservative women, who are seen by voters as the ultimate political outsiders. 

In the wake of Hillary Clinton's unexpected 2016 loss, political operatives and donors see an opportunity for women in politics — both on the right and the left. 

While women-focused political action committees have successfully propelled Democratic women into elected office for the past few decades, a new group on the left founded by Sen. Bernie Sanders' supporters is looking to expand the slate of women candidates who earn early endorsements and big-dollar donations. 

And on the right, another new PAC, backed by some of the GOP's most prominent benefactors, is looking to capitalize on the moment to promote conservative women in a party that has long rejected identity politics. 

Redefining the progressive woman candidate 

On the Democratic side, the most powerful women-focused PACs — NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood, and EMILY's List — have one thing in common: they choose the candidates they support based on their position on abortion rights. 

Nomiki Konst, a former surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign and reporter for The Young Turks, and Rania Batrice, a veteran Democratic strategist and Sanders's former deputy campaign manager, think women candidates should be evaluated on a broader set of policy priorities. 

Konst and Batrice, along with Our Revolution president Nina Turner, are in the the process of building a new PAC to recruit and fund working class women and women of color on a Sanders-inspired "economic justice" platform. 

"Reproductive rights are incredibly important. 'Yes, and' is the way I look at it. Yes, and more," Konst told Business Insider. "The hook in is something bigger and crosses boundaries."

Scheduled to launch early next year, the group will recruit women who support a host of progressive policies, including a $15 minimum wage, campaign finance reform, Medicare-for-all, free college, and criminal justice reform, among others, and who might be less practiced in big-dollar fundraising than candidates backed by more establishment groups. 

"I think the thing we learned from Bernie in the primary is that it's possible to do things in a different way, understanding, of course, that everybody's not going to be able to raise millions of dollars $27 at a time," Batrice told Business Insider of the group's emphasis on small-dollar fundraising. 

Rebecca Cook/Reuters

While Konst and Batrice say the organization will seek to work with other women-focused groups where their interests align, there is longstanding tension — exposed during the 2016 election — between women's groups like Planned Parenthood and EMILY's List and Sanders's camp.  

Last month, after the Women's March organizers announced that Sanders would be a featured speaker at their convention, many women, including EMILY's List president Stephanie Schriock, condemned the decision, arguing that a women's gathering shouldn't feature a man. 

Konst, who was also a speaker at the October convention, called Schriock's criticism divisive and reflective of an unwillingness among establishment Democrats and feminists to "reach across boundaries." 

The new group is seemingly a direct response to what Sanders supporters see as the limitations of groups like EMILY's List, which Konst has accused of "financially backing wealthy women, while raising money off of young/WOC," referring to women of color, and endorsing male over female candidates in some races. 

"We need to start electing people that reflect the country we live in, who understand at the heart the issues that we're facing — income inequality being bigger than ever and the burden being on women," Konst told Business Insider. "It's not just about electing women who can vote on those issues, it's about electing women who can speak on those issues."

  Mark Wilson/Getty Images

A Republican EMILY's List

Earlier this month, a coalition of some of the GOP's biggest donors and most powerful operatives officially launched a new women-focused PAC. 

Several billionaire benefactors, including the Mercer family, TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts, and hedge fund founder Paul Singer, teamed up over the last year with wealthy female members of President Donald Trump's cabinet, including Linda McMahon, head of the Small Business Administration, and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, to fund the group, called Winning for Women. 

And many of the Republican Party's most powerful female operatives, including former deputy White House chief of staff Katie Walsh and former New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, are either leading or involved with the group, which has signed up 30,000 members over the last month and is aiming to grow to 400,000 in time for the 2018 midterm elections.

The group's goal is to promote online activism and recruit candidates with conservative positions on national security and economic issues in particular. 

"Winning For Women’s primary objectives are to build a national membership base of conservative female activists, and advance a policy agenda focused on national security and free-market principles," the group's communications director Andrea Bozek told Business Insider in a statement. 

Traditionally, GOP PACs focused on electing women, including the Susan B. Anthony List, and VIEW PAC, have fallen short of their Democratic counterparts, and experts say Winning for Women will have a similarly uphill battle to fight in a party where under 10% of the congressional caucus is women.  

Rosalyn Cooperman, a professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington who studies women in politics, thinks that in order to be successful, the group would need to make two unorthodox moves: getting involved in primaries and embracing identity politics.

"Traditionally, conservative women’s PACs have been very squeamish at doing that — they don't want to offend the party," Cooperman told Business Insider. "They're going to have to engage in identity politics in a way that the party is not comfortable with." 

Democratic groups, like EMILY's List, are writing off this latest GOP effort as just another low-impact public relations campaign. 

Schriock, the EMILY's List president, recently told Cosmopolitan Magazine that she supports the idea of a "Republican version of EMILY's List," arguing that more women in GOP politics would act as a moderating force on the party's policies — "more women will be better, period," she argued.

"Part of the problem on the right is there is no counter organization to EMILY's List, which, frankly, is a bummer," Schriock said. "If there was a real Republican version of EMILY's List, that was committed to the training, recruiting, and long-term support of women, women candidates, and women in elected office ... I think it would prevent the Republican Party from going so far to the right."

But she is deeply skeptical of Winning for Women's efforts, which she characterized as both futile and hypocritical. 

"As long as the Republican Party continues to advance an agenda that hurts women, they will have trouble recruiting and electing women candidates for office," Schriock said in a statement to Business Insider. "The GOP has been radicalized by those who relish every opportunity to roll back the clock on women's rights. It's no wonder women are under 10 percent of the Republican's congressional caucus, but make up roughly a third of the Democrats'." 

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Conservative women may have a chance as political outsiders

While women make up just 20% of Congress, Democratic women outnumber Republican women in the body three-to-one. 

Kelly Dittmar, a professor at Rutgers University's Center for American Women and Politics, says that while Winning for Women's success will depend on an array of factors, including what kinds of candidates it recruits and how much money it invests in them, 2018 might be a particularly good year for the GOP to focus on women candidates. 

A new survey published by the Barbara Lee Family Foundation found that Republican women hold some important advantages over Democratic men, in particular. Conservative women are more likely to be viewed by voters as political outsiders than their male counterparts or Democrats are, and are seen as more confident and more honest then Democratic men. 

The report found that voters see Republican women as stronger than Republican men on 10 of 13 metrics, including being knowledgeable, standing up for what's right, and seeming in touch with people.

And in a moment in which being a political outsider carries significant weight with voters of all political stripes, conservative women may have a distinct advantage over both their male counterparts and candidates across the aisle. 

Dittmar added that Republican women, who are generally more politically moderate than the men in their party, might represent strong alternatives for GOP voters who are fed up with Trump in 2018. 

"If there's a backlash to the party, if Donald Trump affects these races negatively, if the electorate is particularly angry with what’s happening, they may be more willing to accept a candidate ... who's more moderate or at least presents a different perspective or a different approach," Dittmar said. 

NOW WATCH: Senator Bob Corker slams Trump and says he has 'great difficulty with the truth'

from Feedburner http://ift.tt/2z1wwrG

[thedeadshotnetwork]

New PACs are emerging on the left and the right to get women elected in 2018 Matt Rourke/AP Both on the left and the right, prominent donors and strategists are building new organizations to promote female candidates in the lead-up to the 2018 midterm elections. On the left, a new initiative led by Sen. Bernie Sanders' deputies and surrogates will focus on electing working class women and women of color. And on the right, the GOP sees an opportunity to promote conservative women, who are seen by voters as the ultimate political outsiders. In the wake of Hillary Clinton's unexpected 2016 loss, political operatives and donors see an opportunity for women in politics — both on the right and the left. While women-focused political action committees have successfully propelled Democratic women into elected office for the past few decades, a new group on the left founded by Sen. Bernie Sanders' supporters is looking to expand the slate of women candidates who earn early endorsements and big-dollar donations. And on the right, another new PAC, backed by some of the GOP's most prominent benefactors, is looking to capitalize on the moment to promote conservative women in a party that has long rejected identity politics. Redefining the progressive woman candidate On the Democratic side, the most powerful women-focused PACs — NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood, and EMILY's List — have one thing in common: they choose the candidates they support based on their position on abortion rights. Nomiki Konst, a former surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign and reporter for The Young Turks , and Rania Batrice, a veteran Democratic strategist and Sanders's former deputy campaign manager, think women candidates should be evaluated on a broader set of policy priorities. The two women, along with Our Revolution president Nina Turner, are in the the process of building a new PAC to recruit and fund working class women and women of color on a Sanders-inspired "economic justice" platform. "Reproductive rights are incredibly important. 'Yes, and' is the way I look at it. Yes, and more," Konst told Business Insider. "The hook in is something bigger and crosses boundaries." Scheduled to launch early next year, the group will recruit women who support a host of progressive policies, including a $15 minimum wage, campaign finance reform, Medicare-for-all, free college, and criminal justice reform, among others, and who might be less practiced in big-dollar fundraising than candidates backed by more establishment groups. "I think the thing we learned from Bernie in the primary is that it's possible to do things in a different way, understanding, of course, that everybody's not going to be able to raise millions of dollars $27 at a time," Batrice told Business Insider of the group's emphasis on small-dollar fundraising. Rebecca Cook/Reuters While Konst and Batrice say the organization will seek to work with other women-focused groups where their interests align, there is longstanding tension — exposed during the 2016 election — between women's groups like Planned Parenthood and EMILY's List and Sanders's camp. Last month, after the Women's March organizers announced that Sanders would be a featured speaker at their convention, many women, including EMILY's List president Stephanie Schriock, condemned the decision, arguing that a women's gathering shouldn't feature a man. Konst, who was also a speaker at the October convention, called Schriock's criticism divisive and reflective of an unwillingness among establishment Democrats and feminists to "reach across boundaries." The new group is seemingly a direct response to what Sanders supporters see as the limitations of groups like EMILY's List, which Konst has accused of "financially backing wealthy women, while raising money off of young/WOC," referring to women of color, and endorsing male over female candidates in some races. "We need to start electing people that reflect the country we live in, who understand at the heart the issues that we're facing — income inequality being bigger than ever and the burden being on women," Konst told Business Insider. "It's not just about electing women who can vote on those issues, it's about electing women who can speak on those issues." Mark Wilson/Getty Images A Republican EMILY's List Earlier this month, a coalition of some of the GOP's biggest donors and most powerful operatives officially launched a new women-focused PAC. Several billionaire benefactors, including the Mercer family, TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts, and hedge fund founder Paul Singer, teamed up over the last year with wealthy female members of President Donald Trump's cabinet, including Linda McMahon, head of the Small Business Administration, and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, to fund the group, called Winning for Women . And many of the Republican Party's most powerful female operatives, including former deputy White House chief of staff Katie Walsh and former New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, are either leading or involved with the group, which has signed up 30,000 members over the last month and is aiming to grow to 400,000 in time for the 2018 midterm elections. The group's goal is to promote online activism and recruit candidates with conservative positions on national security and economic issues in particular. "Winning For Women’s primary objectives are to build a national membership base of conservative female activists, and advance a policy agenda focused on national security and free-market principles," the group's communications director Andrea Bozek told Business Insider in a statement. Traditionally, GOP PACs focused on electing women, including the Susan B. Anthony List , and VIEW PAC , have fallen short of their Democratic counterparts, and experts say Winning for Women will have a similarly uphill battle to fight in a party where under 10% of the congressional caucus is women. Rosalyn Cooperman, a professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington who studies women in politics, thinks that in order to be successful, the group would need to make two unorthodox moves: getting involved in primaries and embracing identity politics. "Traditionally, conservative women’s PACs have been very squeamish at doing that — they don't want to offend the party," Cooperman told Business Insider. "They're going to have to engage in identity politics in a way that the party is not comfortable with." Democratic groups, like EMILY's List, are writing off this latest GOP effort as just another low-impact public relations campaign. Schriock, the EMILY's List president, recently told Cosmopolitan Magazine that she supports the idea of a "Republican version of EMILY's List," arguing that more women in GOP politics would act as a moderating force on the party's policies — "more women will be better, period," she argued. "Part of the problem on the right is there is no counter organization to EMILY's List, which, frankly, is a bummer," Schriock said. "If there was a real Republican version of EMILY's List, that was committed to the training, recruiting, and long-term support of women, women candidates, and women in elected office ... I think it would prevent the Republican Party from going so far to the right." But she is deeply skeptical of Winning for Women's efforts, which she characterized as both futile and hypocritical. "As long as the Republican Party continues to advance an agenda that hurts women, they will have trouble recruiting and electing women candidates for office," Schriock said in a statement to Business Insider. "The GOP has been radicalized by those who relish every opportunity to roll back the clock on women's rights. It's no wonder women are under 10 percent of the Republican's congressional caucus, but make up roughly a third of the Democrats'." Mark Wilson/Getty Images Conservative women may have a chance as political outsiders While women make up just 20% of Congress, Democratic women outnumber Republican women in the body three-to-one. Kelly Dittmar, a professor at Rutgers University's Center for American Women and Politics, says that while Winning for Women's success will depend on an array of factors, including what kinds of candidates it recruits and how much money it invests in them, 2018 might be a particularly good year for the GOP to focus on women candidates. A new survey published by the Barbara Lee Family Foundation found that Republican women hold some important advantages over Democratic men, in particular. Conservative women are more likely to be viewed by voters as political outsiders than their male counterparts or Democrats are, and are seen as more confident and more honest then Democratic men. The report found that voters see Republican women as stronger than Republican men on 10 of 13 metrics, including being knowledgeable, standing up for what's right, and seeming in touch with people. And in a moment in which being a political outsider carries significant weight with voters of all political stripes, conservative women may have a distinct advantage over both their male counterparts and candidates across the aisle. Dittmar added that Republican women, who are generally more politically moderate than the men in their party, might represent strong alternatives for GOP voters who are fed up with Trump in 2018. "If there's a backlash to the party, if Donald Trump affects these races negatively, if the electorate is particularly angry with what’s happening, they may be more willing to accept a candidate ... who's more moderate or at least presents a different perspective or a different approach," Dittmar said. NOW WATCH: Relive the historic moment Obama won the 2008 election November 19, 2017 at 03:36PM

[tortuga-aak]

New PACs are emerging on the left and the right to get women elected in 2018

Matt Rourke/AP

Both on the left and the right, prominent donors and strategists are building new organizations to promote female candidates in the lead-up to the 2018 midterm elections. 

On the left, a new initiative led by Sen. Bernie Sanders' deputies and surrogates will focus on electing working class women and women of color. 

And on the right, the GOP sees an opportunity to promote conservative women, who are seen by voters as the ultimate political outsiders. 

In the wake of Hillary Clinton's unexpected 2016 loss, political operatives and donors see an opportunity for women in politics — both on the right and the left. 

While women-focused political action committees have successfully propelled Democratic women into elected office for the past few decades, a new group on the left founded by Sen. Bernie Sanders' supporters is looking to expand the slate of women candidates who earn early endorsements and big-dollar donations. 

And on the right, another new PAC, backed by some of the GOP's most prominent benefactors, is looking to capitalize on the moment to promote conservative women in a party that has long rejected identity politics. 

Redefining the progressive woman candidate 

On the Democratic side, the most powerful women-focused PACs — NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood, and EMILY's List — have one thing in common: they choose the candidates they support based on their position on abortion rights. 

Nomiki Konst, a former surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign and reporter for The Young Turks, and Rania Batrice, a veteran Democratic strategist and Sanders's former deputy campaign manager, think women candidates should be evaluated on a broader set of policy priorities. 

The two women, along with Our Revolution president Nina Turner, are in the the process of building a new PAC to recruit and fund working class women and women of color on a Sanders-inspired "economic justice" platform. 

"Reproductive rights are incredibly important. 'Yes, and' is the way I look at it. Yes, and more," Konst told Business Insider. "The hook in is something bigger and crosses boundaries."

Scheduled to launch early next year, the group will recruit women who support a host of progressive policies, including a $15 minimum wage, campaign finance reform, Medicare-for-all, free college, and criminal justice reform, among others, and who might be less practiced in big-dollar fundraising than candidates backed by more establishment groups. 

"I think the thing we learned from Bernie in the primary is that it's possible to do things in a different way, understanding, of course, that everybody's not going to be able to raise millions of dollars $27 at a time," Batrice told Business Insider of the group's emphasis on small-dollar fundraising. 

Rebecca Cook/Reuters

While Konst and Batrice say the organization will seek to work with other women-focused groups where their interests align, there is longstanding tension — exposed during the 2016 election — between women's groups like Planned Parenthood and EMILY's List and Sanders's camp.  

Last month, after the Women's March organizers announced that Sanders would be a featured speaker at their convention, many women, including EMILY's List president Stephanie Schriock, condemned the decision, arguing that a women's gathering shouldn't feature a man. 

Konst, who was also a speaker at the October convention, called Schriock's criticism divisive and reflective of an unwillingness among establishment Democrats and feminists to "reach across boundaries." 

The new group is seemingly a direct response to what Sanders supporters see as the limitations of groups like EMILY's List, which Konst has accused of "financially backing wealthy women, while raising money off of young/WOC," referring to women of color, and endorsing male over female candidates in some races. 

"We need to start electing people that reflect the country we live in, who understand at the heart the issues that we're facing — income inequality being bigger than ever and the burden being on women," Konst told Business Insider. "It's not just about electing women who can vote on those issues, it's about electing women who can speak on those issues."

  Mark Wilson/Getty Images

A Republican EMILY's List

Earlier this month, a coalition of some of the GOP's biggest donors and most powerful operatives officially launched a new women-focused PAC. 

Several billionaire benefactors, including the Mercer family, TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts, and hedge fund founder Paul Singer, teamed up over the last year with wealthy female members of President Donald Trump's cabinet, including Linda McMahon, head of the Small Business Administration, and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, to fund the group, called Winning for Women. 

And many of the Republican Party's most powerful female operatives, including former deputy White House chief of staff Katie Walsh and former New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, are either leading or involved with the group, which has signed up 30,000 members over the last month and is aiming to grow to 400,000 in time for the 2018 midterm elections.

The group's goal is to promote online activism and recruit candidates with conservative positions on national security and economic issues in particular. 

"Winning For Women’s primary objectives are to build a national membership base of conservative female activists, and advance a policy agenda focused on national security and free-market principles," the group's communications director Andrea Bozek told Business Insider in a statement. 

Traditionally, GOP PACs focused on electing women, including the Susan B. Anthony List, and VIEW PAC, have fallen short of their Democratic counterparts, and experts say Winning for Women will have a similarly uphill battle to fight in a party where under 10% of the congressional caucus is women.  

Rosalyn Cooperman, a professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington who studies women in politics, thinks that in order to be successful, the group would need to make two unorthodox moves: getting involved in primaries and embracing identity politics.

"Traditionally, conservative women’s PACs have been very squeamish at doing that — they don't want to offend the party," Cooperman told Business Insider. "They're going to have to engage in identity politics in a way that the party is not comfortable with." 

Democratic groups, like EMILY's List, are writing off this latest GOP effort as just another low-impact public relations campaign. 

Schriock, the EMILY's List president, recently told Cosmopolitan Magazine that she supports the idea of a "Republican version of EMILY's List," arguing that more women in GOP politics would act as a moderating force on the party's policies — "more women will be better, period," she argued.

"Part of the problem on the right is there is no counter organization to EMILY's List, which, frankly, is a bummer," Schriock said. "If there was a real Republican version of EMILY's List, that was committed to the training, recruiting, and long-term support of women, women candidates, and women in elected office ... I think it would prevent the Republican Party from going so far to the right."

But she is deeply skeptical of Winning for Women's efforts, which she characterized as both futile and hypocritical. 

"As long as the Republican Party continues to advance an agenda that hurts women, they will have trouble recruiting and electing women candidates for office," Schriock said in a statement to Business Insider. "The GOP has been radicalized by those who relish every opportunity to roll back the clock on women's rights. It's no wonder women are under 10 percent of the Republican's congressional caucus, but make up roughly a third of the Democrats'." 

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Conservative women may have a chance as political outsiders

While women make up just 20% of Congress, Democratic women outnumber Republican women in the body three-to-one. 

Kelly Dittmar, a professor at Rutgers University's Center for American Women and Politics, says that while Winning for Women's success will depend on an array of factors, including what kinds of candidates it recruits and how much money it invests in them, 2018 might be a particularly good year for the GOP to focus on women candidates. 

A new survey published by the Barbara Lee Family Foundation found that Republican women hold some important advantages over Democratic men, in particular. Conservative women are more likely to be viewed by voters as political outsiders than their male counterparts or Democrats are, and are seen as more confident and more honest then Democratic men. 

The report found that voters see Republican women as stronger than Republican men on 10 of 13 metrics, including being knowledgeable, standing up for what's right, and seeming in touch with people.

And in a moment in which being a political outsider carries significant weight with voters of all political stripes, conservative women may have a distinct advantage over both their male counterparts and candidates across the aisle. 

Dittmar added that Republican women, who are generally more politically moderate than the men in their party, might represent strong alternatives for GOP voters who are fed up with Trump in 2018. 

"If there's a backlash to the party, if Donald Trump affects these races negatively, if the electorate is particularly angry with what’s happening, they may be more willing to accept a candidate ... who's more moderate or at least presents a different perspective or a different approach," Dittmar said. 

NOW WATCH: A billionaire spent $10 million on an ad calling for Trump's impeachment

from Feedburner http://ift.tt/2z1wwrG