#also i have very little regard for how this would impact america politically or economically | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

rgr-pop · 6 years

Text

Regarding the McMansion critique, some of the environmental impacts are very, very valid. But I think we tend to overlook that there are residents living in these structures. We tend to put a lot of stereotypes that we hold about the houses, and about the suburbs themselves, on these residents. The thought is that because they have a big house, the residents are anti-environmental, they don't value community, and they only care about themselves and about their privacy. These houses are assumed to be one, universal; and two, universally bad.

I spoke to the residents that are actually living in these homes and asked them what these homes meant to them. And in doing so, a lot of the stereotypes fell apart. That’s because a lot of those stereotypes were constructed in a post-war white middle-class framework, and don’t necessarily hold up in the face of new immigrants that are moving to suburbs. [...] The McMansion becomes that symbol of a lot of things that Asian Americans aren’t doing right to assimilate. Even the design critiques of these homes are about how they’re too outlandish. They’re trying to do this faux-Mediterranean look, but they're not even doing it right. It’s too tacky, you know? That, to me, is a broader critique of immigrants never really being American enough. I challenge the notion that Asian Americans should fit into a suburban neighborhood exactly the same way a white middle class family does.

This interview with Willow Lung-Amam is the first thing I recommend reading to start unraveling the mcmansion critique and its racial tones. Her book, Trespassers: Asian Americans and the Battle for Suburbia, about Fremont, CA, is one of many studies on American ethnoburbs, but one of a handful that deals directly with the specter of the mcmansion--Lung-Amam is a professor of architecture.

I feel a few ways about what she’s saying above, that a critique of mcmansions might emerge from a well-meaning assumption of the whiteness of suburbia, (and the contents of that suburban whiteness), an assumption that no longer maps onto how (and where) people are living in America. I basically agree, and I think it’s diplomatic. But her work (and the work of others, which I’ll get to) shows that in many cases, planners, critics and neighbors actually develop this critique of the mcmansion after the act of racialization, and wield that critique politically. In some cases, even, the same problematic houses don’t become a problem until they become inhabited by problem residents.

But take this a little blurb on Fremont: mcmansions are built in suburbs that look like a different kind of suburb, and that difference is made political through zoning, design review, etc. Those quotes in there are really something. In this case, it would be hard to convincingly argue that neighbors imposed an existing critique of the white mcmansion onto their neighbors. In their case--and this is my first major stake in this argument--the “white suburb” is imagined to be single-story, a modernist suburb. The whiteness of, say, the modernist ranch, is just as fantastical as the whiteness of the mcmansion, but it’s become unfashionable to make such a critique of those postwar suburbs, and I really don’t think it’s because your average Curbed content creator has read Andrew Wiese’s Places of Their Own, Bruce Haynes’s Red Lines, Black Spaces or Becky Nicolaides’ My Blue Heaven, or any of the other new suburban histories that complicate a history of white spaces (and white architecture). In fact, I think a rise in critique of the excessive mcmansion* has bolstered a new and growing mythologizing of modernist architecture, one that is intimately connected to what’s happening to modernist real estate right now. Remember that Curbed is a real estate website.

*to be clear, there have been critiques of the mcmansion since the mcmansion has existed, and these critiques have come from a lot of different perspectives. but it is true that these critiques have been multiplying, as have their platforms.

But I really agree with Lung-Amam’s implication that as architecture critics, we (yes we, I can be whatever I want to be) can’t know anything by looking, certainly not (ffs) by looking at staged real estate listings. Or, let me rephrase: what can we know about a space, just by looking? That’s my second major stake in this game, and it is my biggest fucking stake. Eight years ago Alexandra Lange wrote that Nicolai Ouroussoff's criticism "shrinks the critic’s role to commenting only on the appearance of the architecture. He might have been the perfect critic for the boom years, when looks were the selling point, but this formal, global approach seems incongruous in a downturn,” and, not to lowkey call out someone I look up to in the field, but what do we have now? We have 1000 words on how the style of houses that were made after the fifties is Bad.

Let me take a few steps backward, because what I just said is not actually my stake. It’s not that I’m unconcerned with image in architecture, and it’s absolutely not that I’m concerned only with program and function (god, function) in architecture. It’s also not even that I care that much that architecture critics can’t think themselves out of a paper bag with Style written on it. It’s that I outright reject an architecture criticism that mistakes a taste objection for a political position. It’s hollow and it is, wholesale, in every case, racist. I’ve been listening to a lot of Vincent Scully lectures lately and I find it hard to believe that this great defender of play and eclecticism, a man who told students that Venturi reclaimed wallpaper as a feminist statement and that anti-ornament manifestos of the turn of the century were homophobic, was really paving the way for us to write about how disgusted we are by an Armenian doctor’s Greek fountain, or that Muslim-Americans should plan the spaces of their home more economically if they want into the polity. Ohhkay! I feel I’ve digressed again.

As you know, my main fight is about interiors. And I’ve learned a lot by watching a meme critique of staged interior decoration launch itself to the top of so-called architecture criticism. Just as you can’t look at the elevation of house and learn (as much as people want to believe) about the sociopolitical content of that home, I believe it’s either dangerous or useless to stake social claims based on a photograph of an interior. I mean: looking at interior space, represented, instead of asking (not rhetorically asking), why might the people who live in this space have configured it as such? what is this space used for? where did these items come from?, the mcmansion critique says: this is wrong, it’s repulsive, it’s amoral. And worse: my revulsion is not only a critical position, but an ethical one. Questions become accusations: Why would anyone need an extra set of bedrooms? Why would anyone need an empty room with a stupid persian rug on the floor? Why would people want to have Mediterranean or Chinese things in their home? Why would an Australian have a corrugated metal roof? Moralistic judgments about lifeways based on the scopic only. I use “scopic” here because I think of this action as fundamentally an action upon, and I want to frame dumbass ethocentric judgment (cast as “criticism”) as a mode of cultural domination.

And okay, so many of these judgments are just funny mistakes that we can laugh at (why would someone in the county with the largest amount of house fires caused by lightning strikes have metal rods on their roof?). But my point is that it is a fundamentally ethnocentric (racist, is the word I like to use) (we’re just going to set “disabled people exist” aside entirely for now) project to advance a critique of bad taste (style) from a position of practicality, one centered on what you understand to be the right way to inhabit a space. Really a lot of words for something very simple! Really impossible to convince anyone of this! And, I conclude, the mcmansion critique is not a political critique, and (you’re gonna hate to hear this, tough love) a politics can’t emerge from a taste claim. The mcmansion critique is nothing more than a taste claim, one very hastily staked.

I actually came here to offer you a short bibliography and nothing else, whoops! I mention Lung-Amam’s work as the one that I’ve found really takes the category of the mcmansion to task, looking at what was just as often called the “monster house” in Fremont. Denise Lawrence-Zuniga, an anthropologist, wrote a book about Southern California historical preservation (Protecting Suburban America) with a chapter on San Gabriel Valley’s Alhambra. That chapter looks at the conflicts between the preservation board, design review board, planning commission etc. and residents, specifically immigrants. She notes how different understandings of governmentality (as in, the need to get certain kinds of permits, etc.), and different ways of living created conflict between local government and immigrants. There are bits about planners’ paranoia about remodels that promote density, like adding too many extra rooms to a historic house, or remodeling interiors in a way that might encourage subletting, that I find pretty disturbing. But the author only mentions the major point: these forms of intensive governmentality in the name of historical preservation were put into place as Alhambra witnessed the transition of nearby suburbs into ethnoburbs. Preservationist policy emerged as a governmental response to a perceived loss of white control. (Much has been said about Arcadia, Chinese investor development, “mansionization.” h/t @prettylittlecrier for this article!) I can’t say that I recommend this book entirely, unless you’re involved in preservation planning.

I’m not sure we can accurately call all of these homes in the SGV “mcmansions,” but people sure love to. In Lawrence-Zuniga’s chapter, Alhambra’s bungalow landscape “needed” to be defended from Arcadia’s mansionization--larger scale teardown and redevelopment, but also from any kinds of additions and modifications to existing bungalows that would alter their scale in relation to the lot and the neighbors, as well as (importantly) their inhabited density. I think it’s worth thinking through the differences between all of these things: subdivided land developed for large houses on small lots, redevelopment for the former, large houses built for large families on small surbuban lots where more “modest” houses might have once stood, or just... big houses on big lots.

I must have mentioned Becky Nicolaides and James Zarsadiaz’s “Design Assimilation in Suburbia: Asian Americans, Built Landscapes, and Suburban Advantage in Los Angeles’s San Gabriel Valley since 1970,” I was so excited when they published this article. They look at San Marino, and consider what they term “design assimilation” to describe the ways (and reasons) Chinese suburbanites chose to consent to preservationist codes and design review, and why they lived in a community that imposed these kinds of racialized codes:

For some, these suburban landscapes seemed to materialize positive images of America they harbored as children back in Asian home countries. Some openly appreciated the classic European inflected architecture, others the open spaces and aesthetic styles of country living. Asian suburbanites also grasped that support of American landscape aesthetics offered certain social and fiscal benefits. To their neighbors, it conveyed a willingness to assimilate through aesthetic behaviors, which helped maintain community peace and ensure social acceptance. Embracing American design styles also conferred a status distinction that positioned these Asian homeowners above those around them—including those in the ethnoburbs. In design-assimilated suburbs, property values were higher and schools were better, signaling a racialized valuing of space not lost on Asians themselves. Design assimilation, thus, was a facet of the production of affluent suburban space, in which white and ethnic Asian suburbanites played complicit roles.

They don’t pick up the McMansion explicitly, but they are marking its absence in a landscape. This is a really constructive piece, chiefly, here, as a concrete example of the ways that some suburbs were understood to be aesthetically Chinese by the eighties, that the mcmansion criticism can be seen to have been racialized by then.

I want to close with an excerpt from anthropologist Aihwa Ong’s 1996 article, “Cultural Citizenship as Subject-Making,” which picks up the problem of taste but also the figure of international wealth, and the Chinese developer rather than the middle class Chinese immigrant:

In wealthier San Franciscan neighborhoods, residents pride themselves on their conservation consciousness, and they jealously guard the hybrid European ambiance and character of particular neighborhoods. In their role as custodians of appropriate cultural taste governing buildings, architecture, parks, and other public spaces, civic groups routinely badger City Hall, scrutinize urban zoning laws, and patrol the boundaries between what is aesthetically permissible and what is intolerable in their districts. By linking race with habitus, taste, and cultural capital (Bourdieu 1984), such civic groups set limits to the whitening of Asians, who, metaphorically speaking still give off the whiff of sweat despite arriving with starter symbolic capital.

Public battles over race/taste have revolved around the transformation of middle-class neighborhoods by rich Asian newcomers. At issue are boxy houses with bland facades--”monster houses”--erected by Asian buyers to accommodate extended families in low-density, single-family residential districts known for their Victorian or Mediterranean charm. Protests have often taken on a racialist tone, registering both dismay at the changing cultural landscape and efforts to educate the new arrivals to white upper-class norms appropriate for the city. While the activists focus on the cultural elements--aesthetic norms, democratic process, and civic duty--that underpin the urban imagined community, they encode the strong class resentment against large-scale Asian investment in residential and commercial properties throughout the city. A conflict over one of these monster houses illustrates the ways in which the state is caught between soothing indignant urbanites seeking to impose their notion of cultural citizenship on Asian nouveaux riches while attempting to keep the door open for Pacific Rim capital.

In 1989 a Hong Kong multimillionaire, a Mrs. Chan, bought a house in the affluent Marina district. Chan lived in Hong Kong and rented out her Marina property. A few years later, she obtained the approval of the city to add a third story to her house but failed to notify her neighbors. When they learned of her plans, they complained that the third story would block views of the Palace of Fine Arts as well as cut off sunlight in an adjoining garden. The neighbors linked up with a citywide group to pressure City Hall. The mayor stepped in and called for a city zoning study, thus delaying the proposed renovation. At a neighborhood meeting, someone declared, “We don’t want to see a second Chinatown here.” Indeed, there is already a new “Chinatown” outside the old Chinatown, based in the middle-class Richmond district. This charge thus raised the specter of a spreading Chinese urbanscape encroaching on the heterogeneous European flavor of the city. The remark, with its implied racism, compelled the mayor to apologize to Chan, and the planning commission subsequently approved a smaller addition to her house.

However, stung by the racism and the loss on her investment and bewildered that neighbors could infringe upon her property rights, Chan, a transnational developer, used her wealth to mock the city’s self-image as a bastion of liberalism. She pulled out all her investments in the United States and decided to donate her million-dollar house to the homeless. To add insult to injury, she stipulated that her house was not to be used by any homeless of Chinese descent. Her architect, an American Chinese, told the press, “You can hardly find a homeless Chinese anyway,” Secure in her overseas location, Chan fought the Chinese stereotype by stereotyping American homeless as non-Chinese, while challenging her civic-minded neighbors to demonstrate the moral liberalism they professed. Mutual class and racial discrimination thus broke through the surface of what initially appeared to be a negotiation over normative cultural taste in the urban milieu. A representative of the mayor’s office, appropriately contrite, remarked that Chan could still do whatever she wanted with her property; “We just would like for her not to be so angry.” The need to keep overseas investments flowing into the city had to be balanced against neighborhood groups’ demands for cultural standards. The power of the international real estate market, as represented by Mrs. Chan, thus disciplined both City Hall and the Marina neighbors, who may have to rethink local notions of what being enlightened urbanites may entail in the “era of Pacific Rim capital.”

#i think i'm forgetting a sociologist...#architecture #landscapes of production #interiors

38 notes · View notes

study-with-nina · 6 years

Text

[taken from my blog]

I'm an avid reader. There's nothing I love more than diving into a new novel, whether it be nonfiction about a recent scientific discovery or a centuries-old classic. In 2018 alone, I read 46 books, and started three more that I will finish in the new year. Since making a commitment for my New Year's resolution to read 40 books in 2018, I have read some astonishingly good novels. Here are ten of my favorites, in no particular order.

[in the interest of transparency, I will note that any books purchased through the links provided will provide you with a discount as well as give me a small commission (:]

1. The Book Thief by Markus Zusak

This book was actually the first book I read this year, and it still has a special place in my heart. The Book Thief is a story about a young German girl growing up during the Holocaust, and her love of reading that pits her against Hitler's regime. It was refreshingly somber to see the Holocaust era from a new view -- not that of a Jewish person, nor a soldier, but a civilian child growing up surrounded by hate speech and propaganda. Liesel's actions and her love for her little family tugged at my heartstrings many times, and this book is one of the few that makes it onto my "reread someday" list. (P.S., the movie is incredible as well, and is one of the few that seems to follow the book as accurately as possible.)

2. The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas

I actually finished this book in record time -- I just could not put it down. The Hate U Give is a gritty, realistic view into what it's like to grow up black in America, and the unique set of challenges that black people face in regards to police brutality and everyday racism -- from friends as well as foes. After 17-year-old Starr witnesses her friend's death at the hands of a cop, she must decide whether to keep her mouth shut or risk bringing attention -- mostly negative -- to herself. Who will believe her, anyway? This book was so profoundly impactful while being written in the voice of a teenage girl, conflicted and alone. Definitely one of my top books of all time.

3. Ready Player One by Ernest Cline

Honestly, I didn't have high expectations coming into this book. I had seen posters for the movie, and assumed it was just another 3-star read with a profitable idea to make into a movie. I am glad to say that I was wrong. This book, set in the year 2045, follows the adventures of teenager Wade Watts as he navigates the world of the OASIS, an online utopia in which citizens live out their lives, in search of a formidable prize hidden someone in the OASIS's thousands of worlds. Wade is a lower-income resident, and the OASIS is all he has -- so he's willing to risk it all for the chance to win the prize and discover the secret of the online universe's creator. This novel is fast-paced and well-written, and is a must-read for anyone who loves anything 80s, as the challenge is focused around 80s culture. (Call Ferris Bueller -- we're going on one heck of an adventure.)

4. Little Fires Everywhere by Celeste Ng

Despite the books listed previously, I typically tend to read nonfiction or classic literature, and don't often branch out into contemporary fiction. But I had heard rave reviews of Little Fires Everywhere, so I decided to check it out, and it quickly became a favorite of mine. The narrative reminds me of that of East of Eden by John Steinbeck, my favorite novel of all time, in the way that it follows the struggles and interconnectedness of a family, somehow without having an explicitly describable plot ("I don't know, they just...exist") but still managing to pull you in just as deep. Like East of Eden, Little Fires Everywhere follows the story of two very different families: the Richardsons, a large, wealthy family with multiple strong, conflicting personalities; and the Warrens, a small, close-knit mother and daughter duo who never lay roots in any one place. The story has a sort of coming-of-age feel to it, as the lives of the Richardson and Warren teens and their age-appropriate struggles are discussed, but also a hint of mystery as Mrs. Richardson attempts to track down the origins of the mysterious Mia Warren. This book made me laugh, cry, and everything in between, and I was so obsessed that I finished the 11-and-a-half-hour-long audiobook in the span of five days (despite the fact that I worked double shifts most of those days). Again, this book is definitely one of my favorites of all time, and one of the rare stories whose characters you still wonder about long after the book is over.

5. Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics by Richard H. Thaler

I have never taken an economics course (though I have dabbled in Crash Course videos here and there) and economics is not an important component of either of my majors (Biological Sciences and Political Science). However, this book was so intriguing that I promptly forgot both of those points. Misbehaving is an excellent introduction to behavioral economics, written simply enough that someone with little to no background knowledge in economics (such as myself) can comprehend, but still intricate enough that the material couldn't fit in a ten-minute Youtube video. Thaler, one of the earliest behavioral economists, describes how the subject came into importance among other economic and business-related topics, as well as how its marriage of economic and financial principles and behavioral psychology lend important insights to businesses as well as individuals. The difficulty of the content is offset with plenty of easy-to-understand examples, and the book reads like a history driven by discovery, with reviews of behavioral economics principles along the way. Though the subject of economics is not one that interests me as much as, say, politics or medicine, I still thoroughly enjoyed this book, and would recommend it as an interesting read that serves as a light workout for your brain.

6. The Radium Girls: The Dark Story of America’s Shining Women” by Kate Moore

I'd be lying if I said this book didn't make me cry multiple times. The Radium Girls is a true story of America's dial painters, the hundreds of young women who painted radium onto watches during the First World War, and the consequences of their position on their health and livelihood. In the days of World War I, jobs for women were few and far between, and becoming a dial painter was the most coveted position among women in their late teens and early twenties, unmarried and looking for some pocket money to buy the latest trends. This narrative follows the story of these dial-painters and how their distinct, omnipresent glow of radium dust went from being wondrous to becoming deadly. As the poisonous radium attacked these young women's bodies, causing them to rapidly and irreparably decay, the radium girls fought for the right to be heard, and to stop the radium industry from pulling any more girls into its vehement trap. This book was deeply heart-wrenching, following the lives of a few bright-eyed young dial painters to their young graves, and a valuable insight into the suppression of women's voices in the early 20th century.

7. The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo by Taylor Jenkins Reid

This novel was another popular book that I didn't expect to enjoy nearly as much as I did. The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo is a biography of the life of fictitious movie star Evelyn Hugo, as told to the young and relatively unknown reporter Monique Grant. Evelyn unfurls her story, from escaping poverty to begin her acting career in her late teens, and the myriad of men that came into and left her life across the span of her career and its aftermath. I won't spoil the big twist (or two) that the novel provides, but it most certainly wasn't the "straight bullsh*t" I was expecting based on its title. It is an intense, poignant life of a woman who dared to obtain what she wanted by any means possible, only to discover that her heart lied elsewhere.

8. Eleanor Oliphant is Completely Fine by Gail Honeyman

This book was a humorous yet momentous glance into the life of a woman named Eleanor Oliphant, who is perfectly fine, thank you very much. Eleanor doesn't really fit in at the office; her harsh realism and her inability to understand social cues make that quite difficult. But that's fine, because Eleanor has it all planned out. Every week, she follows the same plan, never deviating from her schedule of Wednesday night calls with Mummy, Friday night frozen pizzas, and sleeping off a vodka hangover every Saturday morning. However, when Eleanor and her coworker Raymond save the life of an elderly gentleman who fell near them on their way to work one day, Eleanor's life begins to change in profound ways, and she realizes that maybe "fine" isn't the best way to be, after all. Eleanor's story was touching yet hilarious, and was yet another novel that I could not put down. For anyone looking for a novel starring an out-of-the-ordinary heroine and lacking a predictable romance component, Eleanor Oliphant is Completely Fine is the novel for you.

9. The President is Missing by Bill Clinton and James Patterson

This fast-paced, gritty novel breaks the wall between the life of a president and the nation, and introduces us to the world of Washington politics and the counterterrorism approach. The President is Missing follows President Duncan, a tenacious war veteran, as he attempts to circumvent impeachment trials brought forth by members of the opposite party while maintaining the secret of a massive, nation-decimating cyber threat from the citizens of the U.S. This narrative is fast-paced, with twists and turns at every stop, and kept me guessing until the end what the outcome would be. The novel reads like a classic James Patterson thriller with the added expertise of a former president to reveal the intricacies of American politics and the battles of the elites.

10. Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking by Susan Cain

My final novel is one that I finished a mere four days prior to writing this post, but one that already has a special place in my heart. Quiet explores the world of introverts, from their underrepresentation in U.S. culture and their hidden talents unique from extroverts. Though I identify as an ambivert (both extroverted and introverted), I felt this was an incredible analysis into the powers of introverts, and why American society should stop trying to force the extrovert ideal on those that are not born to be extroverted. I particularly enjoyed how Cain drew in principles of biology, psychology, and business, and described not only how introverts are wired differently from birth, but their benefits to jobs that are even as high-stakes and fast-paced as the stock market. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who struggles with introversion (if you dread speaking in front of a class, this is probably you) or anyone interested in the biological basis of personality and behavior.

Out of the 46 books I read in 2018, those are the ones that have stood out to me the most, and I would certainly recommend each and every one of them. If you would like more book recommendations, feel free to ask -- I'm always reading something new! Happy new year!

#this graphic isn't cute but i tried lmao #bookblr #2018 #bookgram #reader #studyblr #studyspo #studygram #studytube #books #libraries #book recs #student #college #xx

6 notes · View notes

superkickingit · 6 years

Text

Kelsi Likes 90s Nickelodeon

Full Video:

youtube

Go to the bottom of this post to see all of my 90s Nickelodeon recommendations including documentaries, books, videos, podcasts, and more!

Recently, I decided to start a weekly show called “Kelsi Likes.” The title is an anagram! Each episode is about a different topic with only one thing in common...that I LIKE it!

I’ll be doing episodes on wrestling, cartoons, my favorite movies, horror, my love of Halloween, tv shows, characters, my love for the 90s and so much more!

But the first episode is about something very near and dear to my heart...

90s Nickelodeon <3

Now it’s important to note that there had been a few unique and out-of-the-box children’s shows BEFORE this time period, such as Pee Wee’s Playhouse (CBS 1986-1990 with reruns throughout the 1991). In my personal opinion, I can imagine that this show had a huge influence on American children’s television in general. It was hip, fun, and it had animation combined with live action. It also became very popular among college-aged adults. At the time of its airing, it was a cultural phenomenon.

I haven’t found any written evidence to support this statement, but I think that this show could have easily influenced Nick’s new direction in the 90s. Nick wanted to go into a “creator driven” direction with their new animation department, and Pee Wee’s Playhouse was very much creator driven (Paul Ruebens). The art of the playhouse compared to the art style of Nickelodeon studios, Nickelodeon’s graphics, and Nickelodeon’s colorful style all seem very similar. And both Nickelodeon and Pee Wee appealed to adult audiences. Not to mention one of Nick’s first animated undertakings - Rugrats - used the same music producer as Pee Wee’s Playhouse: Mark Mothersbaugh. Regardless of any actual influence or not, there are similarities between Nick’s style and the style of Pee Wee’s Playhouse.

Overall, the 90s, more so than the 80s and earlier, marked a great time for children’s television, specifically cartoons. It was a time when television was changing - there was a “show about nothing” and sitcoms that tackled emotional issues that hadn’t been breached before (i.e. Roseanne, Boy Meets World, etc.).

But you now also had non-toy driven, stylistically different animated series. A big part of that particular change, marked by a shift in style and attitude, was implemented and influenced by Nickelodeon.

Some people argue that these overly positive perceptions of 90s Nick can be attributed mostly to nostalgia.

Nostalgia can warp a person’s perception of what is good vs what’s bad. It can make you remember something terrible very fondly because you grew up watching it. i.e. some of the attitude era’s worst parts are glossed over because of nostalgia, and Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers can be really corny to try and rewatch today – but we still love it because we grew up with it.

Having said that, there are many reasons why Nickelodeon in the 90s WAS actually revolutionary, yielding some of the greatest children’s television shows of all time – regardless of the nostalgia factor.

Nick in the 90s was TV made FOR KIDS...but COOL ENOUGH that adults could enjoy it as well.

To get an adult perspective, since he watched Nick with me as I grew up, I asked my dad, “Why did you let me watch some of the shows like Ren and Stimpy and Rocko that seem like they were a little mature?”

His answer was simple, “Because I wanted to watch those shows. I liked them.” Thus proving that adults, especially lovers of animation, truly enjoyed Nick’s 90s programming.

For additional research I began reading the book “Nickelodeon Nation: The History, Politics, and Economics of America's Only TV Channel for Kids.”

It provided some fascinating insight behind some of the programming decisions made by Nickelodeon to create what we now so fondly remember.

The book outlines that there was a large shift in thinking behind the scenes at Nickelodeon during the late eighties, early nineties:

In 1989, Geraldine Laybourne became network president. In “Nickelodeon Nation,” it describes an important meeting that took place at Laybourne’s house that year in which the people involved in the network mapped out the new vision for Nickelodeon and the “philosophy” used in regards to developing the Nicktoons of the 90s. It’s interesting to note that Geraldine’s husband, Kit Laybourne, was an animator. Thus, we can deduce that he had some influence on her pro-animation mindset.

A topic of conversation at that meeting was the current styles of animation that was out at the time. The executives at the meeting deduced that many cartoons of that time period “all looked alike” and that many shows used a “cookie cutter” approach to animation over artistry and creativity.

The book also states that Laybourne believed that “the best characters lived inside the hearts of their creators...”

These concepts became building blocks for the budding animation department, and a creator-driven series approach was born.

Nick then proceeded to seek out artists and independent companies who had interesting ideas and concepts for animated shows. The network then commissioned eight, five minute pilots. The goal was to use focus groups of children to screen these pilots and then it would be decided which four of the eight pilots would be turned into full-length animated series. This was an unusual approach at the time. (It was a very costly undertaking to start a pilot-based system.)

The result yielded three animated series (instead of the original plan of four) which aired in 1991: Rugrats, Ren and Stimpy and Doug. During this same time, the channel also revamped its style, bumpers, promos, etc.

I highly recommend the book Nickelodeon Nation to anyone who wants to learn more about the transformation of Nickelodeon as a network and its journey to becoming a powerhouse of children’s television as well as how the network influenced and affected popular culture. There are some really in depth articles in the book which include discussions on Nick at Nite, the live action game shows, and much more.

I put some polls out on my Twitter to gauge which shows and characters people love and remember the most:

Not only did Nickelodeon have an impact in animation history, but their live action line up was also diverse, unique, and revolutionary.

The Adventures of Pete and Pete, Clarissa Explains it All, Kenan and Kel, All That, Double Dare, Are You Afraid of the Dark?, Guts, Salute Your Shorts, Legends of the Hidden Temple and so many other shows were staples of 90s Nick.

These shows weren’t your typical kids’ fare. In the Adventures of Pete and Pete, Little Pete’s best friend was essentially a grown man who deemed himself to be a superhero of sorts, “The Strongest Man in the World,” Artie. Not sure if that character would be included in a Nick show today. Also, Little Pete had an unexplained tattoo of an adult woman on his arm. Why were they both named Pete? It didn’t matter! As kids we didn’t care that it was weird, we just loved that weirdness and many of us “90s kids” still feel enthralled by all the strangeness. In many cases, that 90s strangeness helped shape who we are today.

Looking back now, a lot of these shows, both animated and live action, still hold up. As adults, there are new elements to enjoy that you never noticed before - the references we were too young to get, the artistry behind the animation, the music, and/or the style of every show they produced, and we can now fully appreciate, in awe, the sheer amount of slime and pies used to film all of the Nick game shows!

Another important aspect of 90s Nickelodeon was their philosophy of embracing childhood. Many Nick shows of this time period did not talk down to kids but rather emphasized the humor, creativity, imagination, the stories, and sometimes the plain silliness that kids wanted to see.

With the help of focus groups and unique, creative material crafted by inspired and invested creators I feel that Nick struck gold with its programming in the 90s.

Yes, nostalgia is still a big reason that many of us “90s kids” look back on this time with a smile and a sense longing to go back, but I think it’s clear that Nickelodeon did produce some wonderful, uniquely different content in the 90s that has since stood the test of time, has made its mark in television history, and still holds a special place in the hearts of many.

For more 90s Nickelodeon-themed content, Kelsi Recommends:

- Big Orange Couch: The 90s Nickelodeon Podcast:

Episode 100 - “Listeners’ Favorite Nickelodeon Episodes”

Episode 95 - "Favorite First Seasons"

Episode 1 - "Favorite Opening Credits"

Episode 65 - “The Adventures of Pete and Pete: King of the Road”

Follow them on Twitter

Follow them on Instagram

- The Nick Box quarterly mystery crate from thenickbox.com

Crates are filled with very unique items including Nicktoons and live action Nick-themed merchandise. All the items are of great quality, and the mystery crate is worth every penny.

- The NickRewind Channel on YouTube

Playlists and videos on all kinds of old Nick shows which includes interesting information and tidbits. i.e. Kennan and Kel Take on the Double Dare Obstacle Course; an Old Nicksclusive playlist; etc.

The Music & Sound Behind Doug | On the Orange Couch: Doug

A whole playlist on Pete and Pete called “PeteandPeteTakeover”

Fun Video about Artie

- An interesting article written by Lawrence Burney

In the article he interviewed the creator of Doug: Jim Jinkins

- “I Know that Voice” documentary on Amazon Prime

A great film about voice acting. It was released in 2013. 150 interviews of producers, animators, and voice actors were conducted for this film. There were rumors of a release of a series of the same name that would expand on the documentary. It was supposed to be released in 2018, but I couldn’t find any other information on it.

- theadventuresofdannyandmike.com

The actors from Pete and Pete have their own podcast

They also do nostalgia tours

- Nick Animation Podcast

Episode 49 - “The Making of an Iconic Theme Song”

Episode 31 - “E.G. Daily”

- Book: Nickelodeon Nation: The History, Politics, and Economics of America's Only TV Channel for Kids.

Buy on Amazon

Book Review

- Book: Slimed!: An Oral History of Nickelodeon’s Golden Age

1 note · View note

xtruss · 3 years

Text

US Asks Taliban to ‘Spare’ Its Embassy, Sends 3,000 Troops to Evacuate It

“The Empire Down to Pleading, Begging, and Bribing”

— Empire Woes | Dave DeCamp | August 13, 2021

In the meantime Herat and Kandahar have fallen to Taliban

The US is sending about 3,000 troops to Afghanistan to help evacuate some personnel from the US embassy in Kabul as the Taliban is making rapid gains across the country.

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said the US is sending three infantry battalions that are due to arrive at the airport in Kabul within 48 hours. Additionally, an entire infantry brigade combat team is being sent to Kuwait to be put on stand by that could also be deployed to Afghanistan, and 1,000 troops are being deployed to Qatar to process visas for Afghan interpreters who worked for the US. In total, the US is deploying 8,000 troops to the Gulf and Afghanistan.

State Department spokesman Ned Price said the US would be “further reducing our civilian footprint in Kabul” but insisted that the embassy was not closing. He said there will be a “drawdown” of diplomatic personnel, but did not specify how many people are expected to leave. There are about 4,000 civilian personnel at the embassy, including 1,400 US citizens.

The US embassy in Kabul issued a warning to US citizens in Afghanistan on Thursday to leave the country immediately. “Given the security conditions and reduced staffing, the embassy’s ability to assist US citizens in Afghanistan is extremely limited even within Kabul,” a notice on the embassy’s website said.

— Source: Antiwar.com

As Afghanistan continues to fall apart at the seams, the Taliban invasion of Kabul appears imminent, and the odds of the Ghani government handling that attack are not good. This has the US considering what to do about its embassy there.

Early in the day, officials talked openly about the idea that the embassy would be relocated to the Kabul Airport, to make it easier to evacuate outright if the security situation gets any worse. The situation getting worse seems inevitable.

Indeed, the Biden Administration is sending some 3,000 troops to Kabul to facilitate the evacuation, and is planning to remove all but the core staff . The troops are scheduled to arrive within 48 hours.

Even that may not be enough, however, and negotiator Zalmay Khalilzad is turning to the Taliban to try to prevail upon them to spare the US Embassy from attack if and when Kabul gets hit.

The exchange here is that the Taliban would promise not to attack the embassy, and that the US would keep open the possibility of giving foreign aid to the Taliban government in the future. The US, of course, did provide aid to the Taliban before the invasion and occupation.

That this is publicly being put on the table at all is interesting, as US officials talking about the possible evacuation earlier in the day were insisting that if the Taliban took over Afghanistan “with guns” they’d never be eligible for US aid.

That’s not a total shock, as the US historically throws aid around to almost everyone for the sake of influence. Still, holding it out publicly to the Taliban mid-takeover underscores how cynically they view the fall of Afghanistan for the sake of aid. US law would frown upon sending aid to the Taliban militants after the takeover, but as has been the case after recent coups in places like Egypt, what the law says doesn’t always impact policy.

— Source: Antiwar.com

“Not Our Tragedy”: The Taliban Are Coming Back, and America Is Still Leaving

President Biden made it very clear this week that we’re out of Afghanistan, no matter what.

Regarding Afghanistan, the Biden Administration seems to have calculated that the President will not suffer politically from leaving behind an unwinnable war.Photograph by Alex Wong / Getty

At least Joe Biden is owning it. “I do not regret my decision,” the President said this week, as provincial capital after provincial capital in Afghanistan fell to the Taliban while the Afghan government—propped up by two decades of U.S. support—looked soon to suffer its long-predicted post-American collapse. “Afghan leaders have to come together. We lost thousands—lost to death and injury—thousands of American personnel. They’ve got to fight for themselves, fight for their nation,” Biden said on Tuesday, making it as clear as he could that he would not revisit his decision to pull out. America is finally, definitively, done with the war in Afghanistan after two decades, never mind the consequences.

The words from the Biden Administration in the face of this unfolding disaster have been strikingly cold. Biden himself, normally the most empathetic of politicians, did not address the predictable and predicted human tragedy that his April decision to withdraw the roughly thirty-five hundred U.S. troops remaining in Afghanistan has now unleashed. The White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, followed his comments by blaming the Afghan military, which the U.S. funded, trained, equipped, and built over twenty years, for its fate. “They have what they need,” she said. “What they need to determine is if they have the political will to fight back.” The State Department, for its part, put out the word that it was making a last-ditch diplomatic push to convince the Taliban that their government will be an international pariah if they take over the country by force. Does anyone think that will stop them?

There is, quite obviously, a calculation behind all this, which is that, after all this time and with more than enough blame to go around in both parties, Biden will not suffer politically from leaving behind an unwinnable war. Put bluntly, there is a strongly held belief in Washington that Americans simply do not care what happens in Afghanistan. Poll numbers back it up. Politicians in both parties, with notable exceptions, have generally supported Biden’s decision or at least have acquiesced to it, which leaves them either to second-guess Biden’s execution or simply to say nothing at all. (Cue the second-guesser himself, Donald Trump, whose exit deal with the Taliban Biden has largely stuck with, despite the Taliban’s failure to abide by its provisions. “It should have been done much better,” Trump said in a statement on Thursday, about the withdrawal. Of course he did.)

“The general sense seems to be, ‘Hey, look, we’ve spent a lot of blood and treasure there for twenty years, we’ve done a lot, there’s a limit to what any country can do,’ ” Richard Fontaine, a former foreign-policy adviser to the late Senator John McCain who now heads the Center for a New American Security, told me. “This is tragic, but it’s not our tragedy.” While Fontaine and I were talking on Thursday, the news came from the Associated Press that Herat, Afghanistan’s third-largest city and the gateway to the country’s west, had fallen to the Taliban. Hours later, Kandahar, Afghanistan’s second-largest city and the birthplace of the Taliban movement, had fallen as well. Kabul, the capital, will soon be encircled by the Taliban, who in a matter of weeks have taken control of twelve of the country’s thirty-four provincial capitals. By the time you read this, that number may well be higher. On Thursday afternoon, the State Department and Pentagon announced that the U.S. military is sending in some three thousand troops to help evacuate much of the U.S. Embassy staff from Kabul. Bitter irony of ironies—that was approximately the number of U.S. troops still deployed in Afghanistan when Biden decided to pull them out and perhaps insure the government falling to the Taliban in the first place.

None of this was a surprise, despite Biden’s embarrassing comment just last month that it was “highly unlikely” the Taliban would soon be “overrunning everything and owning the whole country.” Senior U.S. government officials knew what was coming, even if they hoped for better, or at least for more time until the Taliban onslaught—akin to the “decent interval” Richard Nixon sought between his own withdrawal from Vietnam and the inevitable victory of the North over the South. They were neither “clueless” nor “delusional,” as a person who has recently spoken with Biden’s advisers about Afghanistan put it to me. To those who were paying attention, there was a grim inevitability to the week’s events. The Pentagon has warned every one of the last four Presidents that an abrupt U.S. withdrawal would lead to some version of the Afghan military debacle we are seeing this week.

Still, in the four months since Biden’s decision was announced, I have been surprised by the lack of concrete debate and discussion about what the real consequences are of the pullout. Why? It’s hard to say for sure. Political calculation by both parties is part of it, undoubtedly, as well as the all-too-pressing problem of too much else terrible going on, with American democracy in crisis and a horrible summer coronavirus surge. But events on the ground do not wait for Washington, and this is the week that the consequences have started to reveal themselves. So, the question must be, and is starting to be, asked: What will come next from this disaster?

It is much easier to neither ask nor answer that question; it is easier to keep litigating the question of who is to blame for twenty years’ and two trillion dollars’ worth of war. Over two decades, there have been many, many rounds of this: George W. Bush botching Afghanistan because he decided to invade Iraq instead. Barack Obama botching Afghanistan because he decided to surge troops but then told the Taliban exactly when he would pull them back out. By the time Trump, eager to end the war but endlessly equivocating about how to do so, made what by most accounts was a terrible deal with the Taliban, in February of 2020, the multiple crises inside the United States meant that the deal received little to no attention in a capital consumed by impeachment, a pandemic, and economic collapse.

Biden himself was long a skeptic of what could be accomplished in Afghanistan, and when Obama debated the surge in 2009, Biden was on the losing side against it. This time, he made clear to his team that he would not bow to the generals. He even kept Trump’s Taliban negotiator, the former Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, in place. In April, overriding the Pentagon recommendations and the fears of some of his advisers, Biden took the politically expedient course of declaring the “Forever War” ended on his watch. It is surely on Biden as much as on Trump how the pullout appears to have been organized: so rapidly that there were no plans in place to evacuate the twenty thousand Afghan interpreters who worked for the U.S., and without agreements secured in advance for regional bases from which to conduct the counterterrorism mission that the U.S. says it will continue. U.S. forces completed their withdrawal without major incident, but now come the urgent unanswered questions: Will the Taliban take Kabul by force? Will they march in before the upcoming twentieth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which were planned and launched by Al Qaeda from Afghanistan, and which prompted the U.S. war there in the first place? Is there any realistic chance remaining of a negotiated settlement between the Afghan government and the Taliban to prevent such an outcome?

When I spoke with a senior Biden Administration official late Thursday, those were the questions the White House was focussing on, after a day of grim news that made clear only bad scenarios remain. “There is a totally credible possibility of some kind of deal cut here. And I think there is a totally credible possibility that the Taliban, riding high on adrenaline and momentum and whatever else they’re on, enter the city violently,” the senior official told me. “Those are both credible possibilities, and we need to be prepared for both and operating effectively on both tracks. That’s what we’re doing with our deployment, and that’s what we’re doing with our diplomacy.”

When I spoke on Thursday with experts who have decades of Afghan experience between them about the week’s events, they were contemplating even more apocalyptic scenarios for what may come. “Is this going to be Biden’s Rwanda?” asked one longtime acquaintance, whom I met in Kabul in the spring of 2002, full of determination to build a modern, functioning state out of the post-Taliban, post-9/11 rubble. Or, perhaps, “Al Qaeda/isis 3.0”? The possibilities, from large-scale human-rights atrocities to a new center for international jihadist terrorism, are bloodcurdling.

I mentioned the fear of an “Al Qaeda/isis 3.0” to Peter Bergen, the journalist and author who has just released “The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden.” Bergen, who interviewed bin Laden in the nineteen-nineties in Afghanistan and whom I met there when I was sent by the Washington Post to cover the war in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, told me that he thought the catastrophe in Afghanistan was very similar to the isis blitzkrieg into Iraq that followed the U.S.’s 2011 withdrawal. “The movie is exactly the same movie,” he said. “It’s basically the isis playbook.” Whether and when the Taliban roll into Kabul, it’s already clear that we are looking at a renewed and violent civil war. In short, he added, “It’s a fucking mess.” Which, come to think of it, is a pretty fair epitaph for this whole sorry affair.

— The New Yorker | August 13, 2021

0 notes

anotherheromusic-blog · 7 years

Link

The short answer is: The rise of popular phrases such as “Handouts” and “Free Rides” is the result of a political propaganda campaign designed to misrepresent factual data and create an emotional response in citizens so it becomes easier to push an agenda onto them that they will get behind and support.

It is the rule in war, if ten times the enemy’s strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, be able to divide them; if equal, engage them; if fewer, defend against them; if weaker, be able to avoid them. – Sun Tzu

This may not be “war” but the mainstream media in the United States is certainly a battleground of ideas and the most important tool toward swaying public opinion away or toward a particular agenda. Phrases like “Handouts” and “Free Ride” have been growing in popularity not because the public decided to randomly use these words more frequently, but because these words were being used to divide our population and create conflict among the lower class. It is hardly a metaphor to say they have the poor fighting the poor for picking up too many crumbs.

(Rise in popularity of the search term “free ride” has almost doubled on Google search engines from 2012 to 2017)

The long answer:

Let’s focus first on an example of common welfare propaganda in mainstream media to show just how fabricated some of their information is. Here is one image which has been routinely circulating the internet regarding this debate about welfare fraud and it’s exaggerated impact on the U.S. economy:

“New American way of life” propaganda article by John Tabb

Some of these ideas may be accurate but the way it paints this minuscule percentage of the population who would use such a complex fraud as the cause of our “$18 trillion plus in debt” is purposely misleading. The author clearly has a political agenda in writing this. It is clearly not about the statistics at all, it’s about pushing a political agenda.

This is a very complex fraud and would require pretty in-depth research to prove false. Working that hard to find a way to circumvent the system is practically a job in of itself. My initial feeling was that I seriously doubt enough people would implement such a scam for it to impact our economy in the slightest. It’s the same as any other criminal fraud scam, the only difference is this one is being presented in the media.

My initial feeling was that, before researching the validity of this article at all, I would be more concerned with bailouts of corporations who screwed up our economy than I would this tiny percent of welfare fraud, but that is a no-no to talk about in the media (since the media is owned by the same crowd getting the bailouts)

Also this article doesn’t cite it’s sources for this information therefore making it even more difficult to prove wrong. But that is the nature of propaganda: It isn’t designed to help make our lives better or help our economy, it’s to rile people up and get their support for a political agenda.

But after researching further I found this article was completely debunked. This emotionally charged propaganda was covered by Snope.com which has this to say about the article:

As is often the case with e-mail polemics focused on purported welfare abuse and taxpayer outrage, the “New American Way of Life” offers an implausible, far-fetched scenario to condemn those who use public assistance to make ends meet.

Regarding the misrepresentation of Section 8 housing legislation they go on to say:

Points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the forward pertain to the imagined generosity of the housing program colloquially called “Section 8,” the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) assistance program that provides very low-income families with subsidized vouchers they can use towards paying a portion of their monthly rent.

While Section 8 is frequently derided in the fashion referenced above, it’s very difficult to play the system in the manner described due to the low supply versus tremendous demand for housing and vouchers among those in need of it. Applicants typically have to spend years on waiting lists before Section 8 housing becomes available, and in many cases it takes years to even get one’s name on a waiting list in the first place. (Source – http://www.snopes.com/new-american-way-life/ )

I don’t want to delve too deeply into the complex “Why” behind Welfare propaganda and the purposely misleading data behind it becoming so readily regurgitated on the internet in countless debates across social media and news outlets, but I have a few points I want to make.

First off, the amount of government spending on Welfare (and the perceived effect of welfare fraud on our economy) is insignificant at best, and purposely misleading to create conflict with divide and conquer tactics at worst.

Click image if it does not display properly.

(Total Government Spending in the United States, Federal, State, and Local Fiscal Year 2017) Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown

Notice how Welfare is less than 10% of our Federal Budget

To even mention welfare fraud as if it is some big problem is to be either unaware of the scope of corporate fraud or prejudiced against the poor. There is no middle-ground.

My point is not to defend criminal welfare fraud. My point is that the media has the citizens of the U.S. bitching about this .005% of the population who are abusing this system instead of the massive corporate bailouts and complete corruption of our government by big money from 13 or so families who are literally trying to take over the nation by turning the population against eachother through media outlets they control and the politicians they have helped put into power with their inordinate wealth.Welfare fraud is mathematically insignificant when compared to even one government “bailout” of Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, General Motors, and other such tragedies. (Companies that did not need to be bailed out, or should have been left to be replaced by another company)Let us not forget how the government gave an 85 BILLION dollar bailout to AIG which they then proceeded to spend $440,000 of on a massive party.Corporate corruption, corporate fraud, corporate financial crimes are FAR FAR FAR more significant and impactful on our daily lives than the drop in the bucket of welfare fraud. To even mention welfare fraud as if it is some big problem is to be either unaware of the scope of corporate fraud or prejudiced against the poor. There is no middle-ground.

To describe the psychology of the American citizens passionately uniting against one another to fight with the poor while ignoring massive corporate and political corruption is basically a prisoner becoming the prison warden mentality. The poor are fighting the poor and calling it a “handout” when someone receives welfare because they believe there are an abundance of welfare users who blow all their “free” money on material bullshit they were brainwashed into buying and too few welfare users who are using it to provide for their family.

What they fail to realize, however, is both of these types of welfare users are a victim of a hyper commercialized society where businesses and business owners get away with murder while the poor fight with one another over the crumbs.

No one gets a handout. No one can live off welfare alone. No poor person receiving a “handout” is holding society back like it is portrayed on popular media. The truth is the banking cartels, media moguls, megalithic real estate owners and their little clubs are the ones holding us back.

I repeatedly encounter arguments when I try to bring up the stratification of wealth issue and bring attention to corporate bailouts and criminal acts committed by massively rich families in public conversation such as:

“Your destiny in life is brought to you by your everyday choices..

The choice is yours!! You can’t blame anyone for where you end up in life.

I’m tired of hearing the poor blame the rich for their own problems”

What a nice sentiment. Truly it is the American dream. It is partly true, the philosophy is sound, we certainly cannot make our lives better by complaining and whining and not doing anything to better our lives. We can accomplish anything we put our minds to, I truly believe that.

HOWEVER there are millions of people in the U.S. who have the odds stacked against them and must work 4 times harder due to what tax bracket they were born into. Look at the historical standard oil monopoly for an example of how the theory: “the choice is yours! You can’t blame anyone for where you end up in life” works when you’re up against the Rockefellers who eliminated their competition with illegal bribes, back door deals and economic might.

Look at the JP Morgan empire which practically single-handedly caused the great depression. People who reduce these issues to “anyone can be rich with hard work, and it isn’t the rich people’s fault” simply do not know what the word “rich” means.

Rich is not a suburban family with a 3 story house, 4 cars, a yacht and 10 big screen Tvs.

Rich is being able to destabilize a small nation by investing against it’s economic interests, being able to cause war over your oil empire…Rich is the families who, if threatened by another new business opening in their field, will merely buy the business and acquire it’s assets, and if that business does not agree to be bought then using your economic might, strong arm it completely out of the market and force their stocks to plummet.

This is the reality of American business 90% of the public is not aware of when they argue about these topics on social media. They reduce immense discussions on inequality and manipulative business practices that harm the entire world to “liberal” and “conservative”: political garbage that misses the entire point.

It takes money to make money and as any investor knows, a 1000 dollar investment with a 140% ROI is far less valuable than a 100,000 dollar investment with the same return.

We can’t say these philosophy quotes as if they are a solution to the problem of stratification of wealth and consolidation of resources and power. Those quotes are not the same for you and I as they are for the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the Morgan’s, the Warburgs, etc. Names most people haven’t even heard of yet the world’s most wealthy and influential people (yet the media rarely talks about them…

)

It’s not about people not working hard or relying on “handouts” it’s about 13 families having so much control over land, resources and political influence that their vote is worth 100,000,000 times our vote, and their consolidation of wealth affects our ability to prosper.

People who comment on these topics with their “Hell yeah AMEN Brotha! End the free rides!” are generally ignorant and they truly believe that when I bring attention to how the megalithic corporation owners are the real problem, that I am bitching about my neighbor who has 2 hummers, a jetski, and kids attending private school…. How shortsighted, people truly don’t know what a rich person is. They have no f****ng clue there are men who make more while they are taking a shit then they will their entire lives.

No matter how “in control” or “free” you think you are you will NEVER, EVER be free like the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Warburgs, the Morgan’s and their little clubs.

That is the point I am trying to make here.

The rich have the poor believing they are truly at fault for the problems of the U.S. and pardon my sensationalist commentary here but is it really that different from the jews being blamed for the economic struggle of Germany before WWII?

The problem never has been and never will be the poor or the lazy. The problem is the rich and dedicated psychopaths who make their life pursuit to amass as much control and resources as humanly possible at the expense of everyone else.

Closing Remarks

It seems to me, pretty dark, that there are citizens who spend enough time in their life watching the poor and judging their actions to the point of becoming physically sick and tired when they don’t do what they want them to do. It doesn’t take long, reading through comments about welfare to find some rather disturbing misconceptions about the poor in our nation.

The public response to welfare seems callous, devoid of empathy, devoid of human recognition, like these people on welfare aren’t human beings to them but rather some diseased animal somehow perceivably limiting their capacity for growth merely by their desire for food and snacks.

Considering welfare is one of the smallest percentages of what the U.S. budget goes towards, it is insightful to study the public reaction toward these claims of “handouts” and “free rides”, terms that seem to have exploded in popularity in the past 5 years.

Why would the public be so focused on such a small percentage of the federal budget but speak with such sensationalist language and rhetoric which makes it seem as if we are in some sort of national state of emergency due to welfare inefficiency…?

Waste may be waste and these programs are not perfect, but why do I get the feeling these people yelling about “handouts” do not feel so passionately about any of the other wasteful actions of the government or big business? Why does welfare bother these people to the point of outrage and public declarations of “the free ride must end!”

Why is it such a plaguing issue? The answer is it is not. There are far far worse and more serious tax related problems we could be talking about but those discussions do not take place because everyone is focused on welfare “handouts”

To those of you who are attacking welfare on social media: How does it affect you? It doesn’t. You falsely believe this welfare inefficiency is impacting your life and it is not. You have been misled. It doesn’t make you a bad person, you’ve been manipulated by the media and a propaganda campaign designed to pit the poor against the poor and I’m sorry if you didn’t know, you are also poor. There is no middle class, you are either poor or you are massively rich.

– Another Hero

12 notes · View notes

sableaire · 7 years

Note

Thank you for responding, so my question has to do with mental health in Korea. So I know that s*****e is very common in Korea, but I wonder what the view of mental illness is thought upon. Are there therapist or mental health clinics? Because whenever I watch documentaries the public don't really make it a big interest, is there a reason as to why? It's very obvious as to why people become s****dal but they don't do anything that will directly impact?? (1/?)

one community intervention I had seen was to make hagwons close at 11:30, but that isn't enough? Right? I'm also very curious about what citizens think of mental health? I read this comment that made me upset but then I released 'oh this is probably a korean mindset tho', and it basically implied that if a person is successful they have no reason to be mentally ill or s****dal, and I wonder if there is a reason for that mindset? (2/3)

I know this is a difficult topic and if you don't want to reply that is perfectly okay I even tried to censor out some triggers and stuff, and last thing mapo bridge is definitely one of the most beautiful things I've seen done to try and help people out (3/3)

Korea does have mental health services - I would know, since I volunteered in one back in middle school, ahaha - but the mental health field is still relatively new and not as advanced as those in some other cultures, a situation which is definitely exacerbated by Korea’s cultural history. I will preface this with the fact that I am not a scholar of Korean history, and these are all my personal interpretations of my passive knowledge of Korean history, as a result of living there in my formative years and interacting with generations of my own family.

As for why the public doesn’t seem to make a big issue of the suicide issue, that’s not necessarily true nowadays - they’re working on it - but part of the reason is because, culturally, families were ashamed of mental illness.

A strong part of the Korean identity is the concept of overcoming hardship, triumphing over adversity. There’s even a word called han in the language, which is believed to be a special kind of grief and despair that only Korean people can understand, as a result of tumultuous history of occupation and oppression. As a result, suicide was often viewed as a reflection of poor moral character, and people found it shameful. And because it was shameful, it wasn’t a topic to speak of in public. However, with advances in mental health studies and campaigns, this mindset is changing, slowly but surely.

As for the thinking that “successful people have no reason to be mentally ill,” that comes directly from post-Korean War sociopolitical climate. After the Korean War, the Korean economy was in shambles. The administration at the time ran a highly successful campaign about how children are the future, and investing in their education will become the future of the country. And it was true, at the time. Emphasis on education did contribute greatly to Korea’s modern economic success. The consequences of that, however, is the current overemphasis of academic success and overwhelming pressure on modern students.

There’s a generation gap in Korea, like any country, but it may be a particularly large gap in Korea because of the Korean War. Back then, Korean people were focused on survival and keeping their families together. Those are the values that were important to them, and if you were alive, had your family together, and on top of that had the wealth/power/success to support your family? In that generation’s view, you have nothing to complain about. They went through a completely different set of hardships. These are the great-grandparents and some grandparents.

And then there’s the generation raised by that generation, who were raised by traumatized families and live through the following political dictatorship, and also were saddled with the burden of helping the nation find its footing. Korea was a small and weak nation, but the Korean people have a lot of national pride. They had values beyond just survival, but Korean culture has always deeply valued sacrifice, and I personally think - in many ways - this was a generation of sacrifices, for both country and family. They were working to make a better future for their children. This is the generation that scrimped and saved to send their kids to America for a better education, better life. Surely the sacrifices made can’t have been easy, but Korean culture tries to turn sacrifice into pride rather than hardship. And because sacrifice was viewed as something of an achievement, something to be admired, suicide was - as a counterbalance - scorned and viewed as cowardice or a burden.

Then we get to the generation of parents, who may have studied overseas, who saw the start of a Korean economic power, and the start of a globalizing world. They were exposed to western culture, western values. They studied in individualist societies. The concept of sacrifice wasn’t a norm anymore. The concept of sacrifice wasn’t a necessary burden. The country no longer operated under a dictatorship, and it was starting to prosper. Values are starting to change.

And then we have my generation - the tech era - and the internet changed Korea completely. Samsung and LG Electronics were forces to be reckoned with in the global market. The country as a whole is pretty prosperous. We know little fear of war. We have no true conception of the horrors of the Korean War. There’s a kpop boom. Foreign countries know who we are, want to know about our culture. Sacrifice is definitely not something we feel is a necessary part of our lives.

So, what happens when all these generations are still operating together in one society? The fact of the matter is, society has evolved super quickly, and modern-day students are completely different people from the older generations. However, those older generations still exist, still shape the overall social climate regarding certain issues such as mental health, such as adult responsibilities, such as what makes a good person. No one is right, and no one is wrong. It’s just that the world changes more quickly than people do, and that’s just a fact.

In the past, success was all anyone wanted. It was what would ensure and define survival or family, etc. and the government propaganda towards that mindset was strong too, because individual successes would be what rebuilds the Korean nation after the Korean War, and also what helps distinguish and redefine ourselves after the havoc caused by US intervention.

Nowadays, success is simultaneously unessential to survival and does not ensure survival. The current generation wants to do more than just survive - we want to live, and we want to live life on our terms and pursue and individual idea of happiness. That’s a value that the older generations either cannot understand or envy. It’s a different world, but their thinking, outlook, habits, and lifestyles were developed in the world of the past.

And us younger folk, we’re still being raised by those older generations, so some of us grow up with their mindsets. Most of us start out thinking that mental illness is something shameful, or that suffering as a student and being successful later on is the only way to live life. But we also learn from interacting with the world and our peers that that is not the case. However, the working world and people in power are still the older generation, and over the years the equating of academic success to future success has led academic success to become a matter of social status to families, which adds a new kind of pressure on the younger generations. The people do not change, but social dynamics do, and that’s just how society works.

So it is not that Korean folk do not care about people’s mental health or do not think of suicide as an issue. I whole-heartedly believe that there is a gap between generations that we are still struggling to bridge. However, advances are being made in the mental health industry, and the youth (which includes influential kpop idols!) are growing more outspoken with their views. And on top of that, the older generations are dying out - not necessarily a positive, but it is a fact that will influence social views within the country.

Ultimately, it’s important to understand that the current state of any society is completely shaped by its history. There is sense to any mindset, and though that sense and reasoning may not hold up under modern scrutiny, there was a time in history where it seemed to make sense.

#sableask #korean culture #society #suicide #korea #Anonymous

9 notes · View notes

armeniaitn · 4 years

Text

We Build. They Destroy!

New Post has been published on https://armenia.in-the.news/society/we-build-they-destroy-38897-23-07-2020/

We Build. They Destroy!

A damaged home in the village of Aygepar, July 17, 2020

Nothing sums up the contrast in contributions to our global society of Armenia and Azerbaijan more than this phrase. It is borrowed from several current recovery campaigns such as the Paros Foundation and my good friend, their executive director Peter Abajian. Since 2006 the Paros Foundation, like many other patriotic nonprofits, has worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life of the citizens of Armenia and Artsakh. Much of their incredible work in schools and infrastructure has been in the Tavush region, the current hotspot of Azerbaijani madness. The contrast in core values is why the Armenians have endured the hardships of unilateral attacks and why the latest aggression against Armenia will fail.

Armenians have seen this movie too many times. A small Christian nation, the indigenous population of its multi-millennia homeland is attacked, blockaded and subjected to relentless abuse by barbaric newcomers. Even though the Turks have now been in the region about 1,000 years, to the Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks, they are shallow rooted. This applies also to their treacherous cousins to the west called Azerbaijan. They attack Artsakh and Tavush and have the audacity to “claim” the Republic of Armenia. Despite signing treaties that recognize the sovereign state and international borders of Armenia, Azerbaijani self-interest intersects with criminal behavior. Essentially, with every rant of rhetoric and military incursion, they are violating international laws. But then again, they are only modeling their behavior after their big cousin currently occupying Western Armenia, who has violated the sovereignty of Syria, Iraq and Cyprus and is very close to adding Libya to the list. Yet they are a “valued ally in NATO.” The behavior says a great deal about the integrity of international agreements.

Why will Azerbaijan fail? They are larger (nearly three times the population of Armenia) and wealthier (fortunate to have a desired fossil fuel supply) and in a world lacking political morals, they can buy the silence of many. So much for the bad news. Let’s start by looking at the national makeup of each country and how that impacts their commitment to achieving their objective.

Several years ago while in Artsakh, my family was given a tour of the Artsakh state museum by a remarkable young woman. Her tour work was not a job but a responsibility to educate…to tell the truth. She called Azerbaijan an “artificial nation” which is a phrase I have never forgotten and found to be a key weakness of Azerbaijan. It sits on oil, but also on a shaky foundation. Azerbaijan as a nation state did not exist before 1918. Its name is borrowed from a region in northern Iran. The nation called Azerbaijan and its ethnic makeup reveal a heterogeneous mix. The indigenous Caucasian Albanians were first converted to Islam under Arab and later Persian influence. The Seljuk Turkish invasion (11th century) brought the Turkic influence with language (Oghuz) and culture. Today although a majority are called ethnic Azerbaijani, it is a relatively new combination of multi-ethnic groups, Shia Islam with Turkish influence. There are significant minority groups such as the Lezgins and Talysh who have their own issues of free expression with the ethnic majority. Azerbaijan’s relatively short national history has little experience with democracy. Since its independence from 70 years of Soviet rule, it has been run by autocrats, the latest being the second generation of the corrupt Aliyev clan. When there are lives on the line, the shallow national roots of Azerbaijan will cause its citizens to question who and what they are fighting for.

No such problem with Armenia and Artsakh. Armenia is a study in homogeneity with over 98 percent of its citizens ethnic Armenians adhering to a Christian heritage and speaking a common language. They have also been the indigenous population of the area for centuries. Evidence of the Armenian civilization exists everywhere, except where Azerbaijani authorities have overtly sought to destroy the historic presence of Armenians. When we look at the enclave called Nagorno-Karabakh (as defined by the Soviets), it is really a scaled down version of the centuries old Armenian province of Artsakh. The seven liberated territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh (which are a part of the Republic of Artsakh) along with the still occupied northern Shahumyan and some eastern districts are the bulk of historic Artsakh, which dates back to the first millennia BC (Tigranes Metz). The Azeris’ claim of an historic population presence in Artsakh and the Stalin “award” in 1923 is the basis for their “territorial integrity” rights. The reality is that the demographic changes were forced migration and “artificial” attempts to dilute the Armenian homeland in the 18th to 20th centuries. The Stalin decision was an injustice but was also designated an “autonomous” region. It is not within any definition of “territorial integrity.” One cannot claim what was never theirs to own. A contributor to their continuous failure has been the lack of a substantive justification for their claims. Anyone can bully false claims, but sustaining a motivation with your citizens is entirely another challenge. Aliyev, in the absence of the truth, has propagandized a false narrative based on lies and hatred to feed his naive masses. Any national objective based on hate, anger and racism is not sustainable. This fuels the core motivation of the Azeris towards Artsakh and Armenia. Hatred is not an infinite rechargeable motivation.

This brings us to one of the core issues. What are the two sides fighting for? The Armenians are defending their homes and homeland. It doesn’t get much more personal than that. They are also defending the investment and sacrifices they have made. The departed lives of brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers must not be lost in vain. Since 1991, Artsakh has become a functioning democracy with a parliament and market-driven economy. This is a remarkable accomplishment given the blockades and unrecognized status. With each year of new housing, economic growth, historic preservations and culture, the people of Artsakh build on their core foundation. Remember that Armenians build. In stark contrast, since 1991, Azerbaijan has built their existence almost solely on their good fortune of fossil fuel. It has corrupted their entire economic, political and social existence. Azerbaijan has evolved into a dictatorship where self-preservation dominates and lies and hatred become commonplace. Over the last 30 years, despite the rhetoric of a “national liberation” effort to take Artsakh and Armenia proper, Azerbaijan has employed thousands of mercenaries from Chechens to Islamic terrorists. The latest move seems to be with Turks who are rumored to be sending terrorists from their northern Syrian adventure to Azerbaijan. They are also causing trouble in Nakhichevan where they have a small common border (compliments of Stalin). This is troubling but will also fail. Mercenaries get paid, as the economic base of Azerbaijan is diminishing.

Azerbaijan will never be a match for the landowners defending their families. The professional Armenian military of Armenia and Artsakh is the collateral to guarantee this mandate. They are the successors to Avarayr and Sardarabad where a different generation fought against overwhelming odds and succeeded. Like the Holy Muron of our faith, all these events are connected in spirit. This is the reality that expands the capability of the Armenians and will always limit Azerbaijanis.

Right now, Aliyev is likely betting on two things. He is counting on the world to remain indifferent either by buying silence or general ambivalence. He is also assuming that Armenia will blink and not respond to his provocations. On the former, this is our job in the diaspora to work with the homeland to prevent indifference in host nations. Sanctioning Azerbaijan, influencing political bodies and mounting public support are critical. In this country, the ANCA and the Armenian Assembly of America are busy in this regard. Never underestimate the importance of third parties. Aliyev was hoping that the emergence of a new government under Pashinyan would be more open to “compromise.” Pashinyan has shown himself to be stronger in his words and actions than his predecessors. He and the relevant ministries have been on the offensive diplomatically by countering Azeri rhetoric with substantive positions such as the return of Artsakh as a direct negotiating party. He has skillfully avoided undermining the OSCE mediators despite the frustration of their neutrality. Aliyev, on the other hand, has done everything to countermand their actions by ignoring confidence building measures (St. Petersburg, Vienna, etc.), continuing sniper fire, patronizing on-site support and launching at least two major assaults since 2016 with unprovoked action. Privately, their behavior is wearing thin with many and will one day pay a return. Despite the surface level material strength of Azerbaijan, a closer view shows why they have and will continue to underperform. It does not lessen the danger for the Armenians. It simply illustrates why a united Armenia will prevail.

Back to “We Build. They Destroy.” For most Armenians who are not directly involved in the military responses, the most important issue is to rebuild. The vitality of the border villages in Tavush, Artsakh, Ararat (including our beloved Paruyr Sevak), Vayots Dzor and Syunik are strategically important to the national security of our nation. The strongest message to Azeris is that their attempts are futile. Their activity is an attempt to destabilize the borders by intimidating the population to leave. We must immediately rebuild and make these villages even stronger economically. This is our job in the diaspora. You have all seen several emergency fundraisers by organizations such as Paros and individuals (our ardent patriot Anna Astvatsaturian Turcotte). We must meet and exceed the goals to BUILD and give a clear message to our brethren and the AZERBAIJANIS. We are not going anywhere. Our history has been a case study of overcoming oppression and prevailing. Today is no exception.

Stepan Piligian

Stepan was raised in the Armenian community of Indian Orchard, MA at the St. Gregory Parish. A former member of the AYF Central Executive and the Eastern Prelacy Executive Council, he also served many years as a delegate to the Eastern Diocesan Assembly. Currently , he serves as a member of the board and executive committee of the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR). He also serves on the board of the Armenian Heritage Foundation. Stepan is a retired executive in the computer storage industry and resides in the Boston area with his wife Susan. He has spent many years as a volunteer teacher of Armenian history and contemporary issues to the young generation and adults at schools, camps and churches. His interests include the Armenian diaspora, Armenia, sports and reading.

Latest posts by Stepan Piligian (see all)

Read original article here.

#Armenia #Armenians #Artsakh #Karabakh #Society

1 note · View note

bootycallreverie · 4 years

Text

"Please can we not make her mayor?"

I woke up today to this fascinating question regarding Cllr. Ana Bailão’s votes to uphold systemic oppression within the Toronto Police. “Please can we not make her mayor?”

It was a deceptively complex question that got me thinking of some of the fundamentals of activism, social change and politics, that I wanted to unpack this question bit by bit.

I’ve cut it into five sections: PLEASE, CAN, WE, NOT MAKE HER, MAYOR.

///

1. PLEASE

I assume this softens the meaning of the phrase - “I want her out of politics” is pretty harsh – especially in the context of a man publicly critiquing a woman. Yet it shows us something important – we are implying we need permission to participate in politics.

Why are we asking for permission? And to whom is this appeal directed? Last time I checked, I don’t need permission to do most things in life, including participating in the political process. Our US-based friends did not ask for permission when they recently revolted against their governments; they did it even though they faced police brutality, neo-Nazi paramilitaries, psychological warfare, a global pandemic and more.

The “please” comes out of the respectability politics that makes “Ontario” as a political entity so curious. “Please don’t gut our healthcare!” is not coming from a position of strength. (Anyway, it’s much easier for progressives to walk back overzealousness in the name of justice than it is for people to walk back bigotry.)

To best challenge power, we must never apologize for having ambitious convictions. We need to champion big ideas, even if they’re ahead of the curve. Two months ago, police reform would have been considered impossible in America. And they were right, it was impossible...under the existing model. So they changed the model.

Change – especially lasting change – comes from the grassroots, so while it’s not a bad thing to support progressive political candidates, parties and organizations, it is *significantly* more important to support issues-based activists and organizations (i.e. if you give $10 monthly to the NDP, why not also give $10 to your favourite advocacy group?). Issues-based groups are formed to challenge one specific cog of power at a time and can therefore deliver deep, fundamental and long-lasting impacts. (Plus…this is a great way for potential candidates to gain some experience; get those ppl knocking on doors now and they’ll do much better in 2022.)

2. CAN

If we are asking “do we, as a community, have the capacity to elect someone better?” The answer to this is yes, but if we’re instead asking “will someone within the existing structure please FINALLY get off their ass and challenge her?” then we might ask ourselves why this hasn’t already happened. The civic left has largely allowed Cllr. Bailão (and, to a lesser extent, Mayor Wonderbread, who is merely a pathetic, respectable version of Rob Ford) to go unchallenged because she’s been deemed impossible to beat, but by not challenging her, the civic left has allowed her career to continue essentially unfettered because they don’t want to spend resources on a race they’re unlikely to win. If only there were some other downtown districts where a new, young generation of activists can start to build their careers…except the seats available are full with straight white boy progressives.

Why does the civic left protect Gord Perks, Joe Cressy and Mike Layton? Like…honestly…I just don't see what the big deal about Joe Cressy is. He bumped Ausma Malik out of the 2018 election instead of doing the right thing and making way for a supremely talented racialized woman like I'd hope someone committed to true justice would. There is even a movement in the democratic party to ask white men to not run in safe seats. [This paragraph and the next have been edited for tone, thank you to Colin Burns for encouraging me to rethink my words and my misdirected anger, my frustration naturally lies with Cllr. Bailāo's behaviour.]

Gord Perks verged into alt-left territory last year as a free-speech absolutist and consequently an apologist for bigotry when he should have defended trans folk. He even shared his disappointing thoughts publicly (yup, he did, they’re still up, don’t @ me on this one, you’ll regret it: http://gordperks.ca/toronto-public-library-chief-librarians-decision/) so considering who he seems to be, we can do better after 14 years? (TL;DR – there’s need for renewal in a lot of parts of our movements, and the labour movement is no exception.)

Mike Layton is a lovely man with his heart in the right place. I’ve volunteered for him and would gladly do it again. It therefore pains me to recognize that his last name is more than a name. I’m happy for everything he (and his team) has contributed in a rapidly changing district. My concern is that lefties can’t afford to support dynasties in the same way that liberals and conservatives can, especially in downtown districts where our odds of winning are good and where we ought to be supporting talented Black, Trans, Indigenous, disAbled and economically-disadvantaged candidates that are already on the front lines of social change. (This list is illustrative, not exhaustive.) By the time of the next election, Mike Layton will have been there for 12 years. Perhaps it’s time for him to open an opportunity for others.

3. WE

Who is “we”? Is it people in this district? Is it people in Toronto? Is it progressives? Whoever can identify this “we” and mobilize them will have the best shot of defeating her. This is the “coalition” people describe as needed to win election. Of course, this includes whoever’s running for office and their team. That organizing work needs to start right now if there’s going to be any chance of a lefty winning this seat in 2022. (If you think she isn’t already considering her council seat successor, remember that her old boss was Mario Silva, who was *coincidentally* Davenport’s City Councillor and MP for a combined 16 years.)

4. NOT MAKE HER

This is maybe the biggest hurdle to get over since “NOT ANA BAILAO” is not an option on the ballot. Considering there are no formal (lol) parties or slates on council, her name recognition is her biggest electoral asset, so a keep-it-safe campaign won’t work. Plus her public image is fairly non-toxic, so as pissed off as we all are, most people won’t be swayed by a STOP BAILAO campaign from the left (the trope of the conservative woman can be very powerful – thanks Maggie – so expect her campaign to lean pretty typically right).

When we say “Cllr. Bailão should not be Mayor” we rob ourselves of the ability to say “I think this person would make a great mayor” or “these are the some of the values I want in a mayor.” – and I don’t mean just of the City Council types. (At this point, Josh Marlow is the other councilor to watch.)

I hate hearing “why can’t we have AOC or Jacinta Arden or Anne Hidalgo or Ilhan Omar?” They didn’t come out of thin air. We already have those people here, we just haven’t elevated them to where they can make a difference and this is why. (Also, lefties, let’s seriously push for term limits and ranked ballots…especially the term limits, most ppl out there love the idea, it costs zero dollars and ensures districts have a healthy amount of turnover.)

5. MAYOR

Toronto City Council is a “weak mayor” system. The Mayor need council approval for pretty much everything important. The Mayor will find success or failure on how well he can build a team of reliable allies on council. It’s something thing Mayor Wonderbread does too well: his allies don’t offer a lot of different views. A hypothetical Mayor Bailão would probably do similar.

So then how rigid should a politician be? Are they supposed to be trustees, where we trust them to do what’s best for us and we have a check-in every 4 years? Or are they supposed to be conduits of public opinion with little regard for context? Or is a councillor meant to reflect the demographics of their district, even though they can only truly embody one set of lived experiences as an individual? Or perhaps, in the case of Cllr. Bailão, someone not dedicated to steering the ship but merely running the engine, not caring where it sails even though we've seen icebergs on the horizon? We’ve grown up in a SimCity generation where we think the mayor can make whatever they want happen. As great as that might sound sometimes, in a democracy, accountability matters. But it must come with a recognition that SimCity mayors don't fear the wrath of the voters.

///

I want to recognize that a 10% reallocation is fucking pathetic and still Toronto council couldn’t do it…but at least we know where we stand, and with whom.

We often look at politics as a sport or a soap opera, and it feels great when your team scores points or your favourite character delivers a knockout performance. Even I was like “dang girl” when Nancy Pelosi defiantly ripped up the President’s speech. I was also touched by Jagmeet Singh’s touching display of emotion the day after he was ejected from the House of Commons for calling out bigotry. But that’s not politics, that’s a long running TV drama series, so as disappointed as I am in what happened, I’m not gonna yell at her in the street because White Man Raging is not a great look these days…or ever.

So let’s not make this about my neighbour, Cllr. Ana Bailão. Let’s make it about the system of oppression she has willingly chosen to uphold and tearing that motherfucker down piece by piece.

0 notes

scuttleboat · 7 years

Note

Can you help me understand American culture bc i am just dumbfounded right now. Why do people think just because it was written that y'all have a right to bear arms 200 yrs ago, when there was completely different tech, that you shouldn't even question it? Like there's a reason you have amendments right? The constitution shouldn't be unquestionable. It seems like nothing at all is happening with regards to these constant shootings.

I’ll give it my best shot as liberal minded-adult female who lives on the West coast, but understand that I can’t explain to you American monoculture because in this area, we don’t have one. If I get anything wrong here on legal stuff, folks educated in the area can feel free to comment and clarify.

The United States of America is a collection of fifty individual states and commonwealths, as well as various territories, all of which have some form of local government that is part of, but not completely submissive to, a central federal government. There actually aren’t that many universal federal laws that we live under because generally our laws are passed locally, state by state, or even city by city, and then federal laws tend to be created when local laws are challenged. The two arguably biggest powers that the Congress (House and Senate) has are

1. to implement the annual federal budget (where our tax dollars go) i.e. determine which programs get funding to be enforced

2. to write laws on anything that has to do with national or inter-state commerce

The second is hugely important because most industries in the 20th and 21st century are massive, with companies that span states and even span countries. Some of the biggest are firearms/munitions, private prisons, and any sub-industries that feed off those. When you have a living industry that generates billions of dollars of profit for many different companies, such as firearms companies, people don’t want to give up their income. So all those companies like to hire lobbyists (truly the scum profession of our generation. and the prior generation.).

Lobbyists basically bribe, manipulate, and maneuver elected lawmakers and appointed officials to either pass or not pass laws that affect things like firearms sale and regulation. There’s also a ton of money being poured into news media and “public awareness” campaigns (read: propoganda) that affects who people vote for. So elected lawmakers are political and economically incentivized to appease gun companies, while simultaneously politically *dis-incentivized* to actually pass laws that would regulate them. Any regulation from the federal or local government is seen as an “attack” on gun companies’ profits, so all the more reason for them to run bad political ads to hurt a candidate, good ads to prop up a candidate that will help them, and also just throw money and political ‘help’ at anything they can.

Add to that the careerism that has eaten the Republican party alive, the timidity of the Democratic party, the way the two-part binary system has spent 2 centuries crushing any third party gains, and we have our current deadlocked government.

Regulation for guns doesn’t require a change to the constitution (which would be near impossible in our current political climate), and in fact most Americans (grater than 70% last I heard) support greater gun control, in various forms. However, the way American political culture works is that it’s a lot more clannish than it is logical: people stand behind a label. Especially politicians, because the label of political identity is huge in American culture. Think of, for example, how much people on Tumblr use labels to define themselves: gender, age, orientation, language, ability, knowledge, fandom. Imagine how obsessed Tumblr culture is with labels, and then imagine there are only TWO you can pick, or you can claim one of the “others” that has a stigma and institutionally very little impact.

So politicians of course epitomize that, it’s the personhood they sell when they campaign for office, and the personhood they rely to be re-elected. Even if that label shifts and gets distorted, and the Right becomes the Far Right becomes the Alt Right, they’re afraid to confront those changes because the alternative is to be labeled a traitor in all those nasty campaign ads and news media propoganda sources–which are backed, of course, by self-serving capitalist companies or by the political parties themselves, in aggregate.

In my personal opinion, the way to control guns in the U.S. is to do it state by state–that is, frustratingly, how the anti-abortion people are doing it. The environmentalist movements are doing it city by city, because that’s all they can get control of politically. Unfortunately, local laws will eventually be challenged in the federal court system, and if the US Supreme Court rules on a gun control regulation, then it could go either way. At the moment, out Supreme Court is as politically divided as our Congress.

I don’t know how to explain to you that people are evil and greedy and that they’ll accept a status quo where others die but not themselves, but that is the world we live in. Our political system is vulnerable to being exploited by evil, greedy, small-minded men, and unfortunately, the voting populace can’t always tell who’s evil and who isn’t.

Corporate money = advertising = propoganda = votes = deregulation + gerrymandering = more corporate money.

If you’re a gun corporation (or any company that lives off the suffering of others) it’s well worth it to invest in the U.S. government. We appear to be here for the taking.

#politics #gun control #us election #us congress

19 notes · View notes

sitandbreatheitout · 5 years

Text

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

#exvangelical

0 notes

crookedmediatranscripts · 7 years

Text

Pod Save America - Episode 78 (Bonus Pod)

9.12.2017 “Hillary Clinton”

“What Happened.”

[MUSIC]

Jon Favreau: Pod Save America is brought to you by Stamps.

Jon Lovett: Dot com.

JF: Just says Stamps here. These days you can get practically everything on demand, like our podcast.

Tommy Vietor: True.

JF: Listen, whatever you want, whenever it's convenient for you. Why are you still going to the post office and dealing with their limited hours, when you can get postage on demand with stamps.com? Anything you can do at the post office you can now do right from your desk or from your home in Chappaqua with stamps.com.

JL: You can't- you can't people watch-

TV: [Laughs]

JL: Which is something that you can do in line at the post office. You can't do that at home that's true. But it's, you know.

JF: Okay, well that's- we'll put that in the con column.

TV: Yeah.

[Laughter]

JF: Buy and print official U.S. postage for any letter or package using your own computer and printer. And unlike the post office, stamps.com never closes. Two in the morning, you're hungry for some stamps, you know where to go.

TV: Stamps.com makes you more polite, you know. Often you're like, I should write a thank you note to this person, but I don't have a stamp so I’m just not gonna.

JL: Yeah, that's true.

JF: My writing is bad, so I don't do it.

TV: This eliminates that friction.

JF: Bad penmanship.

JL: I’m trying to be better. Ever since I’ve stopped being a writer I am more responsive, but I have some mistakes I need to make up for in time. Like some wedding gifts I should send via stamps.com to people that have, like 3 kids now.

[Laughter]

TV: I’m with you there.

JL: Congrats on your wedding and 3 kids. We were- guys, we were-

TV: That wedding in '07 was great.

JF: We haven't started out thank you notes yet and just- it's coming everyone.

JL: [scandalized] You haven't done your thank you notes yet?

JF: No, we haven't. It takes a couple months.

JL: You know what, that makes me feel better. That makes me feel better.

JF: Emily’s job.

TV: [drawn out] Whoaaaaaa

JL: [drawn out] Whoooooaaaa

JF: Just kidding!

JL: [drawn out] Whoa

JF: Just kidding!

JL: Leave that in!

[laughter]

JF: I have been informed that I am writing all of the ones to my side. Right now, use our code crooked for the special offer - a 4 week trial which includes postage and a digital scale. Don't wait. A digital scale?

JL: It's for measuring po- it's for weighing little items.

JF: I know, I know what it is. Go to stamps.com before you do anything else. Click on the radio microphone at the top of the homepage and type in “CROOKED”. That's stamps.com, enter code “CROOKED.” Stamps.com, never go to the post office again.

0:01:52

[MUSIC]

0:01:59

JF: We are here with Secretary Hillary Clinton at her home in Chappaqua, to talk about her book, “What Happened.” Thank you so much for being on Pod Save America.

HC: I am thrilled to here on Pod Save America.

[Laughter]

HC: And really happy that you all are here today.

JF: Lovett has been asking for this for so long.

JL: I mean I was not like begging [JF: laughs] I’m just glad it worked out.

HC: But I am so delighted that you're still asking.

[Laughter]

HC: And now, I don’t know what we'll do after we actually complete this podcast. We may have to think of something.

JL: We have other shows. We have live events.

HC: Yeah, we may have to think of something else.

JL: We have a lot coming down the pipe.

HC: Do you really?

JL: Yes.

HC: Yes, okay. I need to hear all about that, Jon.

JL: I do wanna let our podcast know that her guard is down.

[Laughter]

JL: Hillary Clinton’s guard is down.

HC: And I’m holding the Rottweiler with both hands.

[Laughter]

JF: Perfect. So, you write in the book about the challenges you faced running as a woman. One silver lining of 2016 is that a record number of women have now decided to run for office. What advice would you give them about how to grapple with the kind of sexism that you grappled with during the campaign?

HC: I’m so glad you started with that, Jon because you know, I wrote this book to explain what I think happened but also to raise issues that I think we have to deal with so that they won't have the same impact on the next election and the one after that. And I write a whole chapter called “On being a woman in politics” because I was really quite taken aback at the attitude and the behavior of my general election opponent.

JF: Yes.

HC: Because he made no bones about it, literally. He was so sexist and not just about me, but about you know, his Republican woman opponent, the women and reporters on TV and elsewhere. So it was really a part of the atmosphere and I want, not just women but men as well, to know this is endemic. Sexism and misogyny are still endemic. We've made progress but we can't allow ourselves to go backward. And as I point out in the book, it never was just about me. I happened to have the big bullseye on my head, but it was about women and in the months since, we've seen reports out of Silicon Valley and other businesses as well as politics, where distinguished women like Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris or Kirsten Gillibrand or, you know others in the media are being treated to a level of overt sexism that I thought we had at least diminished and maybe put a lid on. But it seems to have popped back up. So I’m hoping that everybody will read in my book, that chapter because I want everyone to think about it and be serious about it. And then I think we have to stand up and speak out, and men and women alike. So when Kamala Harris is basically told to stop talking or Elizabeth Warren is told to stand down, we need to say, “Hey, wait a minute, you know that is overtly sexist and we're not gonna put up with it.” And her colleagues and everyone else should say the same thing.

JF: So, the excerpts of the book that have leaked out so far have set off another round of Bernie versus Hillary recriminations. Everyone's favorite pastime. Now I know that elsewhere in the book you give Bernie a lot of credit. You say that the debate is overblown, that you actually agree on most issues. But it seems like there's still an important debate about what comes next for the party that we should talk about. So, from the spring, Washington Post poll found that 67% of voters think that Democrats are out of touch with the concerns of the average person, that includes 44% of Democrats. To turn this around, do you think the Democratic party needs to fundamentally change as an institution, with regards to policy or do you think it's about sharpening our message better technology in the party, and stuff like that?

HC: I’ve given this a lot of thought, as you might guess, because it is deeply distressing to me that we are painted like that. And I can only speak again from my own experience, which I try to relate in the book. I had such a different experience in ‘08, you know, as you all know because you were part of the Obama campaign. Once it was over, it was over. And I quickly endorsed President Obama. I worked really hard to get him elected. I was still arguing with my supporters at the Denver convention, telling people, “Don’t be ridiculous. You've gotta vote for Senator Obama, at the time.” And I was thrilled when he got elected. I didn't get anything like that respect from Sanders and his supporters. And it hurt, you know, to have basically captured the nomination ending up with more than 4 million votes than he had. But he dragged it out and he was so reluctant. But why would we be surprised, he's not a Democrat. And that's not a slam on him, that is just a repetition of what he says about himself. So what I’m focused on are people who are proud to be Democrats, people who wanna defend the legacy of Democrats, of our last president and presidents before, who have done so much to help so many Americans economically, in terms of civil rights, human rights. And I think we are facing a couple of very difficult obstacles. First, the other side has dedicated propaganda channels, that's what I call Fox News.

JF: Right.

HC: It has outlets like Breitbart and you know, crazy Info Wars and things like that. In this particular election, it was aided and abetted by the Russians and the role that Facebook and other platforms provide. We are late to that. You know, we did not understand how a reality TV campaign would so dominate the media environment. And I confess you know, I was trying to do everything I could to build on the success of president Obama’s campaign. I had a lot of people you guys know involved in the campaign. We were really proud of it. But boy it was tough to break through. So I think the Democrats can do a lot, but they are still going to face a very difficult media environment. And we've gotta figure out how we're gonna break through. I mean obviously more podcasts, more other ways of communicating so voices can be heard and real positions can be understood, is part of it. But we're still at a disadvantage.

JF: Well, so, what do you think of, recently Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren have signed onto Bernie’s single payer health care plan. Do you think that's a good idea? Do you think we need some of these bolder policies?

HC: Well, look, I’ve been for universal health care for many decades and there's a difference between single payer and universal health care. Under President Obama we got the Affordable Care Act, so we got to 90% coverage and one of the differences we had in the primary campaign was my very strong defense of the ACA and my strong defense of what President Obama had achieved and my recognition that we had come so far, that I was certainly not going to support ripping it up and trying to start all over again. But in terms of a political statement, to say we've gotta get to universal health care and maybe we should consider, you know some kind of single payer besides Medicare -- which is single payer -- and Medicaid -- which is largely single payer. We need to be looking hard at this. But I think that the more likely outcome, after we try to raise the attention of the electorate on what we could achieve, is the continuing struggle to expand health care, I said we need a public option. I was very clear about that. So I don't have any criticism whatsoever in staking a big claim on where we need to end up. But I also say look let's be realistic about how we're gonna get to where we need to be.

JF: So there was an internal debate within your campaign towards the end about whether to attack trump as divisive and offensive, or whether to emphasize your economic message, or to win back some of these working class voters. And your husband reportedly advocated for that. It seems like democrats are going to face this issue again and again. And we're gonna face it with trump, we're gonna face it with others. What should they do? Obviously you have to do both, but a campaign’s about choosing resources, ads, messages. How do you face that?

HC: Well we were trying to do both. We never stopped on the economic agenda and there's been lots of analysis since the election. I talked more about jobs than anybody else. We put forth a really detailed set of ideas about what would work. We did not get the kind of coverage that we needed. You know, I went back and looked. I say this in the book. You know, in the 2008 general election campaign, there were 200 minutes devoted to policy. By 2012, it was down to about 114 minutes. By 2016 it was 32 minutes. And so all of the work and effort that I did in this campaign and that I saw others do -- because when you run for president you should tell people what you're gonna do., at seems like a pretty straightforward idea -- were just not competitive with the reality TV show going on the other side. And we tried so many different ways to break through that and we did, of course, advertise what we saw as the threats that trump posed to the country. Because, frankly, we thought and I still believe, he's a clear and present danger to America. And I would've been less than responsible if I didn't talk about that. But we tried to do both. We tried to make the case for both. And I’d be the first to tell you, it was difficult to break through.

JL: I wanna turn to like realism, which is something you talked about now, you talked about in the book. I feel like the book is sort of a nuanced look at how these issues okay out and basically what caused this loss as well as the realization that you should not be in the same with James Comey any time soon.

[Laughter]

JL: Just for his sake, mostly.

HC: He's pretty tall, though.

JL: I think you'd take him. honestly, I think you have the passion.

[Laughter]

JL: But, so, I wanted to talk about realism cause, you know Jon brought up single payer. You said this, you said in the book Bernie in the race meant you had less space and credibility to run a feisty progressive campaign that won in 2008 in Pennsylvania a and Ohio. And I didn't fully understand that cause I didn't understand why Bernie’s presence prevents you from running that kind of campaign.

HC: Well, what I mean by that is -- cause we certainly were trying to run that kind of a campaign --is that his claims -- which he could not defend, really not even explain when pressed -- filled up a lot of space. You know when I was running against president Obama in 2008, we had differences, but they were -- this is my bias -- they were honest differences that we presented and we defended and you know, whether it was an individual mandate or not in healthcare, each of us was ready to say here's why or here's why not. That was not possible in this primary campaign. And you know, I point out that every time we made a claim on what we were gonna do, he would just say, “Okay, I’m gonna do more of it.” And so the argument was never adequately joined. And I spent a lot of time, you know basically defending President Obama in a Democratic primary.

JL: Right.

HC: I couldn't believe it. Every speech started with, “I don't think President Obama gets the credit he deserves for saving the economy, saving the auto industry, getting us on the road to universal healthcare.” And you know this is- I was running against somebody who publically advocated President Obama being primaried, right? So, it was difficult to have what I consider to be a fair-minded debate about, okay we have had a successful two term president, where do we go from here, with somebody who wasn't a democrat. Who criticized both President Obama and me. And it was much more challenging to have a kinda straightforward argument about, okay health care, what are we gonna do about healthcare? Cause he would say, “Oh, we're gonna do single payer.” And I’d say, “Well how are you gonna do it?” And then he wouldn't know. But the claim and the, you know laying down of the gauntlet of that made it harder.

JL: But one of the points you make it the sort of lessons from all of this, is that he has a point about the importance of universal programs, that arguing for a big universal college or health care or what have you, makes a lot of sense to people. First of all, it's clear and easy for people to understand. And also, it avoids the kind of stigma, that you have on things that are more directed, right. The problem that happened with the expansion of Medicaid, for example, under ObamaCare. So, it seems like, in a lot of ways - yes, in a moment in a campaign some of these big promises are more about vision. But in practice, you do see the merits of having done that, right. Because it seems like that's one of your recommendations for the party moving forward

HC: Well it's what I do recommend that we try to figure out, but if you're gonna do it you gotta be able to answer all the questions that are gonna be raised. And what was odd to me about this election, many things were odd about it, but one of the things that was odd about it is, we came forward with very specific proposals about moving toward universality, right. And I believe that to this day about how we can get from where we are. But I always believed, it turned out wrongly Jon, that there would be a moment of reckoning, cause I’d always seen it in a general election. I always saw that at some point, whether it was in a tough interview or in a debate, somebody would say, “Okay you've advocated for this. How are you gonna pay for it? How are you actually going to structure it?” That's what I was waiting for. It never came this time. It never came. So, yes, maybe I was a little more inclined in the primary since I won by 4 million votes to say, “Okay, look we're going to get there but we're gonna do it in a very, you know, careful thoughtful way.” Cause I really believed a lot of the Trump rhetoric was going to be, you know, finally punctured. And that I would be on a debate stage and somebody would say, you know, “You talk about this wall. What are you talking about? Where is the money gonna come from?” It never happened. He was never held accountable, so a lot of my preparation for those moments, cause I did think that in many ways the election would come down to the debates. They often do. It didn't happen.

JL: So, one of the other arguments you make for this kind of policy shop -- and I know these policy people, I worked with them. Jake Sullivan is one of the smartest human beings you can meet in your life. You talk about how these things had foot notes and they were sort of ready to hit the ground running. And you said one of the problems is, it wasn't about just the merits of these policies, but it was about the optics of it.

HC: Right.

JL: But at the same time, you recognized the need for a more expansive vision for democrats. I mean one arguments against this on the merits is - in a campaign you set a big goal, it may be unachievable, but you compromise when you're governing. I mean you make the comparison, say to welfare in the 90s and how President Clinton in the 90s held off on signing on several versions of the bill until he felt as if it reached enough compromise. And that's a pragmatism of governing. But isn't there a distinction between the pragmatism of governing and the vision and sort of overton window you open during the campaign.

HC: I think that's a very fair assessment. But remember, I was following a 2 term Democratic president. And I was really aware of how important it was to embrace that legacy and defend it. Because on the merits I thought it was really important. And I believed that if I had said, “Okay we're gonna have universal healthcare, single payer.” First question would've been, well why didn't President Obama do that? Well, because it was really hard and what he got down was amazing, you know.

JL: Yeah.

HC: See that's tough. Whereas Sanders -- who's not even a Democrat, who criticized the President all the time -- he could say whatever he wanted to say. I was not only running on my own, I was running to build on the progress of the prior 8 years. I was unapologetic about that. But I also knew the headwinds against somebody trying to run to succeed a 2-term president of their own party were pretty intense. I mean Americans get bored, they get tired, they want a change, they think somebody else can do something better even though they liked Bill Clinton and they liked Barack Obama, but they wanted a change. So, I was trying to be as honest as I could about, yes, we're gonna build on the ACA. We're gonna finish the last 10% of people who are not insured. We're gonna be able to do it because here are the fixes that will make it work. And yeah it put me in a bit of a strait jacket, but it was what I thought was called for, given the fact that, you know I wasn't going to be spouting stuff that then would be immediately contradicted, because why wasn't it done before? Immigration's another example, right. I mean DACA was a great accomplish. I’m for immigration reform. Sanders voted against it in 2007. And so I’m trying to say, we're gonna protect what we have but we're gonna try to go further. Now that is not as exciting as saying, you know throw them all out or whatever the alternative is. It was constant calibration and you know it was a tough line to walk.

JL: So one of the other debates- one of the other arguments you had during the campaign was over money in politics. And it's one of the things that Bernie levels against the Democratic party writ large. And I think it's important for moving forward, you know you say correctly, Bernie couldn’t in the debate point to a single instance in which you changed your mind because of donations. But you also said that you wanted to end the stranglehold that the wealthy have on our government and in your book, you talk about the danger of courting donors. Where is that danger? I mean you don't have to change your mind for this money to have some kind of influence. I mean, what do you think the danger of courting donors is?

HC: Well I’m for public financing. And I’ve put forth a very comprehensive set of changes. I voted for you know, McCain-Feingold. I mean I think the Supreme Court has so perverted out electoral system. And Citizens United is a gateway to corruption. And I think we've seen that over and over again. So, I don't have any problem with people donating to your campaign and neither does Bernie Sanders, by the way, because you know he takes money from people as well. What I wanted to do was say, look we need a whole different system, and so I said I was going for a constitutional amendment from day 1 on Citizens United. Cause there's no way to get to where I think we have to be unless we change the Constitution.

JL: But until then, we live with the system.

HC: Yes, we do.

JL: And one of the consequences of the system is raising huge sums of money and going amongst the financial industry and other industries and raising money, going to the Hamptons and raising money. And for people who aren't proud to be Democrats, who maybe could be Democrats, it looks terrible. And what they see is access and influence. And it's hard to argue that they're wrong. I mean, isn't there a price we pay for a system in which Democrats who are supposed to advocate for working people, spend a great deal of their time with rich people who have a fundamentally vested interest in the status quo.

HC: You know what's so interesting, I don't see it that way. I understand the argument, but anybody who donates to a Democratic candidate, who is on the record as I have been for decades, about what I wanted to do no everything from raising taxes on them to closing loopholes and speaking out when I was a Senator from New York. they in effect are putting aside their own financial interests to a certain extent, because they are donating to somebody, whether it was me or president Obama, who in ‘08 got more money from Wall Street than any Democrat had ever gotten, and yet imposed the toughest regulations that had been imposed since the Great Depression. We're not going in on bait and switch. I mean, I say to donors the same way I say on a public stage, we need to tax the wealthy and here's what I will do. I’ve been saying we need to close the carried interest loophole and here's what I intend to do. So if they're still going to give me money, they must have some other concerns about, maybe the future of our country and our position in the world. So I think it's an argument which superficially sounds like, oh yeah, okay. But on further examination I don’t think really holds up. We could solve all this if we get to public financing. And that's what I am still in favor of.

JL: So first of all, don't we pay too high a price for the optics of that? And then also, isn't there some effect on the access? That this group of people has a larger access to Democratic politicians.

HC: I can only talk for myself. I mean you know you were in my senate office. We saw every kind of person under the sun and we saw them on a regular basis -- filling up the day with people who wanted to see me on everything and, you know the vast majority of them had never given money to politics. Certainly not in any large amount. So optics is a problem. I’m the first to admit that, because I had some optics problems, which I admit in this book. But here's what we're up against -- and it's a devil's dilemma -- we're up against a very strong Republican party with allies who are taking advantage of every open door the Supreme Court has given them. When you have people like the Koch brothers, now on record saying they're gonna spend 400 million dollars in 2018, the Mercers, they are funding media, they are funding super PACs. And they are doing stuff that we have no idea, because there's no disclosure on what they do. So I’m in the camp which says, be transparent. Here's where I stand. Here's what I will do. If you guys, you know still wanna give me money when I say I’m gonna go after that loophole. Just know I’m going after that loophole. Because otherwise the money advantage is so demonstrably on the other side. And aided by the media advantage. I mean the new threat that's coming from Sinclair broadcasting -- 72%+ of the homes in America being given a steady diet of right-wing Republican politics. Fox doesn't even pretend anymore. They don't even cover stuff that is not going to promote the Trump agenda. So, you've got billions and billions of dollars coming at you from the other direction. And literally you're trying to keep your head above water and it's not easy. And we raised a lot of money, most of it from people giving me less than a hundred dollars, but did I go to fundraisers? Yes, I did. And did I say the same thing as I always say? Yes, I did. And would I -- if I had been you know, able to, you know withstand the perfect storm that hit me at the end -- be in office trying to do that, fighting the Republicans every single day and trying to reign in the disproportionate influence they have because of Citizens United, because of media monopolization. I really would be taking all of that on and I fear it's only gonna get worse. And the money that is gonna be coming from the right and the money we know that the Russians put in, which I think is just the very tip of that huge Russian ice berg, we are really at a disadvantage. So, optics, maybe. Reality, something entirely different as I analyze it.

JL: Inside the Russian iceberg are smaller Russian icebergs.

[Laughter]

HC: Yes.

JL: And an even smaller one. I’m done now.

[Laughter]

0:25:18

[MUSIC]

0:25:22

JF: Pod Save America is brought to you by TommyJohn. Here's something that we all get a little awkward about, but you know, open discussion solves problems.

JL: Like what underwear we wear when we go to the woods to talk to Hillary Clinton.

JF: Correct. Well the question was, when was the last time you refreshed your underwear drawer?

TV: Hm. It's been a while.

JL: Honestly,

JF: Notice how I just said drawer.

JL: Drawer.

JF: I really tried to nail that.

JL: I don't think I say it either. Drawer. Draw.

JF: TommyJohn is the ultimate underwear upgrade.

JL: It is.

JF: They're the revolutionary men's underwear brand that has redefined comfort for guys everywhere, and has even been described as life-changing by Jon Lovett.

TV: Che Guevara’s underwear.

JF: Jon Lovett, that was your quote, “life-changing.”

JL: I don't believe that that's what I said. I mean, you said it too now, by the way.

JF: True enough. Each pair is crafted-

JL: "TommyJohn is life changing," Jon Favreau, 2017

JF: Each pair is crafted from ultra-lightweight fabric-

TV: Verrit code.

JF: For maximum breathability. The legs never ride up, the waistband never rolls down.

JL: I have to say, that is true. I’m wearing TommyJohn right now. I have upgraded my underwear drawer because TommyJohn has mailed me so much underwear and it is terrific.

TV: It's top notch.

JF: Undershirts that never come untucked, socks that'll never fall down. Guaranteed. All TommyJohn underwear is backed by the best pair you'll ever wear or it's free guarantee. TommyJohn, no adjustment needed. Hurry to tommyjohn.com/crooked to experience life changing comfort.

JL: Life changing comfort!

JF: Get 20% off your first order.

JL: 20% off!

JF: That's tommyjohn.com/crooked for 20% off. Tommyjohn.com/crooked.

JL & JF: Tommyjohn.com/crooked for 20% off. Tommyjohn.com/crooked.

JF: Lovett is annoying.

TV: [Giggles]

0:26:41

JF: Pod Save America is brought to by the Cash app.

JL: + TV: The Cash app.

JL: I don't even know how to convince you people.

[Laughter]

JL: I mean if you haven't gotten it by now like listen, you have your phone in your hand-

JF: You guys didn't hear it, but we just convince Hillary Clinton for like 15 minutes to download the Cash app.

TV: Yeah, that was half the interview.

JL: Yeah, that was most of the conversation.

[Laughter]

JF: That's- that was left on the cutting room floor.

JL: That was a little bit of showing your-

JF: Bill Clinton came in, he's using the other app, we're screaming at him. Tt was a whole thing. That did not happen guys.

JL: It didn't happen.

JF: The Cash app. You download it. you put in the code “PODSAVE”, that's 5 dollars to you, 5 dollars for hurricane Harvey relief efforts. And you could also get a debit card now-

JL: Where you can laser etch stuff into it.

TV: Hm.

JF: Yeah.

JL: You can make it your own and use all the money you've got on the Cash app from all the people paying you back cause you're such a good person. [TV: Laughs] cause you're always the one, you know, “I’ll take it. You pay me back. Or I’ll pay you back.” You're very responsible but also maybe a bit miserly cause you're keeping track of all this stuff, you know?

JF: The point is it's quick, it's easy, it's painless. And that's what exchanging money should be.

JL: It's painless.

TV: We use it. Hillary uses it. Bill pledged to use it.

All: Cash app.

JL: Cash app.

JF: Cash app.

0:27:43

[MUSIC]

0:27:47

TV: You mentioned this huge structural advantage of the right-wing press.

HC: Right.

TV: There were also challenges in the mainstream media. Donald Trump's podium, empty podium, received coverage. Policy wasn't covered. But it's not the first election where stupid things became the focus, right? We had Obama’s flag pin, we had his birth certificate, for example. How do we adapt? What should candidates do with this onslaught of right-wing news outlets, but also this sort of inexorable path towards frivolity in the coverage of our politics and covering like a game?

HC: Tommy, thanks for asking that, because I’ll tell you I worry about this all the time and I’m hardly the person to ask. You guys are much more probably adept at understanding what we need to do. What we're doing right now is at least one way. We've got other outlets, we’ve got other ways of communicating with people. We have to make sure that the playing field is level. I mean what we're finding out about Facebook, the largest, you know site for news in the world, means we gotta figure out how that won't work to our disadvantage. I think- look, in this election there's always ups and downs, I mean I know that very well. But this was kind of unique because it was- I was running what I hope to be an effective presidential campaign based on all the lessons that you know, we learned from President Obama, both in ‘08 and 2012. We knew there were head winds, I mean, you know in October of 2012, President Obama was in political trouble, right.

JF: Right.

HC: Because of everything that was going on, which wasn't fair. It wasn't, you know, reflective of him as our President. So these are going to be close because of the hyper partisan tip that we've got in the country right now. You know at the end of the day I think Comey cost me the election, but I think also people with an ‘R’ by their name said, okay I want my tax cut, I want my Supreme Court justice, you know. So there was a calculation as well as an emotional reaction. So, what are we gonna do about it? Well I don’t understand why people who share our views aren't more willing to invest in media that can be competitive. Because what you've got is a right-wing advocacy, propaganda. And you've got a, kind of mainstream media that engages in false equivalency. And it's tough if you are a Democrat trying to navigate through that to get the coverage that is, you know, really going to reflect the reality that you're facing out there on the campaign. And anything we can do to point that out- and I have sympathy for the press. In this you know in this past election, you know you're right. I mean how many hours of empty podiums are you going to be looking at? Or for the first time a presidential candidate calling in and being put on the air. I mean, things that had never happened before.

TV: It is an absurd advantage to do that.

HC: It's an absurd advantage and I do think- look, I think that part of what was going on is the entertainment value. And I really, you know, I’ve tried to have some, you know, conversations about this with some people in the media. I think they're doing some soul searching now, but at the time they all thought I was going to win. They thought it was a free shot. They thought that you know, just covering his latest outrage, you know was good for ratings. You know people were tuning in. My gosh, what's he gonna do next? So they've got to understand, they carry this really solemn responsibility and we'll do our best and we need to do better to deal with message and everything else. But if you can't break through or if the show on the other side is so razzle dazzle, you know, say anything, do anything and, you know. Somebody is trying to be responsible, you know on our side, that is a tough, tough campaign.

TV: Right. Another complicating factor, to say the least, was Russian interference. You write about Putin’s grudge against you and the fact that he blamed you for protests in Russia back in 2011. How much of the interference do you think was motivated by personal grudge against you, or is this the new playbook for Russia when it comes to cyber-attacks in our elections and we need to get ready?

HC: It is much more the new playbook. But I think part of the motivation for Putin was I was the candidate. You know I was representing the United States. I mean I wasn't standing up in Lithuania saying, [deep, fake voice to pretend to be Hillary Clinton] Oh I, Hillary Clinton, think that, you know what's going on in the parliamentary elections in Russia is really troubling." I was saying-

JL: You sound just like her.

[Laughter]

HC: Yeah! Don't you think?

[Laughter]

HC: So I was saying the United States thinks it's really troubling. That was our policy. And I was a very avid proponent of that policy. But this is much more about the playbook he has adopted now. To destabilize western democracies. To disrupt the Atlantic alliance. And he has been using what are called in the trade craft, active measures, for years to destabilize, undermine, disgrace political leaders in countries that particularly in Europe or on his border or a little further beyond. So this is what he thinks and you know, there's a very telling piece that I reference in the book by a Russian general saying, look we used to have conventional weapons and nuclear weapons, but now we're going to have the world's best cyber weapons. And just recently, you know, Putin told a group of Russian school students, the future will belong to those who master artificial intelligence. So you know, look in the 19th century and before, we fought wars on you know, land and sea. Then in the 20th we added air. And now I have no doubt that the principle zone of conflict is cyber- between large developed countries like you know, the United States, Russia, and others. What I want people to recognize is, he got away with it this time because it was hard to imagine. You know, when we knew that he- that Russians had hacked into the DNC and then through their cutout to WikiLeaks was, you know, dumping this stuff. We tried to tell people and they were like, oh yeah, maybe, what difference does it make? And they didn't really understand either the criminal or political significance. You fast forward and you've got in August of 2016 -- early August, late July -- you've got Trump saying, oh go hack her emails. Which is an amazing thing for somebody running to be President of the United States to say. And then you've got Roger Stone saying, oh it's gonna be time for Podesta, you know, next. We knew there was stuff going on, but even we didn't understand the extent of it. And we saw it in real time. One of the kind of surprises to me in the analysis we went through after the election, was how effective the Russians, through WikiLeaks, were in weaponizing information against me and how they were getting really good political advice about placement, both geographic and platform, from somebody. And we'll leave it at that. But we didn't really see that. That was not clear to us, at the time in the campaign. And in retrospect, you know we saw how, if you analyzed Google searches, they were spiking in places that had been sort of swing, had ended up for President Obama, but were, you know, subject to being persuaded by the other side. WikiLeaks searches were off the charts. People were trying to understand and they were trying to make sense of some of the stuff they were hearing on their Facebook, you know, feeds or a friend telling them, which happened all the time. And you know I was talking to Susan Page, the, you know the reporter from USA Today and she said she'd go to these Trump rallies and people would say the most amazing things to her and she'd say, “Where did you hear that?” “Oh, I saw that on Facebook.” That's where people got their news and the Russians aided and abetted in some ways by people in the Trump campaign or associated with them, were very adept at targeting.

TV: Right. So Putin has been accused of killing journalists, imprisoning his opponents, killing his opponents. In the book, you say “Trump doesn't just like Putin, he seems to want to be like Putin. Put down dissenters, oppress minorities. He dreams of Moscow on the Potomac.” Should we take that literally? I mean, do we think that he is really someone who might crack down on free speech the way Putin has, or take further draconian steps?

HC: Yes. And I’m really happy to say that to the three of you, because you have influence and you have reach. Look I wrote this book to try to come to grips with what happened, but also to sound the alarm about what I think could still and may well happen. I think Trump left to his own devices, unchecked, would become even more authoritarian than he has tried to be. Also remember, the right wing aided and funded by Mercers, Koch brothers, et cetera, is very serious about calling a Constitutional convention. They need 34 states. Last I checked they were like at 28, 29. Part of their gerrymandering is to control state legislatures, elect Republican governors and to call a Constitutional convention. And if you really get deep into what they're advocating -- limits on the first amendment, no limits on the second amendment, limits on criminal justice. I mean, there is a very insidious right-wing agenda. So when I say that he doesn't just like Putin, he wants to be like Putin, I’m not saying he's gonna start killing journalists. But I am saying that he likes the idea of unaccountable, unchecked power. And we've never had to face that in a serious way, in our country. I mean, we've elected people we could agree or disagree with, but even in the pit of the Great Depression when Roosevelt went too far in packing the court, you know his hands were slapped, he was pulled back. But, what you see Trump doing is appointing nominating people for the court who are totally in sync with this right-wing agenda. U.S. Attorneys absolutely ready to carry out his bidding. It's a very clear agenda that is hard for Americans to really, kind of, wrap our heads around because we've never had to deal with anything like this before. But I am trying to, in this book and in interviews like this, to say, “Hey guys, this is serious stuff. We gotta pay attention to it because the one thing we can do to rein it in besides fulminating online or, you know, speaking or writing books. is to do everything possible to take back the House in 2018 and hold the line in the Senate.” There is no more important mission. And we are terrible at turning out in midterm elections. I mean, I saw it when Bill was President. I saw it when Barack was President. I mean, you get these young, dynamic Democrats. They do all this stuff and they get hammered the next time because our people go, “Oh, thank you very much!” And don't show up again. So in 2018 if we don't show up, and I won 24 congressional districts with a Republican Congress member. So we can start from there and we can try to figure out, let's field the best candidates. That's why I’ve got this new group called Onward Together, because I wanna support these grassroots groups, I wanna fund candidates. I’m gonna do everything I can with the most intense focus on 2018 that I possibly can bring to bear.

JL: So, wrapping up, but you know, this is a striking book and you make an argument. You really sort of try to understand as best you can what happened. And you discover a lot of complex causes, places where you take responsibility also places where, not to make excuses, but you look for the causes outside of yourself, and fair enough. A portal opens, it's right before your announcement speech, you have a minute with Hillary to tell her something. What do you got?

[Laughter]

HC: Great question, Jon! I would say “Okay. You're running a traditional but really well constructed presidential campaign. You've got great people working for you. But you're walking in to an unknown situation and you need to get a broader 360 degree understanding of what this campaign is going to look like. Because we've got to be ready for whatever they throw at us and what they're gonna throw is not what anybody else has ever had to confront. And I don't think you or campaign have really given that much thought. Because, why should you? It's never happened before. So, I’m telling you Hillary-“

[Laughter]

HC: “You better, you better get around a table and you know, blue sky this and brainstorm this and red team this. And who knows.” I was just reminded- I was reminded by somebody just today that I was doing an NPR interview about my last book, “Hard Choices,” and I was in the NPR studio here in New York -- this was back in 2014 I think -- and all the electricity went down for, you know a period of time. Unbelievably, in a radio studio. And so I- the engineer who was there running it, he said, “My gosh, what is that? The Republicans?” I said “Well, it could be the Russians.” That was 3 plus years ago and I always believed the Russians were more of a threat under Putin. But I never imagined that they would be so brazen as to interfere in our election. And I should have just made a long list, gotten smart people, called you guys and said, “Okay. Give me the weirdest things you think could happen [Boys laugh] and let's be prepared for it.”

JF: But was it-would you- would it be, “Go figure out some different policies? Go figure out some different messages?” Where would you-

HC: No. I think it would be, go figure out how you're going to be able to run a campaign in an environment where-

JF: Propaganda...

HC: You got propaganda, and you've got the media as confused as you are. And they're giving huge amounts of time to a guy who is...really antithetical to everything I think is right about American politics. I mean, look, if I’d lost to a Republican - a normal Republican - of course I’d be disappointed, and I’d be really upset with myself. But this is beyond anything I had imagined. And so it- I think, Jon, in a way it was a lack of imagination about what could happen. And once we saw it was happening- I mean, I saw the faces of the 16 Republicans he, you know, beat -- they were as confused as I was.

[Boys snicker]

HC: Because you know, some of them were supported by the Mercers and the Koch brothers and they had their own network. And all of a sudden-

JL: Well, Ben Carson didn't know he was running for President.

[Laughter]

HC: He didn't- well, that- he's a special candidate.

JL: So that was- he was just like, “What am I- what is this convention?”

HC: “What is happening? What is this convention?”

TV: Stumbling off stage.

HC: “And what is HUD?”

[Laughter]

HC: But it was, it- watching that, I think we should have understood that the media loved it, you know. Because it was a- you know it was like, his Apprentice show or some other reality TV shows. The more outrageous you are, the better the ratings are. And we did not compete at all in that arena. So, you know, I should have thrown some more insults or, you know, advocated some more crazy stuff. [Laughs]

JF: Secretary Clinton, thank you so much for sitting down with us.

HC: Aww…

JL: Thank you!

TV: We really appreciate it.

JF: For taking the time.

HC: I love seeing you all, and I’m so proud of everything I hear about how well you're doing. It's really exciting!

JL: It's great.

JF: Trying our best.

JL: We gotta get you to a live show, we're going work on that next.

[Laughter]

HC: Oh! Okay!

JF: [Laughing] He just keeps asking.

TV: Always be pitching, yeah.

[CROSS TALK]

JL: Why not?

JF: Oh my god.

HC: Oh, yeah.

JF: Sat down for an interview with us…

JL: I know, but I’ve been a journalist for about 6 months and it's very easy and this is what you do.

[Laughter]

HC: Well, I’m glad to hear that, Jon. I wanna know all the inside stories.

[Laughter]

JF: Thank you so much.

HC: Thank you! Thanks, guys.

JL: Thank you.

0:43:32

[MUSIC]

43:38

TV: So we are still squatting in Secretary Clinton’s basement.

JF: Yeah.

JL: We are still-

JF: We’re here.

JL: Her guard is still down, but it's elsewhere.

[Laughter]

JF: She's gone. We're looking for a route out to the woods.

JL: We have, again, our GORP.

JF: What?

JL: We have our trail mix.

JF: [Laughs]

TV: Our tear away pants.

JF: What'd we think, guys?

TV: I think that she was very honest about the parts of that election that still frustrate her. The thing that most surprised me in the interview was her response to my question of her description of Trump being like Putin. Because I thought-

JF: She was dead serious.

TV: She might- she might say, you know “Don't take that too literally.” But she is-

JL: Or she might have said it was a concern, but she just said yes.

TV: Yeah, I mean she means it when she says he is a clear and present danger to our country. And that is a pretty strong call to arms to winning back the House.

JF: It was interesting. I kept trying to get to- right, there's all these outside challenges that she faced -- sexism, Russia, propaganda, she talked a lot about-- it's like, we have to solve all of these in the long term. In the short term, we have an election in 2018. Those things aren't gonna be solved. What do Democrats do differently to get through those things? And I think she honestly- she doesn't know.

JL: I think she's- look we've been talking about this.

TV: It is unknowable.

JF: It's a- it is unknowable.

JL: We are all posing these questions to ourselves, over and over again, and she doesn't have special access to the answers. She has special access to what it was like to go through this thing. And I think the book is worth reading for that alone, even though it's much more raw and open than it had any business being. But, we're all trying to figure that out.

JF: Yeah. And she- she clearly does not believe it was a policy-

JL: No.

JF: It was a policy issue.

TV: Well, and- and I think, policy was a focus in the primary. Policy was absent from the general election.

JF: That is central.

JL: That was interesting.

JF: 100% true

JL: That was interesting that she, sort of, whatever- the responsibility gene on policy making during the primary, built on the assumption that she'd be called to account in the general and the fact that it never happened was interesting.

JF: Yeah.

TV: Just another subtle way that the rules were completely rewritten in this election. Everyone usually tacks back to the middle and Donald Trump tacked as far right as he possibly could get.

JF: Right, we have talked about this on this podcast many times before, but all of us -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the 3 of us, many of our friends -- we probably underestimated the level of anger in this country about people who didn't think that the economy was working for them and didn't think Washington was working for them. And they were really pissed-

JL: And I think- and this sort of cultural reaction-

JF: We all did that.

JL: The cultural reaction to an Obama presidency and the role that that played, and the anger and vitriol connected to race as well. I mean, we've all talked about it a million times but I think, you know, it was interesting that- I think she's struggling to understand what she'd do differently too.

JF: Yeah, that’s right.

TV: That was a very interesting interview.

JF: It was, and I’m glad she sat down with us.

JL: It was great, and I can only assume the ratings have been through the roof.

[Laughter]

JL: And that's also great.

JF: Okay, well we are going to stay in this- in this basement in Chappaqua=

JL: Until we're kicked out.

JF: Until someone- til we're forcibly removed.

TV: I’ve got my wheelie bag, so-

JL: It's nice down here.

JF: It is

JL: I could make this work. This is good.

46:36

[OUTRO MUSIC BEGINS]

JL: It's nicer than my house.

TV: Very sporty in this room…golf teams...

JF: Nice books on the shelves...

TV: See Seabiscuit over there…

JF: Bill Simmons basketball book is here…

JL: A lot of a- there's a lot of baseballs and boxing gloves.

JF: Excellent.

JL: Some golf memorabilia.

JF: We are now going to describe the basement for the next 10 to 20 minutes.

JL: There's a photo of Secretariat, the music is going, we are in outro.

JF: We're in the outro.

JL: The outro. Hey, all the reporters listening to this who are gonna tell us we didn't do a great job-

[Laughter]

JL: Did you make it this far?

[Laughter]

JL: I don't care.

[Laughter]

JF: Alright-

JL: That was a great conversation.

JF: We'll see you guys again.

TV: Bye.

JL: Bye.

47:17

#podsa #September 2017 #bonus pod #podsa transcripts

8 notes · View notes

badthingstrumpdidtoday · 8 years

Text

A Summary of Bad Things Trump Did This Week, 2/26/17-3/4/17

We’re entering a new month of 2017, and with March comes a new round of bad things Trump has done. Here are some of the most notable from the past week.

A majority of Trump’s claims in his speech to Congress were lies

Source: The Independent

Despite some bold statements in his speech to Congress on Tuesday, The Independent has found that much of what he claimed was untrue:

While much of the speech was focused on the same rhetoric that Mr Trump led his campaign with – including a commitment to bring jobs back to the US and boost the military – he also made a number of factual claims about his work as president.

Here are some of those false claims in full, as fact checked by the Associated Press.

The article goes on to cover those claims in-depth, and why many of his statements were false.

White House plans major cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency

Source: The Washington Post

These cuts are included in a new budget proposal for 2018, which outline massive increases to defense funding at the cost of federal programs, including many EPA projects:

The funding level proposed, which the document says “highlights the trade-offs and choices inherent in pursuing these goals,” could have a significant impact on the agency. Its annual budget would drop from $8.2 billion a year to $6.1 billion. And because much of that funding already goes to states and localities in the form of grants, such cuts could have an even greater effect on the EPA’s core functions.

Though President Trump professes to care strongly about clean air and clean water, almost no other federal department or agency is as much in the crosshairs at the moment. As a candidate, he vowed to get rid of the EPA “in almost every form,” leaving only “little tidbits” intact. The man he chose to lead the agency, former Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, sued it more than a dozen times in recent years, challenging its legal authority to regulate such things as mercury pollution, smog and carbon emissions from power plants.

The plan reflects those past sentiments. As proposed, the EPA’s staff would be slashed from its current level of 15,000 to 12,000. Grants to states, as well as its air and water programs, would be cut by 30 percent. The massive Chesapeake Bay cleanup project would receive only $5 million in the next fiscal year, down from its current $73 million.

In addition, 38 separate programs would be eliminated entirely. Grants to clean up brownfields, or abandoned industrial sites, would be gone. Also zeroed out: the radon program, climate change initiatives and funding for Alaskan native villages.

Private email account used by Pence during his term as governor was hacked

Source: The Washington Post

Pence’s staff confirmed that a private AOL account he used while governor had been hacked in 2016, which may have compromised confidential information:

Pence had used the AOL account since the mid-1990s and continued to use it throughout his time as governor until early 2016, when the account was compromised by a hack. Hackers leveraged his contacts to launch a phishing attack against his contact lists, sending an email claiming that Pence and his wife were stranded in the Philippines and needed financial help.

After the account was hacked, it was shut down and Pence began using a second AOL account, an aide said.

The use of a private email account is not prohibited by law in Indiana. However, public officials cannot use state accounts for political business.

Security experts noted to the Indy Star that some of Pence's emails were apparently confidential and sensitive enough that they could not be turned over in response to public records requests.

Trump’s team turned down ethics training for White House staff and officials

Source: Politico

Several political appointees at agencies said they received very little training and that the period between the election and Inauguration Day was hectic. There has also been little contact between the political appointees at agencies and the longtime civil servants because of a lack of trust, several of these people said.

The lack of training likely fueled a series of early missteps in the presidency, as aides fired off executive orders and new rules without briefing Congress or their peers at agencies.

Keystone pipeline under no obligation to use all American steel, despite Trump’s recent comments

Source: Politico, CNN

The wording in Trump’s recent “buy American” Executive Order would exempt Keystone XL from needing to use only US steel:

Trump signed the order calling for the Commerce Department to develop a plan for U.S. steel to be used in “all new pipelines, as well as retrofitted, repaired or expanded pipelines” inside the U.S. projects “to the maximum extent possible.”

By the White House’s judgment, that description would not include Keystone XL, which developer TransCanada first proposed in 2008.

“The Keystone XL Pipeline is currently in the process of being constructed, so it does not count as a new, retrofitted, repaired or expanded pipeline,” the White House spokeswoman said.

CNN provides additional coverage of this HERE, as well as information regarding the materials being used for the Keystone construction:

TransCanada said late Friday it has already has purchase agreements for the steel pipe it will use on Keystone. It said half of the pipe will come from the Arkansas plant of India-based steelmaker, Welspun. Another 10% will come from a Welspun plant in India, the rest will be imported from Canada and Italy. In addition, it has already purchased about $800 million worth of other goods from U.S. manufacturers.

"This project will support U.S. energy security, create thousands of well-paying U.S. jobs and provide substantial economic benefits," the company said in the statement.

But most of those jobs are short-term. Once the pipeline opens it would require only 35 full-time permanent jobs to run it, according to an government estimate that TransCanada does not dispute.

White House proposes dramatic cuts to foreign aid budget and the State Department

Source: The Guardian

The proposed budget would slash foreign aid and State Department budgets by one third in order to increase military funding. The cuts have drawn ire from both both sides of the aisle, as well as from retired military leaders:

The US spends just over $50bn annually on the state department and USAID, compared with $600bn or more each year on the Pentagon. Several Republicans this week raised concerns about the planned cuts to the state department.

“I am very concerned by reports of deep cuts that could damage efforts to combat terrorism, save lives and create opportunities for American workers,” said Ed Royce, the chairman of the House of Representatives foreign affairs committee.

Furthermore, more than 120 retired US generals and admirals – including George Casey, former chief of staff of the army, and David Petraeus, former CIA director and commander of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan – sent a letter to Congress, urging it fully fund diplomacy and foreign aid.

“Elevating and strengthening diplomacy and development alongside defense are critical to keeping America safe,” they said. “We know from our service in uniform that many of the crises our nation faces do not have military solutions alone.”

Want to learn more about how we can stop more bad sh*t from happening?

Donate to charities dedicated to fighting against the Trump agenda.

Learn from former congressional staffers on best practices for making your representative listen to you.

Learn how to run for office or get involved in your local political party.

Attend peaceful political protests and know your rights as a protestor.

Support organizations dedicated to investigative journalism and protecting our First Amendment rights.

Be sure to follow for tomorrow’s Bad Things Trump Did Today.

#politics #bad things trump did this week #bad things congress did this week #february 2017 #march 2017 #donald trump #trump #presidential election #president trump #resist

26 notes · View notes

jonjost · 7 years

Text

Hot on the heels of making All The Vermeers in New York and Sure Fire, in what appears in hindsight to be a somewhat feverish creative rush, I went again to shoot another feature, somewhat full of myself, thinking and telling friends, I was out to make a masterpiece. Brian DePalma was saying the same thing then, referring to his in-production film Bonfire of the Vanities. Oh well…. I researched in Newport, Oregon, a film to be set in Toledo, a nearby paper and lumber-mill town. Beginning with a somewhat inchoate idea, vaguely rooted in the at-the-time mania about “recovered memory” in relation to childhood abuse, the result was The Bed You Sleep In.

The Bed You Sleep In

1993 | 35mm Panavision | Color | Sound | 117 minutes

Writer, director, editor and cinematographer: Jon Jost

Music: Erling Wold

With: Tom Blair, Ellen McLaughlin, Kate Sannella, Marshall Gaddis, Thomas Morris, Brad Shelton

Official selection: Berlin, San Francisco, and Sundance Film Festivals

Set in a small lumber mill town in Oregon, The Bed You Sleep In is an examination of a family facing a crisis – an accusation of deep and profound impact against one of its members. Along the way a portrait is rendered of the town, discreetly revealing its qualities, for better and worse. While doing so in a very oblique and indirect manner, the town and the family are surrogates for the larger community of America and its family of citizens. Moving slowly and stealthily, The Bed You Sleep In lays out its pieces, inviting the viewer to think for themselves. When the accusation arrives, a tragedy ensues, sweeping the family to the abyss.

“It would be wrong to claim that Jon Jost’s extraordinary The Bed You Sleep In is an underrated film within the Australian film scene – it would be truer to say that, so far, it’s unrated, virtually unknown beyond a small circle of Cinémathèque members.

Jost is a true maverick of American independent filmmaking, but sadly for Australians he’s an unfashionable maverick whose films are beyond the pale of almost all art-house distributors and exhibitors in this country (and elsewhere, I suspect). And it seems that, especially in the case of this film, the condition of cultural ignorance and neglect may be virtually global.

The Bed You Sleep In is the final installment in what some call the Tom Blair Trilogy, named after the remarkable (and little known) actor who has incarnated several faces of American male psychosis in two previous Jost films, Last Chants for a Slow Dance and Sure Fire. Taken together, these three films form one of the greatest, most important and powerful bodies of work in all cinema.

The Bed You Sleep In also marked Jost’s departure from the US. As a farewell letter, it is surely one of the darkest, most profoundly despairing documents that American culture has ever produced. Not for nothing did Jonathan Rosenbaum title a catalogue note on the film, “The Tunnel at the End of the Light”.

The story traces an allegation of sexual abuse within a family that is living in an economically declining, Oregon lumber mill town. The film charts a double, auto-destructive tragedy: a family that tears itself apart, mirrored by the signs of a slow but terrible ecological disaster.

Jost tackles what I think is probably the single most difficult topic to dramatize on screen – child abuse, and especially the repressed memory of that abuse. This is an area that can be construed in so many wildly different ways – in terms of whom in the scenario one chooses to believe (the child who comes forth with the charge or the parent who protests innocence), the sorts of motives one imputes to the players (is the child on a petulant revenge kick? Is the patriarch at last showing his true, rotten colours?), and in the kinds of moral and social lessons that one decides to draw from it (is the family unit inherently corrupt or inherently civilized? Is feminism warping minds or honing them? Is righteous, ideological paranoia destroying everything that is good or opening our eyes at last to the truth?).

I don’t think Jost, finally, is in control of all the implications of narrating a plot (in however open a form) out of these awful, almost unfathomable issues; his film is unsettling in part because of that lack of control. He deliberately leaves everything unresolved and ambiguous, as Otto Preminger might have done in less psycho-gothic times than ours. Where Jost ends up is with the stasis of absolutely wrenching, wretched despair, complete hopelessness and helplessness, especially where the masculine condition is concerned: few images in cinema have shook me more than the climatic shot of Blair the ‘monster’ reaching a hand down into a pool of water and bringing it up to splash his face, as if to wash his soul clean, at the end of so much sadness and devastation …

But Jost also reaches beyond the turbulence of the dramatic or diegetic illusion to perturb the film form itself. Going far beyond the frozen, burning frame that concluded Monte Hellman’s Two-Lane Blacktop (1971), Jost gives us an entire scopic and aural regime that is slowly bending, cracking and coming apart under immense psychic strain. His use of depopulated landscape shots, in particular, generates a true, deep dread that surpasses any of the horrific grace-notes in the oeuvre of David Lynch (whose Twin Peaks film and TV series offer many points of close comparison with Jost’s tale).

The Bed You Sleep In is in every respect a brilliant, corrosive work – one of the most remarkable films of the 1990s.”

Adrian Martin, November 1995

“The final film in an informal trilogy starring the phenomenal Tom Blair (the other two films in the series are Last Chants for a Slow Dance and Sure Fire), The Bed You Sleep In illustrates the deep frustration about America that drove director Jon Jost to relocate to Europe shortly after it was made. As in the first two films, this one tries to get at the roots of America’s social and political ills through the portrayal of one man’s life. On the surface, Blair’s character, Ray Weiss, is much more sympathetic than the ones he played in the previous two films, but his job as the manager of a lumber mill (albeit a nature-loving one) being driven out of business by foreign competition and clear-cutting places him in a can’t-win situation. He either has to destroy the nature he loves or lose his livelihood. His dual nature is reflected in the visual scheme of the film, which includes many landscape shots composed as diptychs. This is one of Jost’s most powerful portraits of the slow pace and underlying sadness of small town life, both of which are beautifully depicted in a remarkable scene in the town’s diner, made of a single, languid tracking shot encompassing the diner’s interior while life simply goes on both within and beyond the camera’s view. When the letter from his daughter arrives accusing Ray of incest, it hints at an even more violent split within his nature, one that, in Jost’s view, is symbolic of the violent divisions threatening to undermine America’s nobler ideals.

Tom Vick, All Movie Guide

“This really is a most extraordinary film. I found it in the university film library back when I was studying English Literature in 2009: this little gem was nestled in what looked like a knock-off dvd case – the cover looked like it had been designed using clip art. I had no idea quite how obscure it was until I made this list: research has yielded very few reviews and very little information.

Set in a sleepy American town, this film dissects the American dream through its candid study of an American family and the town in which they live. One day, a shocking accusation arrives, sending the family spiraling into despair and tragedy. But who is telling the truth? Camerawork seems telling here, but it is ultimately left to the viewer’s discretion. There is no soundtrack to this film, and conversations are delivered in a realist style, reminiscent of Bergman’s Autumn Sonata. Far from stark, however, this film uses colour and exquisite cinematography to imbue its portrait of tragedy with a kind of stillness. The film is quiet in tone, and highly textured in its delivery. Directed by Jon Jost, it can be bought directly from his website and from Amazon.”

Writer and source unknown

“This 1993 feature certainly has its flaws–including a wholly unnecessary literary quotation that appears on-screen at the worst possible moment–but it’s still one of maverick independent Jon Jost’s most forceful efforts to date, in part because it stars the most talented actor he’s ever worked with, the resourceful Tom Blair. Mainly known as a stage actor and director, Blair also starred in two of Jost’s best earlier features–as a wandering, jobless malcontent in Last Chants for a Slow Dance (1977) and as a misguided, bullying real estate speculator in Sure Fire (1990). Here he rounds out a loose trilogy of Jost’s corrosive, speculative self-portraits by playing a more sympathetic and ostensibly less alienated character, the owner of a lumber mill employing 60 workers, though the consequences of his situation prove to be even bleaker–and this time they can’t be so confidently traced back to his own character. A tragic, beautiful, and mysterious film that alternates between all-American landscapes (many of them composed as diptychs) and an unraveling nuclear family, this is as evocative and apocalyptic as Jost’s cinema gets–a film full of unanswered questions that will nag at you for days even as it makes fully understandable the sort of feelings about this country that drove Jost into European exile not long after it was completed. It’s part of the aching horror and lucidity of Jost’s vision that he can’t regard himself and the U.S. as wholly separate entities. With Ellen McLaughlin and Kate Sannella.

Jonathan Rosenbaum, Chicago Reader

The Bed You Sleep In is very much the work of the same individual but, as mentioned above, is very different in tone. The narrative revolves around the character of Ray (played by the truly remarkable Tom Blair, whose only prior features to the best of my knowledge are Jost’s Last Chants for a Slow Dance and Sure Fire), owner of a financially distressed lumber mill. In a scene of astonishing power, Ray’s wife Ellen (played superbly, particularly in this scene, by Ellen McLaughlin) reads out a letter from his daughter who is painfully and emotionally accusing him of sexual molestation. (The manner in which the letter is read and the way in which the characters’ emotions play out are so vastly different from the ways a similar scene in a Hollywood film would do them that I can’t even begin to describe their effectiveness.) This event occurs just about halfway through the film, and the narrative threads leading up to and trailing from this scene are slowly, meditatively interwoven with masterful visuals of the landscape in and around the town and lumber mill. The cumulative power of the film is devastating.

From a Top Ten listing in Chicago, listed as #4 after Frameup as #3, author not known

NOTE: The available copy of this film has French subtitles burned in and is somewhat banged up. Sorry about that but it is 100% the erstwhile “producer” who is responsible for this reality.

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/123248

Fouled Beds Hot on the heels of making All The Vermeers in New York and Sure Fire, in what appears in hindsight to be a somewhat feverish creative rush, I went again to shoot another feature, somewhat full of myself, thinking and telling friends, I was out to make a masterpiece.

0 notes