#baltimore riots

[jeffwhittle]

We need more Toya Grahams in the world.

[knox-knocks]

Thinking about wymack trying to break the news to the rookie kid about their problems with the japanese mafia without scaring him off the team only for the rookie kid to have his very own ties to a different but related gang is too fucking funny to me

[quiescentdestiny]

thinking about the fact that if Neil had died in Baltimore, literally none of Andrew's family would even know he was broken as much as he was by it. Like they saw him choke Kevin, but even after Baltimore, Nicky assumed it was just a fling.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Given the similarities in working conditions, it is not surprising that, like union members, prisoners organized to agitate for better conditions. Like workers outside of the prison, inmates organized strikes and positioned themselves as individuals who had a right to better labor conditions. Nor was labor resistance restricted to male prisoners. In June 1918, Catherine Beary, the matron of the women’s department at the Maryland House of Correction, visited the Prison Board to discuss a strike the female prisoners had organized. Just as thousands of free women employed in factory workshops and piece-work contracts outside prison walls had participated in labor federation strikes, so too female inmates organized a strike for better working conditions.

One of the most destructive demonstrations in the history of the Maryland Penitentiary began as a strike in a workroom. On Wednesday morning, August 17, 1920, as a protest against monotonous food, half of the inmates in the Penitentiary staged a strike and “refused to continue to work.” In response, Warden Brady declared that the inmates would receive no meals as long as they refused to return to the workshops. By Wednesday evening, most of the prisoners had capitulated and agreed to take up their labor assignments. However, fifty-seven men “swore that they would starve to death before returning to work, [and] remained on strike." As punishment, the warden isolated the strikers in the C Dormitory and gave them restricted rations of bread and water. The strikers remained in their cells on Thursday and Friday and refused to return to the workshops. On Friday night, one of the prisoners in the C Dormitory named Hart managed to dig out the brick and mortar around his cell door and climb out. He then helped the fifty-six other men escape from their cells. The inmates nearly made it out of the penitentiary yard but were stopped at the gate by a force of Baltimore police officers and firemen. The prisoners were pushed back into the dormitory, where they disconnected the electrical lines and pitched the cellblock into darkness. The police and firemen refrained from entering the dormitory in the darkness and waited for several hours through the night until they were able to restore order with the coming of daylight.

While accounts in the Baltimore press and Prison Board minutes explain the riot as a hunger strike, acts of disobedience against a new warden, and a cover for an escape, none of them adequately examined the implications of a strike in which fully half of the prison inmates refused to work. By explaining away the riot as a result of dissatisfaction about the food and as evidence of resistance to the warden, the Prison Board and the press failed to grapple with the extent of the prisoners’ grievances about labor conditions. By refusing to work, the prisoners signaled deep dissatisfaction with conditions in the prison and challenged the narratives of prison administrators.

In its annual report to the state legislature in 1920, the Board of Prison Control discussed the August riot and other incidents at the prison. Following a brief summary of these incidents, the board concluded: "The outstanding problems before us are the best method of utilizing the labor of the prisoners under our control, for their own good and for the good of the State.” Even though the board failed to fully respond to labor grievances as a contributing cause of the 1920 prison riot, it seems likely that the strike contributed to a sense of urgency in the board’s efforts to adopt a new labor system. 

In the months that followed, the Board of Prison Control prepared a thorough report for the General Assembly, which detailed recommendations for a new prison labor system. The report was based on an evaluation of labor systems in operation at fifty-eight prisons across the country. Of those fifty-eight prisons, only nine employed the private contract system. Most prisons employed convicts in the production of goods for the state, for sale on the market, or in road and farm work. The State Prison Board identified several industries in which the State could employ prison labor, including the manufacture of prison clothing by prisoners, the production of state automobile tags, and the printing of state publications. The Board of Prison Control requested funds for the purchase of machinery and supplies to equip prison workshops with clothing, shoes,  automobile tags, and printing for state-use. The board also noted that few funds were allocated in the state budget for maintenance of the prison system and that the financial burden therefore fell to prison labor.

…

It is likely that the prison administration made this decision in order to prevent disciplinary challenges arising from idle prisoners. It appears that the lesson the board members took away from the 1920 strike was not the need for better labor conditions, but rather the need to prevent prisoners from remaining idle. Indeed, setting up a clothing workshop for the production of prisoner apparel was deemed attractive precisely because of its potential to furnish inmates with skills that would give them employment upon release, as Baltimore was a center of clothing manufacture. The board cast this determination in progressive rhetoric of prisoner welfare and reform. For example, the board states:

[I]n our judgment, the first object of prison labor should be to teach the prisoner something which will be of benefit to him in the future. The financial consideration is secondary, but, on the other hand, we do not think it should be lost sight of.

- Erin Durham, “In Pursuit of Reform, Whether Convict or Free: Prison Labor Reform in Maryland in the Early Twentieth Century,” Master’s thesis, University of Maryland, 2018. p. 43-46, 49.

[oldshowbiz]

The Smokey Robinson Riot

[wonderlesch]

A Year of Whiskey 2024

Cheers to the golden hues of whiskey! A Year of Whiskey 2024 shares travel destinations for you to be able to taste your way through 2024. Slainte! #wednesdaywonders #traveldestinationguide #ayearofwhiskey2024 #newblogpostalert #wonderlesch

Hello and welcome to my latest Travel Destination Guide A Year of Whiskey 2024. This blog post shares Whiskey Tasting Events happening January through December. Start planning your year of whiskey and begin exploring Detroit Bourbon Fest in April, Belfast Whiskey Week in July, WhiskyFest Las Vegas in December and so many more. Let’s travel whiskey tasting! Scottish National Whisky Festival –…

[ninyard]

Keeping these all in one place for my own sake but if you felt like catching up on my in-universe tweets/memes/texts here’s them all so far:

- my og in-universe memes post

(exy fans + twitter)

- the Kathy Ferdinand show

- you’re telling me an AARON killed this man?

- Neil’s New Look

- the night of the riots + Baltimore

- Nathaniel Wesninski Reveal

- kevin day has never been skiing

- usc vs foxes lineup

- jean is signing with USC live reaction

- championship finals pt 1 / pt 2 / pt 2.5 / pt 3

- riko, gone but not forgotten </3

- the trial pt 1

- the olympics pt 1

fox tweets pt 1 / pt 2 / pt 2.5 / pt 3 / the q&a / drunk tweets

twt user andrewminyard

(the aus)

- the andreil outing / pt 2 / andrew’s outtakes

- jean moreau’s freshman year

- the kevallison au

- marissa’s party pt 1

(asks)

- boomer jean moreau / pt 2 / pt 3 / pt 4 / jeandrew / pt 2 / jean's rule

- kevin goes skiing / prove it kev / kevin the ally

- kandreil rescues / be gay do crime / the fork

- agent browning calling / lil butch / trauma dump / the wiki

- robin text

(texts)

- the car wash / new starters

- from andrew to renee / serial killer ask / pope text / andrew's pro team

- from kevin to andrew / from nicky to andrew

(deleted scenes)

1 / 2

[cubbyyyy]

just rambling

Everything about the hotel-Baltimore scene is pure perfection.

If I wouldn't have shipped andreil from the start, that would’ve been my moment. I can’t even explain how much that scene means to me - how much andreil means to me.

Neil instantly asking where Andrew is once he’s in the room.

Andrew crashing into it.

Andrew and Neil talking and talking and talking as if the room wasn’t full of other people.

Andrew checking Neils bruises. Neil checking Andrews bruises. Both fiercely protective.

No one being dared to touch them in this moment. Not the police, not Abby , no one.

It’s the most intense, intimate moment in the whole series imo. I think I never read a scene that felt as intimate as this one.

So much anger but never directed towards each other.

Neil made Andrew lose control. Neil, the only person who saw Andrew, who actually saw that Andrew was in control the whole time while everyone thought he was an uncontrollable monster. Neil said before he wants to see him lose control - he isn’t afraid of him, never was, never will. Andrews bottomless anger is never directed towards him and that’s what makes all the difference.

The foxes are not to be forgotten - the way Andrew invited them into the fight when he realized Neil could be taken away - how everyone was ready to start a riot instantly - they have each others back, always. The way they all patiently waited to get answers, respected Neils decision to speak in german first but still being on his side is everything. Neil didn’t have to convince them to be on his side again, didn’t have to offer answers first, they always were with him without a doubt. Answers can come later.

So yea, I love it.

[filmnoirsbian]

I'm not necessarily a punk gatekeeper like idrc abt "sell out" accusations bc tbh I like when artists I like get paid and expand their audiences and I'm a green day fan so yk but even at their most sell out they were putting out shit like american idiot so it's not like they weren't still politically punk. And I don't even think you can't necessarily be privileged and still make good punk music (again, go listen to willow smith's recent stuff both her solo albums and as the anxiety it's great) but as a huge fan of the baltimore and dc hxc scene it's just like ok. So what's the point? Punk sounds like garbage to people who don't like it because punks cared more about getting their message across than making shit that might get radio airplay. They were fucking angry about the state of things and they made music for people who were also angry about it, and so often there was no crossover appeal. Remember when bad brains got fucking banned from dc bc their shows went so hard? If you want to make music with a punk-sounding influence that isn't necessarily political that's fine, that's how we got pop punk and the alt scene, all those "I hate my town" bands, the blink 182s and avril lavignes of the world, but there's a reason it's called pop punk and not just punk. Avril wasn't called the punk princess ever bc people knew that'd sound fucking ridiculous. She was the pop punk princess. I'm not saying that punk songs and bands can't become mainstream or popular, green day won fucking grammies, the clash and the sex pistols etc all got their big paydays. Which is why the hxc (and other early punk subgroups like riot grrrl etc) scene erupted at all; they felt like the big punk names weren't going hard enough anymore, and in a lot of ways they were right but that's sort of the nature of music, eventually audiences get bored or radio stations and studio execs want to discover the new big thing and then what was outsider music becomes mainstream and then those outsider fans decide those bands have sold out and look for something still outside/something harder which won't so easily be sold to the general public, rinse repeat. But I AM saying that if you're going to try to call your music punk, I better see you in the fucking pit.

[mightyflamethrower]

The destruction of the family unit by radical progressives has created a generation of lawless youth that has been on full display this year in crime-ridden Baltimore City, Washington, DC, and other liberal metro areas where disastrous social justice reforms have been pushed through. 

The latest sign of lawless youth was Christmas Eve in Oakland, California, where instead of bonding with family and exchanging gifts in 'Secret Santa' - they were rioting on the streets. 

Racially privileged youth celebrate Christmas in Oakland.

[exy-conspiracies]

Honestly, I know what people are saying about Neil josten and how he’s not that guy who was taken out of the butcher of Baltimores house…

But like that’s him. I live in the Baltimore area and istg I saw the foxes team bus parked near a hotel. Now I know people might not buy it but with the news footage from the scene and the whole riot thing I genuinely think it was Neil josten. 

.

[jeanmoreaue]

okey than make “who has had the most trouble with the law” ranking

🫡

1. Neil - i feel like he managed to avoid the cops very successfully pre-aftg, but the fact that the fbi is on his ass post-aftg lands him here

2. Aaron

3. Andrew - look at Andrew and Aaron ranked next to each other. twins ❤️ Andrew is ranked lower though bc he’s never been actually charged with murder

4. Jeremy - i stand by this theory that Jeremy’s an addict so i imagine he’s gotten in trouble with the law several times, but had no consequences bc his family is rich lol

5. Renee - i’m of the opinion that i respect the extra content, but for me it’s not like. actual book material since it’s not in the books. so idk if it’s mentioned that Renee has been to juvie/prison in the extra content, but in book no. but i imagine she’s definitely had some run ins

6. Nicky - just gives off the vibe that he’s been arrested before lmao

7. Matt - did i hallucinate this. i feel like Matt got arrested and then let go during the Baltimore riots.. or am i thinking of a fic lmao

8. Jean - okay idk where to put him bc he has a completely clean record, but he’s also talked to the fbi at least one more time than most other characters so

also this is almost completely unrelated but i have this theory that when Jean first arrived at eau, he tried to run away and get help from a security guard/college student but he was unsuccessful since he didn’t speak english (there’s this line in tsc where Jean says he “hadn’t been off the court for longer than 11 weeks since…” and then he cuts himself off and i don’t think this is referencing the January incident bc he said he was back on the court playing since his padding was soaked in blood rip)

9. Allison

10. Dan

11. Kevin - uncooperative witness, but otherwise Kevin has done nothing wrong lol

12. Riko - this is so funny and annoying but honestly Riko is at the bottom bc even Kevin got in trouble w the cops for being “uncooperative” after Drake’s murder so somehow Riko is here

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"In the months following the conference, the challenge of employing inmates in prison shops became more desperate. Harold E. Donnell, prison superintendent, experimented with various labor arrangements, including whether to employ prisoners in the shops for three days, or to place them on a reduced work schedule. By the end of the month, prison administrators determined to operate the prison workshops for five hours a day in order to maintain a morning of work and discipline. Prisoners were given recreation after the shops closed at noon. ….

Three months later, [in November 1932] inmates chose to organize the prison strike in the Standard Overall Company prison workshops over wage reductions. While prisoners did not officially hold standing with unions, the incident illustrates their ability to organize effectively in order to halt prison production for an entire week. As they were not able to physically walk out of their shops, the prisoners chose to sit at their workstations in an effective use of “passive resistance.” The work in the prison overall shops was set up on a task basis, a labor system that was used in factories that employed wage laborers outside prison walls. In this system, prisoners were required to meet an establish production quota. Once they fulfilled their first task, they were encouraged to work a second task as overtime. The payment earned for each task was divided between the state and individual prisoners. In fall 1932, the wage contract of the three Standard Overall Company shops awarded the state sixty cents for the first task and allowed prisoners to keep twenty cents. For the second task, the prisoners pocketed the entire wage of seventy-five cents. In comparison, male garment workers outside the prison made about $10 a week in the height of the Great Depression

… the Standard Overall Company had already renegotiated the wage a year and a half earlier with the Maryland prison administration. The additional reduction in 1932 lowered the wages of prisoners still further. For the second task, the prisoners’ wage dropped forty cents while the state was given twenty cents. Prisoners no longer were allowed to keep their entire earnings for their work on the second task, but rather had to divide their earnings with the state. As a result of the wage reduction, prisoners who completed both their first and second tasks saw a total reduction of thirty-five cents per day in wages.

On the morning of Friday, December 2, 1932, when the renegotiated contract between the Board of Welfare and the owner of the overall manufacturing shops went into effect, the workers marched to their work positions and sat passively at their workstations in protest of the wage decrease. At the end of the day, the inmates were marched back to the mess hall for the regular routine of supper and then marched to their cells for the night. Inmates maintained the quiet order they had during the morning breakfast routine and did not erupt into rowdiness or violence. One prison officer remarked, “What got us was that they were more orderly and more quiet than they usually are. It was a shock.” By maintaining order, the prisoners made it clear that their grievance was not with the prison warden or guards, but rather state prison administrators responsible for reducing their wages. Fully two thirds of the prisoners were unemployed that day, predominantly as a result of the overall shop strike.

The strike continued into the next day. On the morning of Saturday, December 4, 1932 inmates started off with the usual order of breakfast and marched to the workshops for the regular half day of labor. Upon arriving at the workshops, prisoners in the overall shop again stood idle at their stations. Warden Brady visited the prison shops and investigated the situation. At midmorning, he said that the “situation was unchanged. . . the men quietly but firmly refused to return to work.” When the time for the noon meal came and the ending of the workday, the prisoners were taken back to the mess hall and then allowed the normal Saturday afternoon recreational activities. Some inmates chose to spend time in the prison yard, while others listened to the radio broadcast of the Army Navy football game or watched a movie.

At first, prison administrators largely ignored the strike. Superintendent of the Maryland prison system, Harold E. Donnell, who visited the Maryland Penitentiary on both days of the strike, downplayed the significance of the inmate’s actions. He recognized that Saturday was a half-day of work and expected that the men would return to work early the next week. Speaking on behalf of prison administrators he remarked:

We are not worrying. The prisoners are only hurting themselves by cutting off the money they are earning. I am sure they will see this in the proper light as soon as they look matters squarely in the face.

In this manner, Donnell easily dismissed the significance of a thirty-five cent wage reduction as an event of no import. It is likely prison administrators downplayed the incident in order to lessen public attention on the matter, as it revealed the state’s inability not only to respond to civilian concerns in a time of economic crisis, but its failure to adequately control its prison population. 

Figures in positions of authority passed responsibility to others. The owner of the Standard Overall Company shrugged off any responsibility for the strike. After visiting the prison Saturday morning, he stated, “The matter is entirely in the hands of the Board of Welfare. There is nothing that I can say or do about it. It is up to the Board what percentage of the money is paid to the prisoners.” Board of Welfare members likewise dodged responsibility. At the time of the strike, the President of the Board of Welfare, Stuart S. Janney, was visiting Philadelphia to attend the Army Navy football game. Janney initially deflected his responsibility by expressing his confidence in the actions of Warden Brady and Superintendent Donnell. Janney “said he would confer” with the warden and superintendent, “but insisted that he considered these officials able to cope with the situation without the action of the Board of Welfare.” In one aspect, however, Janney was outspoken. He was quick to assert that the terms of the contract between the Penitentiary and the Standard Overall Company would remain. He remarked, “The contract is going to stand; there will be no change.” With this insistence, Janney dismissed the prison strike as a cause without merit. During the first few days of the strike, prison administrators could identify no clear leaders of the strike. Plans were made to convene a special meeting of the Board of Welfare the next week. 

Monday morning, December 5, dawned. After the regular breakfast routine the prisoners were again brought to the shops. Rather than meekly starting up the overall machinery, the strikers held their stance of passive resistance. The extended state of unemployment unnerved prison officials. When it became apparent that prisoners were not going to be easily persuaded to give up the strike, the Superintendent of the prisons, Harold E. Donnell and the members of the Board of Welfare met to discuss strategies to end the strike. At this time, 1,132 prisoners were serving sentences in the Maryland Penitentiary. While prison labor was divided between a mix of state-use and private company work, the three shops of the Standard Overall Company employed the highest number of prisoners. The strike and subsequent halt of the production line put approximately six hundred inmates out of work. In addition, two hundred inmates were already idled due to conditions of overcrowding and lack of work in the prison system.

….prison administrators placed a high priority on securing the work of inmates. Prison idleness was an anathema to state prison officials because it threatened the penal system’s primary source of revenue. Contrary to the hard line that President Janney took over the weekend about refusing to give concessions, the Welfare Board decided to adjust the wage scale and offer the prisoners sixty cents rather than forty cents for the second task. 

This concession was remarkable in that it signaled the state’s recognition of the prisoners’ strike. In direct opposition to the initial rhetoric employed by prison administrators, Board of Welfare members acknowledged the wage grievances and sought to appease the inmates through a monetary compromise. This negotiation however, did not adequately satisfy the striking prisoners. In a clear demonstration of their autonomy, the striking prisoners refused to accept anything less than the previous wage of seventy-five cents. To emphasize their conviction, the inmates continued their collective refusal to work. 

As conditions stalemated, Superintendent Donnell and the Warden Brady presented a plan to break the strike by separating selected inmates, “deemed by the Warden to be dangerous and particularly involved in the so-called strike” into segregated cells apart from the rest of the inmates. Board of Welfare members immediately approved this plan on Wednesday, December 7, and the warden took direct action to implement it. After securing strike leaders in isolation, prison officials allowed the remainder of the inmates the option of returning to work. The prisoners held out during the next day, and strike leaders shouted and beat on their segregated cells. The guards stationed large gas weapons within view of the striking men and threatened to knock everyone out if they did not cease the disturbance. Two of the leaders refused to submit, and each of them were removed and placed in smaller isolated cells. When they still refused to be quiet, they were knocked out with gas bullets. The next morning, exactly, one week from when the strike began, the majority of inmates returned back to the overall shops. Superintendent Harold E. Donnell declared the Penitentiary strike completely over.

Several significant shifts occurred in the course of the seven-day strike. During the first days of the protest, the attitude of prison administrators was initially very dismissive. Superintendent Harold E. Donnell remarked on Saturday, December 3, that he was sure the prisoners would rethink their actions when they realized that a lesser wage was better than no wage at all. The director of the Board of Welfare, Stuart Janney, articulated a hardline stance declaring that no compromise would be considered. He was disdainful of the action of the inmates and their ability to take collective action by declaring, “Everything given to the prisoners is a gratuity. Every man is an individual and there is no one or no group among them invested with any authority to say what they want or do not want.” Further disregard is evidenced in the language prison administrators used to describe the strike. By describing the inmates as “idle,” the administrators tried to dismiss the potency of the inmate’s collective action. In reality, the deliberate action of the inmates choosing to remain “idle” and refuse to operate the machinery proved successful in challenging the state’s prison labor system. 

The Board of Welfare members, realizing the urgent need to take action, sought to appease inmates by renegotiating the terms of contract by raising the wage by twenty cents. However, the wage was still below the original amount, and the prisoners refused to capitulate. Finally, prison administrators reacted by arming prison guards with pistols and tear gas and separating strike leaders into holding cells, thus breaking the strike by force. The breaking of the strike through violence and intimidation would have been very familiar to laborers who experienced firsthand the state’s use of police officers to break labor union strikes in Baltimore. By relying upon violence, the state exposed its ultimate inability to control the situation through rational means.

The reactions of the press, prison administrators, inmates, and labor leaders varied widely. The sensational aspects of the strike were emphasized in the Baltimore News with banner headlines and a focus on the climax in which guards employed gas bullets to quell the shouting of striking inmates. The Baltimore Sun also covered the story in great detail. Notwithstanding the final climactic scene, major news reports about the Penitentiary strike highlighted prisoners’ labor grievances. Newspapers provided firsthand testimony from prison administrators, guards, and contract owners, and explained the strike as a response to the wage reduction in the Standard Overall Company contract. Although prisoners were limited in their negotiating power, they were able to win concessions from the prison administration and ultimately gained back a slight increase in the amount of wages, an astonishing victory for an imprisoned population.  

Economic implications of the prison labor strike were not lost on organized labor leaders. On the final day of the prison strike, December 9, 1932, Joseph P. McCurdy, the president of the Washington D.C. and Maryland chapters of the American Federation of Labor, published an article in the Baltimore Federationist that discussed the prison strike. In the article, McCurdy focused on the economic damage caused by prison contracts, and gave as an example the closing of the Washington Pants Company in the District and its removal to Virginia prison workshops in order to compete with the Standard Overall Company. Another labor critique, also published in the December 9th issue of the Baltimore Federationist, cited the strike as evidence of the failure of the state to provide for its working population. Not only did the prison system curtail labor employment, but state officials actively sought labor contracts for a criminal population that was fed and clothed by the state. The author argued that Board of Welfare members “should not lose sight of the fact that the State feeds and shelters the inmates” giving “a practical guarantee of the necessities of life…while the free laborer unemployed has no assurance of either food or shelter.” In other words, the strike exacerbated organized labor concerns that not only did state officials worsen the unemployment crisis by securing the contracts of private employers for its criminal population, but they failed to provide either direct aid or work relief to its law-abiding, upstanding citizens.

…

By choosing to strike, prison inmates placed themselves within the larger context of labor agitation of the period, and thrust the prison industry system clearly into public view. It is crucial to note, however, that there is no evidence that labor organizations in Baltimore stood in solidarity with striking inmates at the Maryland Penitentiary. Outside the prison, labor organization members generally did not identify with the grievances of prisoners or see them as laborers in their own right who deserved fair working conditions. As seen in the Baltimore Federationist newspaper commentary, labor leaders were concerned with restricting prison labor in order to ameliorate the strain of having to compete with a guaranteed population of low-wage labor….

Although they may not have been invited, prisoners saw to it that their voices were not absent from prison labor discussions. During the weeklong strike of the shops of the Standard Overall Company, prisoners were able to enter the conversation regarding the prison labor problem and achieve a small victory of control over their wages. Ultimately, the actions of the inmates and the public discussion surrounding it exposed the state’s failure to provide relief for its constituents. The incident revealed many uncomfortable realities about prison labor, such as the employment secured for prisoners, that prison administrators would rather have kept outside of public knowledge. By lowering wages and maintaining the contract with the Standard Overall Company, the state overtly exacerbated the unemployment crisis for manufacturers and wage workers outside prison walls, and was excoriated for doing so by the labor press in Baltimore."

- Erin Durham, “In Pursuit of Reform, Whether Convict or Free: Prison Labor Reform in Maryland in the Early Twentieth Century,” Master’s thesis, University of Maryland, 2018. p. 84-99.

[palmettoshenanigans]

I'm not a theater nerd so I don't actually know if this is true but I heard that in musicals they only start singing when the feelings get too strong to say, and only start dancing when the feelings get too strong to sing, so if AFTG were made into a musical then Andrew would never sing, but he WOULD made snarky interjections in the middle of OTHER people singing, in fact Andrew would only ever hum super quiet wordless tunes in front of Neil when no one else is around and I will die on this hill but that is not the point of this, instead I have a question.

Would Andrew choking Kevin after the Baltimore Riot be a dance number?

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Steve Brodner

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

June 13, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUN 14, 2024

The Port of Baltimore reopened yesterday, fewer than 100 days after a container ship hit the Francis Scott Key Bridge on March 26, collapsing it into the channel. The port is a major shipping hub, especially for imports and exports of cars and light trucks—about 750,000 vehicles went through it in 2022. It is also the nation’s second-biggest exporter of coal. In 2023 it moved a record-breaking $80 billion worth of foreign cargo. 

After the crash, the administration rushed support to the site, likely in part to emphasize that under Democrats, government really can get things done efficiently, as Democratic Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro demonstrated in June 2023 when he oversaw the reopening of a collapsed section of I-95 in just 12 days. Reopening the Port of Baltimore required salvage workers, divers, crane operators, and mariners to clear more than 50,000 tons of steel.

Yesterday, at the reopening, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg noted the “whole of government” response. State leadership under Maryland governor Wes Moore worked with those brought together by the Unified Command set up under the National Response System to coordinate the responses of the local government, state government, federal government, and those responsible for the crisis to make them as effective and efficient as possible; the Coast Guard; the Army Corps of Engineers; the first responders; and the port workers. 

Buttigieg noted that the response team had engaged all the stakeholders in the process, including truck drivers and trucking companies, trade associations, and agricultural producers. He gave credit for that ability to the administration’s establishment of the White House Supply Chains Disruptions Task Force, which, he said, “put us in a strong place to mitigate the disruptions to our supply chain and economy.”  

Clearing the channel was possible thanks to an immediate down payment of $60 million from the Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration. The department estimates that rebuilding the bridge will cost between $1.7 billion and $1.9 billion. President Joe Biden has said he wants the federal government to fund that rebuilding as it quickly did in 2007, when a bridge across the Mississippi River in Minneapolis suddenly collapsed. Within a week of that collapse, Congress unanimously passed a measure to fund rebuilding the bridge, and President George W. Bush signed it into law. But now some Republicans are balking at Biden’s request, saying that lawmakers should simply take the money that has been appropriated for things like electric vehicles, or wait until insurance money comes in from the shipping companies. 

Meanwhile, former president Trump traveled to Capitol Hill today for the first time since the January 6, 2021, riots. Passing protesters holding signs that said things like “Democracy Forever, Trump Never,” Trump met first with Republican lawmakers from the House and then with Republican senators, who, according to Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), gave him “a lot of standing ovations.” Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) called it “bring your felon to work day.” 

Republicans billed the visit as a brainstorming session about Trump’s 2025 agenda, but no discussions of plans have emerged, only generalities and the sort of cheery grandstanding McConnell provided. The meeting, along with a press appearance at which Trump made a short speech but did not take questions before shaking a lot of Republican hands, appeared to be an attempt to overwrite the news of his conviction by indicating he is popular in Congress.

The news that has gotten traction is Trump’s statement that Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where the Republicans are holding their convention in July, is a “horrible city.” Republicans are trying hard to spin this comment as a misunderstanding, but their many different attempts to explain it away—as meaning crime, or elections, or Pere Marquette Park (!)—seem more likely to reinforce the comment than distract from it. 

Indeed, it’s possible that the agenda had more to do with Trump than with the nation. Anna Massoglia of Open Secrets reported today that Trump’s political operation spent more than $20 million on lawyers in the first four months of 2024, and Rachel Bade of Politico reported hours before the House meeting that Trump has been obsessed with using the powers of Congress to fight for him and to, as she puts it, “go to war against the Democrats he accuses of ‘weaponizing’ the justice system against him.” 

Bade said that after his May 30 conviction by a unanimous jury on 34 criminal counts, Trump immediately called House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), insisting in a profanity-laden rant that “We have to overturn this.” Johnson is sympathetic but has too slim a House majority to deliver as much fire as both would like, especially since vulnerable Republicans aren’t eager to weaponize the nation’s lawmaking body for Trump. 

As David Kurtz of Talking Points Memo explained this morning, House Republicans “are already advancing Trump’s campaign of retribution.” Yesterday they voted to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress and recommended his prosecution for refusing to hand over an audio recording of special counsel Robert Hur’s interview with President Biden. Biden, who was not charged over his retention of classified documents as vice president, has provided a transcript of the interview but has exerted executive privilege over the recording.

The demand for the audio is particularly galling, considering that Biden voluntarily testified while Trump refused to be interviewed by either special counsel Robert Mueller or special counsel Jack Smith. But Biden has a well-known stutter, and having hours of testimony in his own voice might offer something that could be chopped up for political ads. 

Indeed, former Republican representative Ken Buck (R-CO) acknowledged that Republicans are “just looking for something for political purposes,” and House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-KY) sent out a fundraising appeal promising that the audio recording “could be the final blow to Biden with swing voters across the country.” 

White House Counsel Edward Siskel wrote to Comer and Judiciary Committee chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) saying that the administration “has sought to work in good faith with Congress.” It released Hur’s long report editorializing on Biden’s mental acuity without redacting it, allowed Hur to testify publicly for more than five hours, and provided transcripts, emails, and documents. “The absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings lays bare your likely goal,” Siskel wrote, “to chop them up, distort them, and use them for partisan political purposes.”

The attack on Garland, journalist Kurtz notes, continues the steady stream of disinformation the House Republicans have been producing through their “investigations” and impeachment hearings and press conferences. 

In the Senate, six MAGA Republicans demonstrated their support for Trump by threatening to block Biden’s key nominees in protest of the New York jury’s conviction of Trump, although they are trying to frame the convictions as “the current administration’s persecution of” Trump. The senators are J. D. Vance (R-OH), Mike Lee (R-UT), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), and Eric Schmitt (R-MO). 

While MAGA Republicans show their reverence for Trump, Democrats are working to get them on the record on issues the American people care about. 

Today, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) held a vote on whether to advance a bill that would provide federal protection for in vitro fertilization (IVF), an infertility treatment in which a human egg is fertilized outside the body and then placed in a human uterus for gestation. IVF is popular: a March poll by CBS News/YouGov found that 86% of Americans think it should be legal, while only 14% think it should be illegal. But the white evangelical Christians who make up the Republicans’ base are increasingly demanding that the nation’s laws recognize “fetal personhood,” the idea that a fertilized egg has the full rights of a living human. This would end all abortion, of course, as well as birth control that prevents implantation, such as IUDs and Plan B. And, if fertilized eggs are fully human, it would also end IVF because the procedure often results in some fertilized eggs being damaged or discarded. 

This is a vote Republicans did not want to take because voting to protect IVF will infuriate their base and voting to end it will infuriate the 86% of Americans who support it. So they tried to get around it by signing a statement noting that IVF is legal and that they “strongly support continued nationwide access to IVF.” While it is true that IVF is currently legal, the Alabama Supreme Court in February ruled that frozen embryos should be considered unborn children and their destruction could be prosecuted under the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. In the wake of that decision, two of Alabama’s eight fertility clinics paused their IVF treatments. 

In today’s vote, all but three Republicans voted against taking up the bill protecting IVF. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted in favor of it; Eric Schmitt of Missouri did not vote. All the Democrats voted in favor, although Schumer changed his vote to a “no” so he could bring the vote up again later. 

Regarding the difference between the statement and the votes, Leah Greenberg of Indivisible posted: “Who are you gonna believe, me or my voting record?”

In another window onto the future of reproductive rights, the Supreme Court today unanimously decided that the antiabortion groups trying to get the drug mifepristone banned did not have standing to bring the case. This preserves access to mifepristone, commonly used to induce medical abortions, but as legal observers point out, the court ruled only on standing, meaning that others, who do have standing, could bring a similar case. 

This afternoon, Biden posted: “Kamala and I stand with the majority of Americans who support a woman’s right to make deeply personal health care decisions. And our commitment to you is that we will not back down from ensuring women in every state get the care they need.”

And so, going into the 2024 election, the question of abortion is on the table.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[rainbow-femme]

God I feel like I want to join the bandwagon and do the riot/Baltimore from Andrew’s POV thing. Like I feel like everyone has done their idea of it and none have quite hit what I want and I feel like I may need to just break down and do it