Trump is going to make the absolute most of any attempt to try to hold him accountable. He's going to thrash and scream and pronounce himself a victim and threaten vengeance on his enemies and do sundry malicious shit in order to try to distract and obfuscate.
Trump is going to make the absolute most of any failure to try to hold him accountable. He's still going to thrash and scream and pronounce himself a victim, while simultaneously continuing to act his agenda of undiluted malice with the assistance of his deplorable party.
Donald Trump is a terrible human being who will always do the worst thing imaginable and then some.
It's foolish to even try to make decisions on what will best contain his indecency. Just do what's right.
And, in case it is not yet abundantly clear, the right thing to do is to impeach Donald Trump.
Saturday, April 27, 2019
Will still make political hay
Another comment on impeachment: Some are saying that Democrats shouldn’t impeach the nasty guy because he will rail against them and make political hay. But, as Melissa McEwan of Shakesville observes, he will make political hay if Democrats don’t impeach him.
A man of his era
Joe Biden has officially announced his candidacy for president. All the old stories, such as his treatment of Anita Hill, are coming out again. And people are defending him again, saying his “gaffes” are only that he’s from a different era. Goodness, the man is 75, things were different back then.
Melisa McEwan of Shakesville tackles that excuse. What do they mean by “back then?” McEwan lists ten troubling things Biden has done since 2005. The most recent was two years ago. So when did “back then” end? McEwan concludes:
Melisa McEwan of Shakesville tackles that excuse. What do they mean by “back then?” McEwan lists ten troubling things Biden has done since 2005. The most recent was two years ago. So when did “back then” end? McEwan concludes:
My point is this: Joe Biden is indeed a man of his era, because this era — whether you define it starting in 2000, or 2005, or 2010, or last week — is still rife with bigotries against marginalized people, and privileged people who express them, and defenders of those people.
Biden was a man of his era in the 1970s, and the 1980s, and the 1990s, and the 2000s, and the 2010s. There were white men in each of those eras who engaged in bigoted "humor" and touched people without their consent and supported policies that harmed marginalized people, and there were white men in each of those eras who didn't.
The issue isn't really whether Joe Biden is a man of his era. He is. The issue is, and has always been, what kind of man he is.
Chosen family
Yesterday evening I went to Royal Oak to see the latest production by Stagecrafters, a community theater troupe. The show is Southern Comfort, book and lyrics by Dan Collins and music by Julianne Wick Davis. The plot is based on the real life story of Robert Ead, a transgender man in rural Georgia. He creates his own family of transgender people, a group that gets together once a month. The regulars are Jackson, Melanie, and Sam. There’s some rough feelings in the group when Lola is brought in as Robert’s girlfriend and again when Jackson brings Carly.
We see encounters with modern medicine and its prejudices when Robert is treated for ovarian cancer. Most of them have had top surgery – adding or removing breasts to be able to pass in regular society. They debate whether to get bottom surgery – actually changing genitals. There are encounters with biological family who aren’t accepting of their current appearance and a tiny bit of joy from a father, who used the new name while rejecting his child. Lola frets about still needing to be John in the office.
Much of the second act is taken up with attending Southern Comfort, an annual transgender event in Atlanta. This an important event because attendees know they will be safe, understood, and supported. And the major part of the event is the ball, where they can have the high school prom they didn’t have when young.
It’s a wonderfully accepting story. Alas, this is community theater, so acting is not much above adequate. The singing was quite good. At the beginning I thought Lola was the weakest character. But she also showed the most character growth and did a fine job with her two important solos.
In addition to the six primary characters the show included five “storytellers.” These were actors who were the backup singers on songs and who played additional characters, such as parents and doctors. I first heard about the show because one of the regulars at Ruth Ellis Center, where I volunteer, is a transgender woman cast as one of the storytellers. At last night’s show there was a large contingent of transgender people from the Center to support her.
For once I went to opening night so this time when I tell you about it there is still two weekends to see the show.
We see encounters with modern medicine and its prejudices when Robert is treated for ovarian cancer. Most of them have had top surgery – adding or removing breasts to be able to pass in regular society. They debate whether to get bottom surgery – actually changing genitals. There are encounters with biological family who aren’t accepting of their current appearance and a tiny bit of joy from a father, who used the new name while rejecting his child. Lola frets about still needing to be John in the office.
Much of the second act is taken up with attending Southern Comfort, an annual transgender event in Atlanta. This an important event because attendees know they will be safe, understood, and supported. And the major part of the event is the ball, where they can have the high school prom they didn’t have when young.
It’s a wonderfully accepting story. Alas, this is community theater, so acting is not much above adequate. The singing was quite good. At the beginning I thought Lola was the weakest character. But she also showed the most character growth and did a fine job with her two important solos.
In addition to the six primary characters the show included five “storytellers.” These were actors who were the backup singers on songs and who played additional characters, such as parents and doctors. I first heard about the show because one of the regulars at Ruth Ellis Center, where I volunteer, is a transgender woman cast as one of the storytellers. At last night’s show there was a large contingent of transgender people from the Center to support her.
For once I went to opening night so this time when I tell you about it there is still two weekends to see the show.
Thursday, April 25, 2019
More money off a criminal than a scholar
The Supreme Court has accepted three cases on LGBT discrimination. They are all based on whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination on the basis of sex, also bans discrimination on sexual orientation or gender identity. Lower courts have said that it does. The combined cases won’t be heard until sometime after the Court reconvenes in October. And this court isn’t as liberal as it used to be.
Twitter user Indigenous shared a quote from Henry Rollins:
Melissa McEwan of Shakesville has an observation about what is playing out in the big field of Democrat candidates:
Another gerrymandering win! Even though citizens of Michigan approved an amendment to end gerrymandering in Michigan it doesn’t have any effect until the 2022 election. Similar to recent lawsuits in other states, the League of Women Voters in Michigan filed suit saying the current maps – to be used one more time in 2020 – are unconstitutionally gerrymandered. A panel of three federal judges, from the 6th Circuit, and eastern and western districts of Michigan (no idea what prompted this combination), agreed. The ruling affects 15 (out of 110) state House districts, 10 (out of 38) state Senate districts, and 9 (out of 14) Congressional districts. Probably several districts around these will also have to be redrawn. The judges said new maps will have to be submitted by August 1. They also said the state senators in those redrawn districts will have to run again in 2020, even though their term isn’t up until 2022.
Republicans said they will appeal to the Supremes. If they take the case it doesn’t look so good – the Court has never ruled against partisan gerrymandering. We’ll get a better sense soon. Two such cases are already before the Court with rulings expected by the end of June.
Even if the Supremes overturn this decision, it only affects the 2020 election.
Twitter user Indigenous shared a quote from Henry Rollins:
The Prison Industrial Complex is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. We can make more money off the kid in Compton if he’s a criminal instead of a scholar.
Melissa McEwan of Shakesville has an observation about what is playing out in the big field of Democrat candidates:
It will never cease to fascinate me how it's the marginalized people who fight for inclusion every day, and our allies, who are called "divisive" by the people trying to keep us out, under the auspices of "unity."To which FloraFlora commented:
Just get behind this wealthy straight white able-bodied cis man this time, and we promise we'll get to you someday.
Yeah. So I've heard.
And when I stop buying that line of shit, it's me who's "divisive" because I refuse to "unify."
Sure.
How about we unify behind a queer disabled black woman? What, you think that's not someone who can represent your "normal" needs? uh .....huh. *biggest side-eye in the world*
Another gerrymandering win! Even though citizens of Michigan approved an amendment to end gerrymandering in Michigan it doesn’t have any effect until the 2022 election. Similar to recent lawsuits in other states, the League of Women Voters in Michigan filed suit saying the current maps – to be used one more time in 2020 – are unconstitutionally gerrymandered. A panel of three federal judges, from the 6th Circuit, and eastern and western districts of Michigan (no idea what prompted this combination), agreed. The ruling affects 15 (out of 110) state House districts, 10 (out of 38) state Senate districts, and 9 (out of 14) Congressional districts. Probably several districts around these will also have to be redrawn. The judges said new maps will have to be submitted by August 1. They also said the state senators in those redrawn districts will have to run again in 2020, even though their term isn’t up until 2022.
Republicans said they will appeal to the Supremes. If they take the case it doesn’t look so good – the Court has never ruled against partisan gerrymandering. We’ll get a better sense soon. Two such cases are already before the Court with rulings expected by the end of June.
Even if the Supremes overturn this decision, it only affects the 2020 election.
Obligated to proceed from this premise
Some recent commentary on impeachment:
In response to an article that the nasty guy is filing suit against the leadership of the House Oversight Committee in hopes of slowing their investigation of him, Philippe Reines tweeted:
Twitter user STOP tRumpnado wrote a thread about the impeachment process. Excerpts:
Melissa McEwan of Shakesville quoted Greg Sargent at the Washington Post who spoke to Philip Bobbit, a constitutional scholar at Columbia University and co-author of Impeachment: A Handbook.
Separately, McEwan tweeted:
In response to an article that the nasty guy is filing suit against the leadership of the House Oversight Committee in hopes of slowing their investigation of him, Philippe Reines tweeted:
Those who think relying on oversight is satisfactory should reconsider. Trump is stonewalling every House request & subpoena. Now he’s suing Elijah Cummings.
The choice between an ugly impeachment vs calm oversight is a false one. It’ll be ugly no matter.
Note: it’s easier for trump to stymie oversight efforts using government & personal lawyers.
But his impeachable offenses involve individuals never in government. Hard & costly for them to fight subpoenas.
Example: Don Jr. & Stone would have to pay for a legal fight themselves.
Twitter user STOP tRumpnado wrote a thread about the impeachment process. Excerpts:
The Impeachment Process: Some Democrats have been using the excuse that Senate Republicans & especially Mitch McConnell would not vote to impeach as a reason not to begin a House Impeachment Inquiry. This is just flat out wrong & here is why.
First, an Impeachment Inquiry is not a vote in the House to Impeach. It is an official investigation into the conduct of the Trump regime. How can you decide if all of his offenses rise to the level of Impeachment if you have not conducted a proper investigation?
The most important point is duty. It is the US House of Representatives duty to follow the US Constitution & their oath of office. They can not read the redacted Mueller report & have witness with their own eyes & ears the corruption, abuse of power & treason and not impeach.
Impeachment by the US House us analogous to a grand jury indictment, instructing the Senate to conduct a trial. But it is up to the US House to conduct the investigation & present the evidence, in very public detail to the US Senate, to make their best case for an Impeachment conviction.
But if the US House sends a very detailed indictment via Impeachment to the US Senate, and Mitch McConnell chooses to ignore all of the evidence & hold a mockery of a trial, to shuck his duty as a sworn member of the US Senate, despite a mountain of evidence then let the voters decide in 2020 whether their Republican Senators represent them, or whether they are traitors allied with Vladimir Putin & Donald Trump & no longer loyal to the United States, our Constitution, our laws & the people who they are supposed to serve.
If the United States Senate chooses to conduct a sham trial & ignore all the evidence, and every single one of the articles of impeachment, they will do it publicly, with the entire country watching and knowing how serious a betrayal of our Republic & the people it is.
But most important impeachment fact is that Mitch McConnell would NOT preside over the Impeachment trial of Don Trump in the US Senate Per Article 1 Section 3 Clause 6 of the US Constitution, Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over Trump's trial.
Melissa McEwan of Shakesville quoted Greg Sargent at the Washington Post who spoke to Philip Bobbit, a constitutional scholar at Columbia University and co-author of Impeachment: A Handbook.
Bobbitt now believes it's "plausible" that Trump committed impeachable offenses and that the House of Representatives is obligated to proceed from this premise.McEwan summarizes Sargent’s explanations this way:
Trump's obstruction to protect his own hide has also impeded investigation into Russia's subversion of the integrity of our elections — and *that* is an impeachable offense.
Separately, McEwan tweeted:
That so much of the discussion around impeachment centers around whether it's politically expedient instead of whether it's just fully the right thing to do given the circumstances is honestly a perfect, terrible example of why, in large part, we're now in this predicament.
Commitment to generosity
Melissa McEwan of Shakesville has a post nearly every weekday about what the candidates for president have been doing – at least those that make the news. McEwan won’t endorse for quite a while now (if at all) though she expresses what she likes and doesn’t like about the candidates. Since I’m looking for a candidate that will build community, I’m paying close attention to what she says (she’s for building community as I am). Here is one of her posts.
Though the reason why I’m talking about this one isn’t because of what McEwan said, but because of what is in the first comment. Aphra Behn, a leader in the Shakesville community, posted a long description of Elizabeth Warren’s plan for debt-free college. The money comes from her Ultra Millionaire tax. It goes to grants to pay 100% for students from households under $100,000, partially for households above that, to no assistance for households above $250,000, the 5%. The comment includes what Behn thinks are the good and bad points of such a plan.
Of course, there was pushback to Warren’s idea. A tweet from Philip Klein said:
There were a lot of comments to McEwan’s post. A few of them.
From Lady Blanchester
Alittletiefling described a cousin who lives in Ontario, which is also cutting social services for the poor. He lost jobs and his loans are being called in. Now he can’t retrain, can’t move out of a nasty rooming house, can’t get government assistance because it’s been slashed, can’t afford to eat.
Verucaamish explained some tax policy. The GOP tax cut = $2.3 trillion. For about 2% of that we can double the budget for Department of Education and Department of Housing and Urban Development. We spent $700 billion on bailing out banks in 2009. For only $300 billion more we could have bailed out every single person whose mortgage was under water.
Marissa123 said she has massive student loans and there is no way she can pay them off. She worked her way through grad school doing 2-3 jobs, but still made only $10K a year. That doesn’t cover living expenses.
Heather T added:
Lady Robusta added:
mcbender wrote:
FloraFlora added:
Though the reason why I’m talking about this one isn’t because of what McEwan said, but because of what is in the first comment. Aphra Behn, a leader in the Shakesville community, posted a long description of Elizabeth Warren’s plan for debt-free college. The money comes from her Ultra Millionaire tax. It goes to grants to pay 100% for students from households under $100,000, partially for households above that, to no assistance for households above $250,000, the 5%. The comment includes what Behn thinks are the good and bad points of such a plan.
Of course, there was pushback to Warren’s idea. A tweet from Philip Klein said:
Cancelling debt is tremendously unfair to those who paid theirs off.Twitter user Prison Culture Returns replied:
I find this astonishing. It took me 20 years basically to pay off my loans. I would be more than happy to make sure that younger folks don't have to spend 20 years paying theirs off. I don't want to live in the same kind of selfish society that Klein wants.There were, of course, a lot of other comments similar to Klein’s. That prompted McEwan to post about it:
It would change millions of people's lives for the better.
And yet, I have seen so many perplexingly bitter responses from people who have indebted themselves to attend college, rejecting Warren's proposal outright. Their argument is essentially: *Why should someone else get for free what I had to pay for?*
It's a familiar line of thinking, of course. It's conservatives' central grievance with the social safety net and their gripe with robustly funding government welfare of any sort.
To see self-identified progressives regurgitating this ungenerous, parsimonious crap is truly disappointing.
I will tell you why I think someone else should get for free what I did not: Because it's the right thing to do. Because there is no moral value in having to struggle. Because it does not build character; it just makes life harder and limits opportunities.
...
We have decisions to make about our national priorities, and those decisions start with a commitment to generosity. We can't leave the world better than we found it if we are too stingy to allow the next generation to have anything we didn't.
There were a lot of comments to McEwan’s post. A few of them.
From Lady Blanchester
To me, saying that everyone should have to pay off their student loans because I had to pay off mine is akin to saying drowning people shouldn't get live preservers because I somehow managed to stay afloat without one. Throw out the live preservers!
Alittletiefling described a cousin who lives in Ontario, which is also cutting social services for the poor. He lost jobs and his loans are being called in. Now he can’t retrain, can’t move out of a nasty rooming house, can’t get government assistance because it’s been slashed, can’t afford to eat.
Verucaamish explained some tax policy. The GOP tax cut = $2.3 trillion. For about 2% of that we can double the budget for Department of Education and Department of Housing and Urban Development. We spent $700 billion on bailing out banks in 2009. For only $300 billion more we could have bailed out every single person whose mortgage was under water.
Consistently, the federal government has chosen to spend vast amounts more on supporting billionaires than keep people in their homes and ensuring quality education.
Marissa123 said she has massive student loans and there is no way she can pay them off. She worked her way through grad school doing 2-3 jobs, but still made only $10K a year. That doesn’t cover living expenses.
Heather T added:
Oh, and that whole "Struggle = Morality" thing? Is also often rooted in Christian supremacy and its related concepts of martyrdom.
Lady Robusta added:
There are so many things we have government pay for that end up benefiting some individuals more directly, but nevertheless benefit society as a whole enough to make it worthwhile. Student debt relief would be one of these. Public education is the classic example: I don't have children, but I don't mind AT ALL paying taxes for public schools, because I want an educated society. Another example: About half of long-term elder care is paid for by Medicaid, yet it would be absurd to say that this is "unfair" to people who die suddenly and don't get the "benefit" of living in a nursing home at the end of their lives.
Loan forgiveness would benefit the entire economy, and would be a massive economic equalizer between people who had parents who could pay for their college or pay off their loans for them, and people who did not have parents who could do those things.
mcbender wrote:
There are times when I really think that sentiments like "I've got mine, fuck you" and "misery loves company/suffering builds character" may be the key dividing line in today's politics (versus, say, "I suffered and want nobody else to go through that").
FloraFlora added:
I said this on Twitter the other day: look, the NATURE of fixing problems, except when you happen to magically be prescient enough to see every problem coming and avert it (which is never) is that the problem happened at least one time. Every time we fix a pothole, someone probably bumped through it, and maybe their axle was damaged. Every time we make a new rule about lettuce safety, it's likely because we realized there was an e-coli problem, and likely that was because a bunch of people got sick. Every time we abate asbestos from buildings, we do so knowing that we want no MORE people to die of cancer from a known carcinogen, but some people already did.We know student loan debt is a problem for individuals and for the society as a whole. Now that we know that, let’s fix it.
Saturday, April 20, 2019
Silence gives consent
Now that the Mueller Report (the redacted version) is in the hands of the public there is a lot of discussion in the news about how the Democrats are divided. To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question (apologies to Shakespeare). The House Democratic leadership isn’t in favor. Number 2 Steny Hoyer says the voters can decide in 18 months. And others, with my own Rep. Rashida Tlaib out front, are saying the Mueller Report gives plenty of reasons to impeach.
I’m not going to share any reasons from the Dem leadership on why they don’t want to impeach, mostly because I haven’t heard one. The bit about letting voters decide is an excuse, not a reason. I will share many reasons why impeachment proceedings should begin – starting with replies to the nonsense from Hoyer.
* Hoyer is assuming fair elections. Based on 2016 I’m pretty sure they won’t be fair, especially since measures to make them more fair aren’t being implemented and measures to make them less fare are.
* Impeachment proceedings can explain to voters why they should not vote for the nasty guy. Cheri Jacobus explains:
* Many Dem voters who helped flip the house in 2018 want to change Washington. The only way to do that now is to impeach. Taking impeachment off the table is making these voters cynical, with the feeling that both parties are the same. And cynical voters stay home.
Congressman Al Green rebuts Hoyer’s thinking:
And other reasons for why impeachment hearings should begin:
Laurence Tribe is coauthor of the book To End a Presidency, the Power of Impeachment. He tweeted a quote from Michelle Goldberg from the New York Times:
Senator Elizabeth Warren is the highest profile Democrat so far and the first prez. candidate to call for impeachment. She said the Mueller Report lays out the facts and puts the next step in the hands of Congress. Ignoring the nasty guy’s abuses suggests future presidents are free to abuse power in the same way. The House should initiate impeachment proceedings.
Leah McElrath notes that Warren’s statement did not come with a moneybeg. Both McElrath and I like that.
A comment from Sarah Kendzior, who studies authoritarian regimes:
For more in Kendzior’s reasons to impeach, see my post from a month ago.
I’m not going to share any reasons from the Dem leadership on why they don’t want to impeach, mostly because I haven’t heard one. The bit about letting voters decide is an excuse, not a reason. I will share many reasons why impeachment proceedings should begin – starting with replies to the nonsense from Hoyer.
* Hoyer is assuming fair elections. Based on 2016 I’m pretty sure they won’t be fair, especially since measures to make them more fair aren’t being implemented and measures to make them less fare are.
* Impeachment proceedings can explain to voters why they should not vote for the nasty guy. Cheri Jacobus explains:
Why spend millions of dollars in the 2020 election cycle trying to educate voters what the Mueller report says when you can educate them thru live, televised, unfiltered impeachment hearings? …That one speaks to my earlier thoughts that perhaps we should continue investigations and just not call them impeachment proceedings for now.
Which will more viewers/voters watch? (and subsequently become educated about what the Mueller Report actually says versus what Barr, Trump, Hannity and Limbaugh claim it says)
[ ] oversight hearings
[ ] impeachment hearings
* Many Dem voters who helped flip the house in 2018 want to change Washington. The only way to do that now is to impeach. Taking impeachment off the table is making these voters cynical, with the feeling that both parties are the same. And cynical voters stay home.
Congressman Al Green rebuts Hoyer’s thinking:
When the Mueller investigation began, powerful voices indicated it was “too early” to impeach - wait for the Mueller report. Now that the report has been released, powerful voices are starting to indicate that it’s “too late” to impeach - wait for elections.And Maris Lawson responds:
Every time a Democrat shuts down impeachment, Trump and the GOP become more emboldened and will try to get away with so much more evil. They know they won’t be held accountable and Dems are scared they will say something mean about them. It’s beyond old and so dangerous.As does Carrie Luckas:
To quote @sianoresist “If we don’t Impeach Trump there is a very real possibility that there will be no presidential election in 2020.” Chew on that one.
And other reasons for why impeachment hearings should begin:
Laurence Tribe is coauthor of the book To End a Presidency, the Power of Impeachment. He tweeted a quote from Michelle Goldberg from the New York Times:
To not even try to impeach Trump is to collaborate in the Trumpian fiction that he has done nothing impeachable.Commenters, starting with Greg Olear, add:
The opposite of impeachment is appeasement.And from Peter Donato:
It's also complete capitulation to Russia vs an aggressive offensive to thwart their next election attack. We need to remind Putin & the world that interfering in the affairs of the USA will have consequences; the first step on that road is removing Trump by lawful means.Nanette Price:
If we don't impeach we are saying we no longer live in a democracy, the Constitution means nothing & America is now ruled by a king (dictator) NO, I refuse to just hand my country over to Donald Trump & a Rep party that betrayed all of us to feed their greed.Twitter user the Reconing is coming:
It doesn't matter if the Senate won't remove him. We can NOT allow his behavior to become the norm.That tweet includes an image with the words:
Its no longer about whether Trump has any decency, but if we do.GaryAtty:
The maxim is "Qui tacet consentit": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If you fail to hold hearings leading to an impeachment inquiry, you are giving permission to Trump to break any law he deems fit.
Senator Elizabeth Warren is the highest profile Democrat so far and the first prez. candidate to call for impeachment. She said the Mueller Report lays out the facts and puts the next step in the hands of Congress. Ignoring the nasty guy’s abuses suggests future presidents are free to abuse power in the same way. The House should initiate impeachment proceedings.
Leah McElrath notes that Warren’s statement did not come with a moneybeg. Both McElrath and I like that.
A comment from Sarah Kendzior, who studies authoritarian regimes:
It's rare people regret doing the right thing, even if they fail to achieve their end goal. The "what-ifs" are what keep people up at night with shame and regret.
For more in Kendzior’s reasons to impeach, see my post from a month ago.
Thursday, April 18, 2019
Gentlemen farmers
I’ve finished the book The Bucolic Plague by Josh Kilmer-Purcell. I bought it at an LGBT bookstore in Ann Arbor going out of buisness. Josh and Brent are a gay couple who live in New York City where Josh is an advertising executive and Brent is a Vice President of the Martha Stewart Living organization. One day, back in 2006, they drove through rural New York west of Albany. They were charmed by the little town of Sharon Springs. They spent the night at a hotel run by another gay couple. In the morning they passed the Beekman Mansion, built in 1802, and were charmed again. To their delight, it was for sale. The next spring they bought it and started to turn it back into a working farm.
Slight problem – they still worked in NYC during the week. Weekends became a sprint trying to finish all the tasks before they needed to head back to the city. Of course, they overdid it – Josh tells of a 36 hour session to can all the tomatoes because they would spoil before he could be back at the farm and he had put in so much effort to grow them.
There are tender moments, such as watching a goat give birth to triplets. Josh is also good with the witty comment. During the birthing process he comments:
However, they persevered. I just visited their Beekman 1802 website. Ten years later they’re still selling goat milk soap and lots of other stuff. Their farm has become a brand the features food, beauty products, and crafts by local people.
The book was fun. The website is just commercial, in spite of all they say. Even so, it may be worth it to see the mansion.
Slight problem – they still worked in NYC during the week. Weekends became a sprint trying to finish all the tasks before they needed to head back to the city. Of course, they overdid it – Josh tells of a 36 hour session to can all the tomatoes because they would spoil before he could be back at the farm and he had put in so much effort to grow them.
There are tender moments, such as watching a goat give birth to triplets. Josh is also good with the witty comment. During the birthing process he comments:
I was shocked at how easy – and messy – it all seemed. The clumps of bloody goo surrounding the new kid looked a little superfluous to me. Was all that glop really necessary? If humans could engineer a spotless McDonald’s take-out window, couldn’t God have done the same?There are other issued to deal with. Brett tried to bring Martha Stewart perfectionism to the farm. Josh decided to make the garden even bigger, then couldn’t keep up with it. The 2008 recession hit and both lost their jobs. They realized they have to come up with the way for the farm to be profitable. They started with goat milk soap and a country living website and that also threatened to overwhelm them.
However, they persevered. I just visited their Beekman 1802 website. Ten years later they’re still selling goat milk soap and lots of other stuff. Their farm has become a brand the features food, beauty products, and crafts by local people.
The book was fun. The website is just commercial, in spite of all they say. Even so, it may be worth it to see the mansion.
Nothing happens
The redacted version of the Mueller Report is out. The administration is spinning hard saying there’s nothing to see here. Progressives are saying actually, there is a great deal here that’s damaging to the nasty guy.
From a Twitter thread from a couple weeks ago Sarah Kendzior lists things that we don’t need the Mueller report to see. These are things in the public domain. Some of them:
* The nasty guy asking Russia for HRC’s emails at a July 2016 presser.
* Roger Stone collaborating with Wikileaks.
* The changes to the GOP platform to make it more favorable to Russia.
* The 2016 Trump Tower meeting which Don Jr. tweeted about in 2017.
* Multiple staffers, including Ivanka, Jared, and Jeff Sessions, lying about illicit Russian contacts on their clearance forms.
I’ve heard it said that if these crimes are brazenly out in the open and nobody does anything, they must not be serious crimes.
Kendzior quotes her Gaslit Nation podcast:
Ilhan Omar, a new member of Congress who is a Muslim woman, is still learning how to be careful in what she says. The nasty guy created an inflammatory video from her words and she is getting death threats. Congress has enhanced her security detail. People are now asking what happens if Omar is killed or harmed because of that tweet.
A Twitter user with the handle 5’7” Black Male has an answer:
There have been plenty of reasons outside the Mueller Report to impeach the nasty guy. Nothing done.
From a Twitter thread from a couple weeks ago Sarah Kendzior lists things that we don’t need the Mueller report to see. These are things in the public domain. Some of them:
* The nasty guy asking Russia for HRC’s emails at a July 2016 presser.
* Roger Stone collaborating with Wikileaks.
* The changes to the GOP platform to make it more favorable to Russia.
* The 2016 Trump Tower meeting which Don Jr. tweeted about in 2017.
* Multiple staffers, including Ivanka, Jared, and Jeff Sessions, lying about illicit Russian contacts on their clearance forms.
I’ve heard it said that if these crimes are brazenly out in the open and nobody does anything, they must not be serious crimes.
Kendzior quotes her Gaslit Nation podcast:
You don't need the Mueller report to see all this. What we need are answers about why nothing was done when all this took place in public and was a massive security threat. And we need answers about why the media lied about it then and now.
Ilhan Omar, a new member of Congress who is a Muslim woman, is still learning how to be careful in what she says. The nasty guy created an inflammatory video from her words and she is getting death threats. Congress has enhanced her security detail. People are now asking what happens if Omar is killed or harmed because of that tweet.
A Twitter user with the handle 5’7” Black Male has an answer:
Nothing. Nothing happens.He gives reasons why he feels this way:
Nothing happens then that didn't happen when an admitted rapist white supremacist became President.
Everyone keeps waiting for the critical moment that signals that it's all gone too far.
It already happened. We did nothing useful about it.
I know how everyone feels.
I get it. It's the same feeling I had when I was SURE that once we had video of the cops shooting an unarmed child, that things would finally change.
Because you think at some point it has to be obvious that it's all gone off the rails.
But nope.
People will continue to await the sign.
They will continue to wait for the signal in the sky that says "Now is the time to fight back"
And they'll ignore that it's been on the whole time.
There have been plenty of reasons outside the Mueller Report to impeach the nasty guy. Nothing done.
Every news network has continued to allow a network of itinerant liars to continually excuse and misinform the public about the long list of crimes committed by the President.The media still treats him as a legitimate leader even as he incites violence towards them as he undermines their own legitimacy. They should be pushing back and aren’t.
The day that the Presidency is brought down by harm caused to a woman of color is the day after we already fixed white supremacy in America somehow.
Policy discussion and clickbait
In the April 2019 issue of The Washington Spectator Patricia Roberts-Miller looks at the seemingly constant criticism of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) as an entry to talking about the current state of our national media.
My objection to propaganda machines is that all of them (“left” and “right”) presume a binary of political options—you are either us or them. By design, the strategy is to make us argue about the identity of the people making the arguments, instead of arguing about the policies those people are advocating.
American media is demoralizing because it is profit-driven. There are three foolproof ways to get people to click on and share a link about politics (and thereby make a profit), and all of them involve avoiding policy argumentation:
* outrage porn, in which the participant takes pleasure in being outraged at the idiocy of “them” (some out-group);
* a cat fight (a fight between two women); and
* personalizing politics, so it’s never about policy, but about the identities of the people on the two sides (nonconservative sites generally accept the fallacy of presenting “both sides”).
Any one of these devices is more likely to get a click than something that offers a reasoned discussion of the various (nonbinary) options we, as a community, have available to us.
...
So, as Orwell pointed out in his underappreciated *Homage to Catalonia*, a for-profit media and democratic deliberation are inherently at odds.
...
I think we’re seeing the same pattern in regard to AOC. Supposedly liberal sites post articles featuring something negative about her, with photos that make her look fanatical. It’s the stinkiest clickbait there is because:
* the controversy, even if entirely manufactured, will get clicks;
* any mention of AOC warms this outrage/attraction dynamic in people who drink deep in toxic masculinity and get excited about the possibility of dominating her;
* it’s politically useful for GOP rhetoric to create any kind of rift among people who might vote Democratic, a strategy that typically comes into play when some Democrat is being critical of another;
* potentially Democratic voters are prone to the narrative that the Democratic party is hostile to progressives. (It is, but I don’t think we should relish dwelling on it.)
Anything about AOC, of course, is good for generating outrage on the part of misogynists, but anything about any Democrat criticizing AOC is the perfect outrage porn. It’s money shots all the way.
Sunday, April 14, 2019
Changing the opinion of half the country
Shankar Vedantam and his NPR program Hidden Brain look at the huge change of opinion of lesbians and gays. This is one story where the LGBT acronym doesn’t fit. The opinion of transgender people hasn’t changed nearly as much. And in this case bisexual people, when in a same-sex relation, can be seen as part of lesbians and gays. Most of the time in this story the term gay covers male and female. From the episode’s webpage:
The first thought in such a big swing in opinion was just a generational change – younger people have different opinions than the older and more conservative respondents of previous years. But the data showed personal changes of opinion, such as a person giving a different answer in later years. Even conservative people changed their minds.
Opinions of wartime enemies may change quickly, but the change is from dislike to hatred. But with the change of 12% to 68% we’re talking a change to the opposite opinion by half of the country! And the most dramatic change wasn’t in courtrooms, but in families, on the job, and in school.
Banaji conducted a test of bias against different groups of people. The bias against lesbians and gays has dropped by 33%. This is the only group where bias has changed much. The trend line shows that bias might be eliminated in only nine years (though this is not a prediction). In contrast the trend line for race says it will take six decades for blacks and whites to be seen the same way and 138 years to get rid of the bias for lighter skin (if current trends persist). Bias against the elderly won’t reach neutrality within the next 150 years.
So what drives that?
Gay people were and are embedded in the homes of people who thought they were an abomination. Gay and straight are in the same family. Much more rare is white and black in the same family. Straight people met gay people with a similar social status to themselves. Parent had to choose between their love for their child and their preexisting attitudes of homosexuality.
Coming out of the closet is a big reason of why attitudes change. But this change is so big it isn’t the only reason.
For example, old people also exist in large numbers of families in all parts of the country and in all economic levels. They’ve had long associations before becoming elderly. But biases against the elderly haven’t budged. The same is true for women. Their presence in families hasn’t changed the level of misogyny.
Another big change in attitudes was the AIDS crisis. Gay people were seen as parts of families and people who were grieving and caring for one another. This was a profound change in gay people. The attitude changed from just leave us alone, to let us into the institutions (such as marriage) that will protect us too. We want to be a part of the community. That prompted the creation of activist groups. And that translated into a political presence.
Pres. Bill Clinton may have fumbled badly on the Defense of Marriage Act and the military Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. But he did start a big shift towards gay rights being civil rights. That allowed Hollywood to begin to tell gay stories. Lots of things built on one another. But that still doesn’t tell the whole story. The same things have been true of women and black people.
Another part of the answer: Not all prejudices are the same. Some have deeper roots. The stakes – societal structures – in entrenched misogyny and racism are much greater than the stakes of casual homophobia.
There is also the pace of change. The poll showed 68% approval in 2018. But it 2016 it was only 59%. A huge change in two years. The change accelerated in 2004 – after 11 states banned same-sex marriage. Ah, there’s a hint.
Back in the 1980s Evan Wolfson began advocating for marriage equality. Some said it was the wrong time. But he knew the right to marry would pull lots of other rights and concepts along with it – love, caring, commitment, dignity, respect. As straight people saw gay people with these attributes, other rights would come along as well. It was a way to say gay people and straight people are similar. Wolfson had a lot of resistance in the gay community. Why do we want to say we’re just like the people who oppress us? Why do we want to join the institution of marriage which is based on patriarchy? Why aren’t we trying to redefine institutions?
But gay people needed allies. We’ll never be in the majority. We’ll be facing straight judges and need the support of straight voters. We need to talk to them. But isn’t it unfair for the oppressed to speak the language of the oppressor? Wolfson said it is unfair, but the greater goal is to end the oppression.
So does an oppressed group look back and seek retribution and restitution? Or does it look forward and seek change and reconciliation and forgiving of those who have oppressed. Both can be done, but there is tension between them. It asks a lot of the oppressed. But change means winning over some of the oppressors. Shared goals and shared dreams means more allies. And given enough allies legislatures and courts would follow.
The marriage equality movement was different. The cost to allies was minimal. It asked allies to join in celebration of love, commitment, and normalcy. The commitment aspect allowed allies to say they’re like us.
And marriage has pulled other rights with it, though the work continues.
The way forward, perhaps for any oppressed group, is connecting with others, to bring about empathy, understanding, and awareness and doing so by bridging differences and invoking shared values.
Do you overthrow the old order perhaps through violence or revolution or do you reform the old order, reconcile, and forgive? The choice of path depends on your own strength and whether you need allies. Both ways can succeed. But violent movement succeeded about ¼ of the time. Militant activists that do a lot of disruption get lots of attention, but can turn off allies who say they’re not like those activists. Non violent movements succeeded about ½ the time. It is hard to fight with people who say they embrace your values.
Public opinion changed for us because we asked for marriage, and in asking showed how much we share values with others.
In 1988, the GSS [General Social Survey] began asking Americans to share their thoughts on another topic: whether gay people should have the right to marry. That year, fewer than 12 percent of respondents said yes.An example of the shift: William, the adopted son of a Mormon couple was thrown out of the house after he announced he is gay. Fifteen years later his parents enjoyed Thanksgiving in the home of William and his partner.
Fast-forward three decades. In 2018, 68 percent of those surveyed said that gay couples should have that right.
"This is actually one of the most surprising things in the whole history of public opinion," says Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld. "There's more and more rapid change in attitudes towards gay rights in the past thirty years in the United States than there ever has been in recorded attitudes in the United States on any issue."
Public opinion rarely shifts on contested issues. Given the long history of discrimination against gays in the United States and abroad, this change has social scientists scratching their chins.
"This was not a simple negative attitude. Gay people have been killed. So how can it be that an attitude that was as vicious as this one has changed?" asks Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji.
The first thought in such a big swing in opinion was just a generational change – younger people have different opinions than the older and more conservative respondents of previous years. But the data showed personal changes of opinion, such as a person giving a different answer in later years. Even conservative people changed their minds.
Opinions of wartime enemies may change quickly, but the change is from dislike to hatred. But with the change of 12% to 68% we’re talking a change to the opposite opinion by half of the country! And the most dramatic change wasn’t in courtrooms, but in families, on the job, and in school.
Banaji conducted a test of bias against different groups of people. The bias against lesbians and gays has dropped by 33%. This is the only group where bias has changed much. The trend line shows that bias might be eliminated in only nine years (though this is not a prediction). In contrast the trend line for race says it will take six decades for blacks and whites to be seen the same way and 138 years to get rid of the bias for lighter skin (if current trends persist). Bias against the elderly won’t reach neutrality within the next 150 years.
So what drives that?
Gay people were and are embedded in the homes of people who thought they were an abomination. Gay and straight are in the same family. Much more rare is white and black in the same family. Straight people met gay people with a similar social status to themselves. Parent had to choose between their love for their child and their preexisting attitudes of homosexuality.
Coming out of the closet is a big reason of why attitudes change. But this change is so big it isn’t the only reason.
For example, old people also exist in large numbers of families in all parts of the country and in all economic levels. They’ve had long associations before becoming elderly. But biases against the elderly haven’t budged. The same is true for women. Their presence in families hasn’t changed the level of misogyny.
Another big change in attitudes was the AIDS crisis. Gay people were seen as parts of families and people who were grieving and caring for one another. This was a profound change in gay people. The attitude changed from just leave us alone, to let us into the institutions (such as marriage) that will protect us too. We want to be a part of the community. That prompted the creation of activist groups. And that translated into a political presence.
Pres. Bill Clinton may have fumbled badly on the Defense of Marriage Act and the military Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. But he did start a big shift towards gay rights being civil rights. That allowed Hollywood to begin to tell gay stories. Lots of things built on one another. But that still doesn’t tell the whole story. The same things have been true of women and black people.
Another part of the answer: Not all prejudices are the same. Some have deeper roots. The stakes – societal structures – in entrenched misogyny and racism are much greater than the stakes of casual homophobia.
There is also the pace of change. The poll showed 68% approval in 2018. But it 2016 it was only 59%. A huge change in two years. The change accelerated in 2004 – after 11 states banned same-sex marriage. Ah, there’s a hint.
Back in the 1980s Evan Wolfson began advocating for marriage equality. Some said it was the wrong time. But he knew the right to marry would pull lots of other rights and concepts along with it – love, caring, commitment, dignity, respect. As straight people saw gay people with these attributes, other rights would come along as well. It was a way to say gay people and straight people are similar. Wolfson had a lot of resistance in the gay community. Why do we want to say we’re just like the people who oppress us? Why do we want to join the institution of marriage which is based on patriarchy? Why aren’t we trying to redefine institutions?
But gay people needed allies. We’ll never be in the majority. We’ll be facing straight judges and need the support of straight voters. We need to talk to them. But isn’t it unfair for the oppressed to speak the language of the oppressor? Wolfson said it is unfair, but the greater goal is to end the oppression.
So does an oppressed group look back and seek retribution and restitution? Or does it look forward and seek change and reconciliation and forgiving of those who have oppressed. Both can be done, but there is tension between them. It asks a lot of the oppressed. But change means winning over some of the oppressors. Shared goals and shared dreams means more allies. And given enough allies legislatures and courts would follow.
The marriage equality movement was different. The cost to allies was minimal. It asked allies to join in celebration of love, commitment, and normalcy. The commitment aspect allowed allies to say they’re like us.
And marriage has pulled other rights with it, though the work continues.
The way forward, perhaps for any oppressed group, is connecting with others, to bring about empathy, understanding, and awareness and doing so by bridging differences and invoking shared values.
Do you overthrow the old order perhaps through violence or revolution or do you reform the old order, reconcile, and forgive? The choice of path depends on your own strength and whether you need allies. Both ways can succeed. But violent movement succeeded about ¼ of the time. Militant activists that do a lot of disruption get lots of attention, but can turn off allies who say they’re not like those activists. Non violent movements succeeded about ½ the time. It is hard to fight with people who say they embrace your values.
Public opinion changed for us because we asked for marriage, and in asking showed how much we share values with others.
Who speaks for the Armenians?
This afternoon I attended my third Freep Film Fest event. This was the documentary Armenian Trilogy. Dan Yessian is the grandson of Armenian immigrants and is a part of the large Armenian community in the Detroit area. His grandparents came here for a particular reason – to escape the Armenian genocide that happened in 1915. Over 1.5 million Armenians were killed by the Turks as the Ottoman Empire fell apart.
Yessian made a living as a musician, mostly in jazz and dance bands. He made a pretty good living writing jingles for commercials, the most famous one was for Dittrich Furs. Coming up to commemorating the 100th year since the genocide the leader of the local Armenian church thought a musical piece should be written. His wife suggested Yessian.
So we see how Yessian went about creating the piece. That was fascinating to me because Yessian doesn’t read music very well, so couldn’t put pen to paper (or operate a notation program on a computer). He could record the sound while he played his ideas on the piano, sometimes singing along. He then worked with someone to notate it for him, then worked with another person to orchestrate it. They had to figure out how to communicate what Yessian heard in his head and how to match it.
Yessian was put in touch with the Armenian ambassador in Detroit. The ambassador liked what he saw and heard and put Yessian in touch with the director of the Armenian National Philharmonic Orchestra in Armenia. He also liked what he saw and arranged a performance, which Yessian and family attended. Yessian talked about coming home to a place he had never been to.
The film includes excerpts of the performance. Yessian discusses writing each movement as we hear bits of it and as we see and hear the corresponding parts of Armenian history. The first movement is The Freedom, life before the genocide. In the Ottoman Empire most Armenians had a pretty middle class life. The second movement is The Fear, a musical depiction of the atrocities (though the music isn’t as far out there as some modern composers can manage). When the empire collapsed and modern Turkey was being formed the Turks were jealous of the success the Armenians had. Racial tensions spilled into hatred and genocide. The third movement is The Faith, what sustains the survivors after such horrific damage.
The film mentions Hitler saying, “Who speaks for the Armenians now?” This has been taken as inspiring Hitler and his Final Solution of the Holocaust. Afterward we got to meet Yessian and the team that put the film together. We also met a historian from University of Michigan who wrote a book about the Armenian genocide. He said Hitler’s inspiration wasn’t Armenia, but the way America treated its own native population – such a great way to eliminate the undesirables and make more room for the white race.
There is a recording on YouTube on Yessian’s page, though it doesn’t look to be the one by the Armenian orchestra. The orchestra isn’t named. It is 17 minutes long.
There is a puzzle that wasn’t addressed by the film. If the piece was proposed by an Armenian pastor in the Detroit area, was there a local performance? If so, what group played it?
Yessian made a living as a musician, mostly in jazz and dance bands. He made a pretty good living writing jingles for commercials, the most famous one was for Dittrich Furs. Coming up to commemorating the 100th year since the genocide the leader of the local Armenian church thought a musical piece should be written. His wife suggested Yessian.
So we see how Yessian went about creating the piece. That was fascinating to me because Yessian doesn’t read music very well, so couldn’t put pen to paper (or operate a notation program on a computer). He could record the sound while he played his ideas on the piano, sometimes singing along. He then worked with someone to notate it for him, then worked with another person to orchestrate it. They had to figure out how to communicate what Yessian heard in his head and how to match it.
Yessian was put in touch with the Armenian ambassador in Detroit. The ambassador liked what he saw and heard and put Yessian in touch with the director of the Armenian National Philharmonic Orchestra in Armenia. He also liked what he saw and arranged a performance, which Yessian and family attended. Yessian talked about coming home to a place he had never been to.
The film includes excerpts of the performance. Yessian discusses writing each movement as we hear bits of it and as we see and hear the corresponding parts of Armenian history. The first movement is The Freedom, life before the genocide. In the Ottoman Empire most Armenians had a pretty middle class life. The second movement is The Fear, a musical depiction of the atrocities (though the music isn’t as far out there as some modern composers can manage). When the empire collapsed and modern Turkey was being formed the Turks were jealous of the success the Armenians had. Racial tensions spilled into hatred and genocide. The third movement is The Faith, what sustains the survivors after such horrific damage.
The film mentions Hitler saying, “Who speaks for the Armenians now?” This has been taken as inspiring Hitler and his Final Solution of the Holocaust. Afterward we got to meet Yessian and the team that put the film together. We also met a historian from University of Michigan who wrote a book about the Armenian genocide. He said Hitler’s inspiration wasn’t Armenia, but the way America treated its own native population – such a great way to eliminate the undesirables and make more room for the white race.
There is a recording on YouTube on Yessian’s page, though it doesn’t look to be the one by the Armenian orchestra. The orchestra isn’t named. It is 17 minutes long.
There is a puzzle that wasn’t addressed by the film. If the piece was proposed by an Armenian pastor in the Detroit area, was there a local performance? If so, what group played it?
Friday, April 12, 2019
The disaster of poverty
The Freep Film Festival is underway. For those not from these parts “Freep” is the nickname of the Detroit Free Press newspaper, which puts the program together. All of the films are documentaries with some sort of connection to Detroit or Michigan. There are more than 50 films that get their own screening and four sets of short films. I attended two of them today.
This afternoon I saw Cooked: Survival By Zip Code by Peabody Award-winning filmmaker Judith Helfand. As Hurricane Sandy approached New York she was amazed at all the disaster preparations her brother did. That got her looking into the business of Disaster Preparedness. And that got her into what started that business – the Chicago Heat Wave of 1995 in which 739 people died.
She documents the magnitude of the calamity – the city morgue had to bring in a fleet of refrigerator trucks because all those bodies didn’t fit into standard morgue storage. And then she showed that the most of the deaths happened in impoverished neighborhoods. The rich can turn on the air conditioner or turn on a fan or open a window. The poor can’t afford the AC or fan and they’re afraid to open the window because of who might crawl through it. There were cooling spaces at police stations, but what poor person trusts the police?
Chicago can now show off their disaster emergency equipment – a shiny truck that does this, another shiny truck that does that, and lots and lots of other shiny (and expensive) things.
Helfand attends an elaborate earthquake preparedness training exercise – in Kentucky where the last major earthquake was in 1812.
Helfand keeps coming back to her central question: Yeah, being prepared for a disaster is important, though expensive training for a disaster unlikely to happen seems too much. But what about the long-term, slow-moving disaster of poverty? Poverty kills about 3,200 people a year in Chicago. That’s about the same number of people who died on 9/11, which produced a flurry of activity. But the same number of deaths in poor sections of Chicago? Nothing. What’s worse is this is a man-made disaster. Humans created the construct of racism. Humans created the laws, such as redlining, that prevent some people from getting out of poverty. Humans could solve this. If they wanted to.
Helfand proposes having poverty declared a disaster in hopes of getting disaster relief money or at least drawing attention to the plight of the poor. She even proposes a version of that idea to a disaster relief leader. He talks about the law needing to change, is she up to it? – and then comments that people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. There was quite a reaction to that well-used line from this Detroit audience. During the panel discussion afterward an audience member rhetorically asked, “What if your boots don’t have straps?”
I’m very aware that the nasty guy and the current GOP are not going to do anything to relieve poverty. They want the poor to be poor and at times I think they want the middle class to be poor. Making other lives miserable is their way of enforcing their own superiority.
The evening film was a lot more than a film. Yes, there was documentary film. But there was also a live narrator and live music. The whole event is titled A Thousand Thoughts and is about the Kronos Quartet. The live music was provided by the Kronos Quartet. So, yeah, things feel a bit weird with the subjects of the film right there on stage doing what the film talks about.
The concept was developed by Sam Green and Joe Bini. Green was the narrator. He talked about some things for which there was no audio. And people on screen talked – including members of the quartet. Sometimes the quartet played background music, demonstrating action on screen. Sometimes the action paused to let them play. And a couple times they played along with another musician on screen.
The Kronos Quartet – two violins, viola, and cello – formed in 1973. David Harrington, who formed the group, wanted to play the really modern music. So they modernized the whole idea of a quartet, starting with getting rid of the formal clothes.
In addition to getting to know the musicians we also meet a few of the composers. The Kronos Quartet commissioned music from a lot of today’s composers. Those we meet include Terry Riley and Philip Glass.
The whole show was excellently done. We went from narrator (with memorized script) to video to music seamlessly. Lighting was well controlled to show the narrator and musicians when they were on. It was an enjoyable evening.
This show is a traveling show – other venues can book it and get the film, narrator, and live music.
I think I have one album by the Kronos Quartet. So much of their stuff is so far out there that I don’t enjoy it, and thus I’ve stayed away from nearly all of it. I may have to check out some of their recordings – though with the quartet in operation for 45 years now, there are a lot of recordings to sort through.
This afternoon I saw Cooked: Survival By Zip Code by Peabody Award-winning filmmaker Judith Helfand. As Hurricane Sandy approached New York she was amazed at all the disaster preparations her brother did. That got her looking into the business of Disaster Preparedness. And that got her into what started that business – the Chicago Heat Wave of 1995 in which 739 people died.
She documents the magnitude of the calamity – the city morgue had to bring in a fleet of refrigerator trucks because all those bodies didn’t fit into standard morgue storage. And then she showed that the most of the deaths happened in impoverished neighborhoods. The rich can turn on the air conditioner or turn on a fan or open a window. The poor can’t afford the AC or fan and they’re afraid to open the window because of who might crawl through it. There were cooling spaces at police stations, but what poor person trusts the police?
Chicago can now show off their disaster emergency equipment – a shiny truck that does this, another shiny truck that does that, and lots and lots of other shiny (and expensive) things.
Helfand attends an elaborate earthquake preparedness training exercise – in Kentucky where the last major earthquake was in 1812.
Helfand keeps coming back to her central question: Yeah, being prepared for a disaster is important, though expensive training for a disaster unlikely to happen seems too much. But what about the long-term, slow-moving disaster of poverty? Poverty kills about 3,200 people a year in Chicago. That’s about the same number of people who died on 9/11, which produced a flurry of activity. But the same number of deaths in poor sections of Chicago? Nothing. What’s worse is this is a man-made disaster. Humans created the construct of racism. Humans created the laws, such as redlining, that prevent some people from getting out of poverty. Humans could solve this. If they wanted to.
Helfand proposes having poverty declared a disaster in hopes of getting disaster relief money or at least drawing attention to the plight of the poor. She even proposes a version of that idea to a disaster relief leader. He talks about the law needing to change, is she up to it? – and then comments that people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. There was quite a reaction to that well-used line from this Detroit audience. During the panel discussion afterward an audience member rhetorically asked, “What if your boots don’t have straps?”
I’m very aware that the nasty guy and the current GOP are not going to do anything to relieve poverty. They want the poor to be poor and at times I think they want the middle class to be poor. Making other lives miserable is their way of enforcing their own superiority.
The evening film was a lot more than a film. Yes, there was documentary film. But there was also a live narrator and live music. The whole event is titled A Thousand Thoughts and is about the Kronos Quartet. The live music was provided by the Kronos Quartet. So, yeah, things feel a bit weird with the subjects of the film right there on stage doing what the film talks about.
The concept was developed by Sam Green and Joe Bini. Green was the narrator. He talked about some things for which there was no audio. And people on screen talked – including members of the quartet. Sometimes the quartet played background music, demonstrating action on screen. Sometimes the action paused to let them play. And a couple times they played along with another musician on screen.
The Kronos Quartet – two violins, viola, and cello – formed in 1973. David Harrington, who formed the group, wanted to play the really modern music. So they modernized the whole idea of a quartet, starting with getting rid of the formal clothes.
In addition to getting to know the musicians we also meet a few of the composers. The Kronos Quartet commissioned music from a lot of today’s composers. Those we meet include Terry Riley and Philip Glass.
The whole show was excellently done. We went from narrator (with memorized script) to video to music seamlessly. Lighting was well controlled to show the narrator and musicians when they were on. It was an enjoyable evening.
This show is a traveling show – other venues can book it and get the film, narrator, and live music.
I think I have one album by the Kronos Quartet. So much of their stuff is so far out there that I don’t enjoy it, and thus I’ve stayed away from nearly all of it. I may have to check out some of their recordings – though with the quartet in operation for 45 years now, there are a lot of recordings to sort through.
Thursday, April 11, 2019
Modern masculinity
Eliza Dennis of NPR brought a report of the girls in Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School who did something about toxic masculinity. Some of the boys had ranked some of the girls based on their looks. The list leaked. The girls felt violated.
The girls responded by choosing to help the boys learn. First, a group of boys and girls met to discuss the list and how it made them feel. The boys started out defensive – this stuff happens all the time, why are we in trouble? But as the girls talked about sexual harassment and eating disorders and how that’s an every day part of life, the mood changed. The boys hadn’t ever thought about what the girls felt.
Then came a big event, called the ABCs of Modern Masculinity – Raising Boys Without Lowering Expectations, organized by senior Paloma Delgado. This four and a half hours featured student and guest speeches, a film screening, and a panel discussion. It was held at a local restaurant and was packed.
The polling organization Civiqs, part of Daily Kos, has released the results of a poll of the nasty guy’s approval rating. This isn’t just one number. It is divided up by state and reported by age group, race, and gender.
When not divided up by any category the map has a lot of shades of both blue (approval) and orange (disapproval). When the age is restricted to 18-34 the map shows only six blue states – we need to get these people to vote! When the age is 65+ or when the race is white the map is mostly blue. When group is white males there are only 10 states with orange. With young white women the map has only five blue states. And when the group is African-Americans, the map is entirely orange, most of it dark orange.
Gaslit Nation, a podcast that discusses the nasty guy’s authoritarianism, has added a couple interesting pages. The first is a suggested reading list with books on kleptocracy, authoritarianism, asymmetrical warfare, white supremacy terrorism, and even fiction. Each book has a link – and it is to Good Reads, not Amazon.
The second page is a list of things to do to resist the GOP takeover and support democracy. This includes such things as focus on state races, join a grassroots organization, fight global warming, help union causes, run for something, protect the vote, and make art. Each category has links.
The girls responded by choosing to help the boys learn. First, a group of boys and girls met to discuss the list and how it made them feel. The boys started out defensive – this stuff happens all the time, why are we in trouble? But as the girls talked about sexual harassment and eating disorders and how that’s an every day part of life, the mood changed. The boys hadn’t ever thought about what the girls felt.
Then came a big event, called the ABCs of Modern Masculinity – Raising Boys Without Lowering Expectations, organized by senior Paloma Delgado. This four and a half hours featured student and guest speeches, a film screening, and a panel discussion. It was held at a local restaurant and was packed.
The polling organization Civiqs, part of Daily Kos, has released the results of a poll of the nasty guy’s approval rating. This isn’t just one number. It is divided up by state and reported by age group, race, and gender.
When not divided up by any category the map has a lot of shades of both blue (approval) and orange (disapproval). When the age is restricted to 18-34 the map shows only six blue states – we need to get these people to vote! When the age is 65+ or when the race is white the map is mostly blue. When group is white males there are only 10 states with orange. With young white women the map has only five blue states. And when the group is African-Americans, the map is entirely orange, most of it dark orange.
Gaslit Nation, a podcast that discusses the nasty guy’s authoritarianism, has added a couple interesting pages. The first is a suggested reading list with books on kleptocracy, authoritarianism, asymmetrical warfare, white supremacy terrorism, and even fiction. Each book has a link – and it is to Good Reads, not Amazon.
The second page is a list of things to do to resist the GOP takeover and support democracy. This includes such things as focus on state races, join a grassroots organization, fight global warming, help union causes, run for something, protect the vote, and make art. Each category has links.
Not cruel enough
Kirstjen Nielsen resigned (was fired) from her job of Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. She had the job for about 16 months and was the public face of the administration’s horrific family separation policy. Twitter user Justin Hendrix explains her firing this way:
Adam Serwer, tweeted a bit from CNN:
Twitter user Alexandra Erin says another reason for the nasty guy’s fury is he wants to get border crossings down to zero. And Nielsen wasn’t brutally repressive enough to make that happen.
Nielsen wasn’t the only one from DHS to leave in the last few months. White House correspondent Geoff Bennett gives us the tally:
So the governmental department created just after 9/11 to keep us safe is now headless. That makes America a lot less safe. But no leadership means there is no one to challenge unlawful orders.
Melissa McEwan of Shakesville discusses this DHS purge. The nasty guy has threatened to close the border if border crossings don’t get to zero. She sums it up this way:
Donald Trump could not convince her to be brutal or illegal enough, despite the horrors she executed on his behalf. We need to be prepared for things to get much worse.
Adam Serwer, tweeted a bit from CNN:
The President wanted families separated even if they were apprehended within the US. He thinks the separations work to deter migrants from coming.She challenged him. He fired her. So, yeah, she did and supported some hugely cruel things and the nasty guy wanted her to be even more cruel. And break the law while doing it.
Sources told CNN that Nielsen tried to explain they could not bring the policy back because of court challenges, and White House staffers tried to explain it would be an unmitigated PR disaster.
Twitter user Alexandra Erin says another reason for the nasty guy’s fury is he wants to get border crossings down to zero. And Nielsen wasn’t brutally repressive enough to make that happen.
Nielsen wasn’t the only one from DHS to leave in the last few months. White House correspondent Geoff Bennett gives us the tally:
!!! DHS leadership vacuum: no confirmed secretary, no dep. secretary, no Secret Service chief, no head of FEMA, no head of ICE, no head of science & technology branch, no head of policy branch, no Inspector General & no CPB commissioner once McAleenan moves over.CPB should be CBP and is Customs and Border Patrol.
So the governmental department created just after 9/11 to keep us safe is now headless. That makes America a lot less safe. But no leadership means there is no one to challenge unlawful orders.
Melissa McEwan of Shakesville discusses this DHS purge. The nasty guy has threatened to close the border if border crossings don’t get to zero. She sums it up this way:
Trump's threat to close the border is not just about keeping people out. When a border is closed, it's also — effectively, even if not intentionally — about keeping people in.
... The discussion about Trump closing parts of the southern border must include the contemporary context that much of our produce comes across that border, as well as the historical context that dictators often starve their own people.
Yes, it could happen here. Especially if we insist on pretending it couldn't.
Trump is unfathomably cruel to migrants and refugees, and he is actively working to fill leadership positions in his administration with people who will abet that cruelty. Why anyone imagines he won't eventually turn that cruelty on the rest of us is beyond me.
Three views on splitting the United Methodist Church
I read the blog Hacking Christianty, written by Rev. Jeremy Smith, a United Methodist Pastor. In three posts, two written by guests, he offers three views on splitting the denomination. One argues that we must split. Another discusses some of what we would lose if we split. The third suggests we can avoid the split and still reduce harm to LGBT people. I’ve written a summary of the three posts, which you can find here on my brother blog.
Sunday, April 7, 2019
A purple church
In an era where political affiliation closely matches which church one attends, White Memorial Presbyterian Church in Raleigh, NC is one that tries to be a purple church, bringing together both red and blue. Tom Gjelten of NPR visited the church.
Senior pastor Christopher Edmonston says they have to be purple to be open and welcome to any person who wants to come. That means, however, the pastor tends not to speak out on political issues. Alas, that included when the state passed a “bathroom bill” restricting which restroom a transgender person could use. But if he speaks out he feels members will find another church with a pastor that agrees with them.
This effort to be non-political was a big problem when in 22015 the Presbyterian denomination told each congregation it needed to make its own decision on same-sex weddings. They had to deal with it.
The hosted speakers on both sides of the issue. They invited members to express their views. Some tried to convince the rest. Others talked about the gay grandson or nephew. Still others wanted to be heard. The board eventually voted and approved same-sex weddings and the margin of victory was intentionally not reported. Edmonston said:
Senior pastor Christopher Edmonston says they have to be purple to be open and welcome to any person who wants to come. That means, however, the pastor tends not to speak out on political issues. Alas, that included when the state passed a “bathroom bill” restricting which restroom a transgender person could use. But if he speaks out he feels members will find another church with a pastor that agrees with them.
This effort to be non-political was a big problem when in 22015 the Presbyterian denomination told each congregation it needed to make its own decision on same-sex weddings. They had to deal with it.
The hosted speakers on both sides of the issue. They invited members to express their views. Some tried to convince the rest. Others talked about the gay grandson or nephew. Still others wanted to be heard. The board eventually voted and approved same-sex weddings and the margin of victory was intentionally not reported. Edmonston said:
If you would have reported that it was 54 to 2 for marriage inclusion, the people who didn't want it to happen would have gotten the message "We really are out of step here." And if we would have reported that the vote was 30 to 26, the people who were really for it may have thought, "This place isn't as open-minded as I thought it was."When reporting the new policy to the congregation Edmonston pleaded with them to stay united. Some – maybe 1% – did leave. And many of those came back. They missed the sense of community they had at White Memorial.
Remain honest with yourself
It’s been a while since I’ve posted here. A good chunk of last week was taken up by organizing and going on a two-day trip. The purpose was to take my parents’ ashes to the ancestral farm.
On to stuff that’s been sitting in browser tabs for a while.
Sarah Kendzior, who studies autocracies, quoted journalist Tikhon Dzyadko of RTVi in her Gaslit Nation podcast:
BFSkinner, part of the Daily Kos community posted about a recent NBC News survey.
Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal spoke to the House Judiciary Committee during a hearing for the Equality Act to ban discrimination of LGBT people. Part of what she said:
Mark Sumner of Daily Kos took a look at the nasty guy’s decision to roll back vehicle efficiency standards. When this was first talked about in the administration Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA at the time, selected an adviser to write a report showing the rollback is a wonderful idea.
Didn’t turn out that way. The report says the rollback would cause the industry would lose 236,000 jobs over the next 15 years. Reasons:
* The rest of the world insists on cars that are more efficient and less polluting, so American companies would have a harder time selling outside America. American companies have already abandoned much of the small to midsize market.
* Auto companies would drastically reduce research and development spending. That means a loss of engineering jobs. Profits will go to investors, not to innovative suppliers. The overall economy loses.
David Neiwert of Daily Kos looks at Big Tech and their struggle with the far-right extremism that has filled their platforms. The big reason why it is a struggle is that…
The Department of Homeland Security has disbanded an intelligence and Analysis unit that focused on domestic terrorism and white supremacist violence. Melissa McEwan of Shakesville explains what it means:
McEwan points us to report by Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgress about a death penalty decision from the Supremes. Millhiser calls it “the most bloodthirsty and cruel” opinion of the modern era. That’s because of the majority opinion written by Neil Gorsuch. He tossed out the basic understanding of “cruel and unusual” punishment. The state of Missouri may effectively torture a man to death as long as it doesn’t inflict pain for the sheer purpose of inflicting pain.
Yes, malice is the agenda.
On to stuff that’s been sitting in browser tabs for a while.
Sarah Kendzior, who studies autocracies, quoted journalist Tikhon Dzyadko of RTVi in her Gaslit Nation podcast:
Under an autocracy, there is one rule of survival: remain honest. Autocracy is not frightening in that it prohibits and intimidates; autocracy is frightening in that it uncovers in man the darkest, the most cynical and low. Autocracy teaches man to lie even to himself. And so, in order not to accept autocracy and play by its rules, you need to be yourself and remain honest – primarily with yourself. And continue to do your job, as long as it is possible. In other words, do what you must, come what may.
BFSkinner, part of the Daily Kos community posted about a recent NBC News survey.
According to the most recent survey, 68 percent are either enthusiastic (14 percent) or comfortable (54 percent) with a candidate who is gay or lesbian,
The most surprising finding to me was an examination of the senior population….
And, while seniors are more likely to voice reservations about gay candidates, a majority (56 percent) now say they have no objections. That’s up from just 31 percent in 2006.
Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal spoke to the House Judiciary Committee during a hearing for the Equality Act to ban discrimination of LGBT people. Part of what she said:
My beautiful, now 22-year-old child told me last year that they were gender non-conforming. And over the last year I have come to understand from a deeply personal mother's perspective. I've always been a civil rights activist, I've always fought for my constituents in my communities to have equal rights, but from a mother's perspective I came to understand what their newfound freedom—it is the only way I can describe what has happened to my beautiful child—what their newfound freedom, to wear a dress, to rid themselves of some conformist stereotype of who they are. To be able to express who they are at their real core.
And since this deeply impactful moment last year, my child who has always done well in school but has carried what a mother can only describe as a heavy burden of conflict in their own being that I could not fully identify or help to express. Since this deeply impactful moment last year, my child's embracing of their non-conforming gender identity and all that it has allowed, all that it allows in terms of their creativity, their brilliance, their self-expression … the only thought I wake up with every day is my child is free. My child is free to be who they are and in that freedom comes a responsibility for us as legislators to protect that freedom, to be who they are.
Mark Sumner of Daily Kos took a look at the nasty guy’s decision to roll back vehicle efficiency standards. When this was first talked about in the administration Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA at the time, selected an adviser to write a report showing the rollback is a wonderful idea.
Didn’t turn out that way. The report says the rollback would cause the industry would lose 236,000 jobs over the next 15 years. Reasons:
* The rest of the world insists on cars that are more efficient and less polluting, so American companies would have a harder time selling outside America. American companies have already abandoned much of the small to midsize market.
* Auto companies would drastically reduce research and development spending. That means a loss of engineering jobs. Profits will go to investors, not to innovative suppliers. The overall economy loses.
David Neiwert of Daily Kos looks at Big Tech and their struggle with the far-right extremism that has filled their platforms. The big reason why it is a struggle is that…
their revenue streams are built around attracting such content.
…
The formula for success that emerged over time at YouTube is simple: “Outrage equals attention.” Brittan Heller, a fellow at Harvard University’s Carr Center, observed that it’s also ripe for exploitation by political extremists and hucksters. “They don’t know how the algorithm works,” she said. “But they do know that the more outrageous the content is, the more views.”
And the more views, the more money these platforms will roll in. Hate and division become the fuels for profit in this system. It’s a recipe for cultural disaster.
The Department of Homeland Security has disbanded an intelligence and Analysis unit that focused on domestic terrorism and white supremacist violence. Melissa McEwan of Shakesville explains what it means:
So now we're just flying blind(er) on rightwing extremist violence, including and especially anti-choice and white supremacist terrorism.
That, of course, is not an accident. That is a design. Because malice is the agenda.
One assumes Donald Trump and his deplorable henchmen won't be mad if their decision to allow domestic terrorism to flourish in the darkness of inattention also results in dramatic acts of public violence that justify the expansion of authoritarian policy, under the auspices of security and "protecting" us.
If they were actually interested in protecting us, they wouldn't have disbanded a unit charged with doing precisely that.
McEwan points us to report by Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgress about a death penalty decision from the Supremes. Millhiser calls it “the most bloodthirsty and cruel” opinion of the modern era. That’s because of the majority opinion written by Neil Gorsuch. He tossed out the basic understanding of “cruel and unusual” punishment. The state of Missouri may effectively torture a man to death as long as it doesn’t inflict pain for the sheer purpose of inflicting pain.
Yes, malice is the agenda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)