#i made a promise mr donald

[deadpresidents]

On the cliffs of Normandy, in a small holding area, the President of the United States was looking out at the English Channel. It was only six weeks ago, on the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landings, and President Biden had just finished his remarks at the American cemetery atop Omaha Beach. Guests had been congratulating him on the speech, but he didn't want to talk about himself. The moment was not about him; it was about the men who had fought and died there. "Today feels so large," he told me. "This may sound strange -- and I don't mean it to -- but when I was out there, I felt the honor of it, the sanctity of it. To speak for the American people, to speak over those graves, it's a profound thing." He turned from the view over the beaches and gestured back toward the war dead. "You want to do right by them, by the country."

Mr. Biden has spent a lifetime trying to do right by the nation, and he did so in the most epic of ways when he chose to end his campaign for re-election. His decision is one of the most remarkable acts of leadership in our history, an act of self-sacrifice that places him in the company of George Washington who also stepped away from the presidency. To put something ahead of one's immediate desires -- to give, rather than to try to take -- is perhaps the most difficult thing for any human being to do. And Mr. Biden has done just that.

To be clear: Mr. Biden is my friend, and it has been a privilege to help him when I can. Not because I am a Democrat -- I belong to neither party and have voted for both Democrats and Republicans -- but because I believe him to be a defender of the Constitution and a public servant of honor and of grace at a time when extreme forces threaten the nation. I do not agree with everything he has done or wanted to do in terms of policy. But I know him to be a good man, a patriot and a president who has met challenges all too similar to those Abraham Lincoln faced. Here is the story I believe history will tell of Joe Biden. With American democracy in an hour of maximum danger in Donald Trump's presidency, Mr. Biden stepped in the breach. He staved off an authoritarian threat at home, rallied the world against autocrats abroad, laid the foundations for decades of prosperity, managed the end of a once-in-a-century pandemic, successfully legislated on vital issues of climate and infrastructure and has conducted a presidency worthy of the greatest of his predecessors. History and fate brought him to the pinnacle in a late season in his life, and in the end, he respected fate -- and he respected the American people.

It is, of course, an incredibly difficult moment. Highs and lows, victories and defeats, joy and pain: It has been ever thus for Mr. Biden. In the distant autumn of 1972, he experienced the most exhilarating of hours -- election to the United States Senate at the age of 29. He was no scion; he earned it. The darkness fell: His wife and daughter were killed in an automobile accident that seriously injured his two sons, Beau and Hunter. But he endured, found purpose in the pain, became deeper, wiser, more empathetic. Through the decades, two presidential campaigns imploded, and in 2015 his son Beau, a lawyer and wonderfully promising young political figure, died of brain cancer after serving in Iraq.

Such tragedy would have broken many lesser men. Mr. Biden, however, never gave up, never gave in, never surrendered the hope that a fallen, frail and fallible world could be made better, stronger and more whole if people could summon just enough goodness and enough courage to build rather than tear down. Character, as the Greeks first taught us, is destiny, and Mr. Biden's character is both a mirror and a maker of his nation's. Like Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, he is optimistic, resilient and kind, a steward of American greatness, a love of the great game of politics and, at heart, a hopeless romantic about the country that has given him so much.

Nothing bears out this point as well as his decision to let history happen in the 2024 election. Not matter how much people say that this was inevitable after the debate in Atlanta last month, there was nothing foreordained about an American President ending his political career for the sake of his country and his party. By surrendering the possibility of enduring in the seat of ultimate power, Mr. Biden has taught us a landmark lesson in patriotism, humility and wisdom.

Now the question comes to the rest of us. What will we the people do? We face the most significant of choices. Mr. Roosevelt framed the war whose dead Mr. Biden commemorated at Normandy in June as a battle between democracy and dictatorship. It is not too much to say that we, too, have what Mr. Roosevelt called a "rendezvous with destiny" at home and abroad. Mr. Biden has put country above self, the Constitution above personal ambition, the future of democracy above temporal gain. It is up to us to follow his lead.

-- "Joe Biden, My Friend and an American Hero" by Jon Meacham, New York Times, July 22, 2024.

[contemplatingoutlander]

That the Editorial Board of the premier U.S. newspaper of record is finally warning about Donald Trump is significant. As such, this is a gift 🎁 link so that those who want to read the entire editorial can do so, even if they don't subscribe to The New York Times. Below are some excerpts:

As president, [Trump] wielded power carelessly and often cruelly and put his ego and his personal needs above the interests of his country. Now, as he campaigns again, his worst impulses remain as strong as ever — encouraging violence and lawlessness, exploiting fear and hate for political gain, undermining the rule of law and the Constitution, applauding dictators — and are escalating as he tries to regain power. He plots retribution, intent on eluding the institutional, legal and bureaucratic restraints that put limits on him in his first term. Our purpose at the start of the new year, therefore, is to sound a warning. Mr. Trump does not offer voters anything resembling a normal option of Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, big government or small. He confronts America with a far more fateful choice: between the continuance of the United States as a nation dedicated to “the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” and a man who has proudly shown open disdain for the law and the protections and ideals of the Constitution. [...] It is instructive in the aftermath of that administration to listen to the judgments of some of these officials on the president they served. John Kelly, a chief of staff to Mr. Trump, called him the “most flawed person I’ve ever met,” someone who could not understand why Americans admired those who sacrificed their lives in combat. Bill Barr, who served as attorney general, and Mark Esper, a former defense secretary, both said Mr. Trump repeatedly put his own interests over those of the country. Even the most loyal and conservative of them all, Vice President Mike Pence, who made the stand that helped provoke Mr. Trump and his followers to insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, saw through the man: “On that day, President Trump also demanded that I choose between him and the Constitution,” he said.

[See more under the cut.]

There will not be people like these in the White House should Mr. Trump be re-elected. The former president has no interest in being restrained, and he has surrounded himself with people who want to institutionalize the MAGA doctrine. According to reporting by the Times reporters Maggie Haberman, Charlie Savage and Jonathan Swan, Mr. Trump and his ideological allies have been planning for a second Trump term for many months already. Under the name Project 2025, one coalition of right-wing organizations has produced a thick handbook and recruited thousands of potential appointees in preparation for an all-out assault on the structures of American government and the democratic institutions that acted as checks on Mr. Trump’s power. [...] Mr. Trump has made clear his conviction that only “losers” accept legal, institutional or even constitutional constraints. He has promised vengeance against his political opponents, whom he has called “vermin” and threatened with execution. This is particularly disturbing at a time of heightened concern about political violence, with threats increasing against elected officials of both parties. He has repeatedly demonstrated a deep disdain for the First Amendment and the basic principles of democracy, chief among them the right to freely express peaceful dissent from those in power without fear of retaliation, and he has made no secret of his readiness to expand the powers of the presidency, including the deployment of the military and the Justice Department, to have his way. [...] Re-electing Mr. Trump would present serious dangers to our Republic and to the world. This is a time not to sit out but instead to re-engage. We appeal to Americans to set aside their political differences, grievances and party affiliations and to contemplate — as families, as parishes, as councils and clubs and as individuals — the real magnitude of the choice they will make in November.

I encourage people to use the above gift link and read the entire article.

[edited]

[leclsrc]

could i get a carlos imagine where you have commitment issues and he calms you down? as a girlie with commitment/trust issues i just wanna b repped in one of ur fics/drabbles :/// it's tuff out here brotha

bring you home — cs55

Moving in together gets difficult. Carlos is there to ease you along. title from this

genre: fluff

auds here... i hope you enjoy this!!! i too am a commitment-afflicted girl ..... it truly is tough lol. but i hope u find the right person who helps u put ur anxieties to rest <3 insp by a scene from satc i saw on tiktok

It started with a duck. But the duck started with the box. And the box started with a toothbrush joke. And the toothbrush joke started with your old lady neighbor moving out. So really, it started with Mrs. McDonnell and her massive moving van rolling down the street and leaving the flat next door empty. Somehow that old hag had managed to irritate you long after she left, albeit through means not her own.

In terms of time, it started a month ago. In terms of people (sans the old bitch), it started with Carlos, as so many of your stories do. “Mrs. McDonald finally moved out today,” he’d said, hip against your stove, watching bits of garlic turn from pale to brown. From the living room you hummed affirmation and then laughed: “McDonnell.”

“Donald, Donnell, Dinero,” he rolled his eyes. “Everyone’s moving in and out. Charles bought a new place in Monaco.”

“Well,” you shrugged, fixing the ridden-up hem of your tank top, “you could have an extra toothbrush in here, if that gets y’there.”

He laughed, pointing at you with the oil-hot rubber tip of the spatula. You two had been dating for over a year at that point, yet any suggestions of moving in together remained vague, cloudish ideas in both of your heads. For him it was impractical; for you it was a little scary.

But a toothbrush, which he always had at your flat and you at his, wasn’t moving in together. Neither was a drawer of clothes and knick-knacks. It was a symbol of your busy lives and the intermittent intersections far and few between.

Except they’d been becoming less intermittent and a lot more constant. He was almost always at your flat, the wide two-bedroom you’d decided was a good place to live with your income and the area. You had two parking spaces, a good rep with the board, and a coffee shop across the street—a place all your own.

A little plus was you had Carlos on some free days, like that day—that fateful day he turned back to the pan and said, with a smile: “I should move in.”

You froze. “You’re asking—you’re telling me or the garlic?” In fits of nerves, you could only blurt out bad jokes.

He laughed but it was a small exhale of breath. “I’m serious.” He turned to you, brown eyes big.

Your heart swelled with something between apprehension and absolute excitement, that finally you were going to take a step you felt like you’d been waiting to take forever. “You are?” You asked, so giddily you could hear your own smile.

The truth was, you had moved in with a boyfriend before, offered him a key and suggested the entire affair, bought fresh flowers and cooked eggs and made coffee and lived the bliss you only read about in romance novels. Months later you caught him fucking somebody else in your bedroom, and years later the memory fails to purge itself from your mind or your habits, plaguing every inner thought you have.

But this, you assure yourself, is Carlos.

“Dead seriou—uuooof!” Carlos barely got to the end of his sentence, with the way you barrelled into him, smiling into the blocky build of his chest and muttering a repetitive yes yes yes into the cotton of his tee. He held you there, pressing a kiss to your hair and promising he’d be in with his boxes as soon as time made way.

—

“Make way,” you yell into the tiny gap between your door and its frame.

“Hey, hi, hello,” your boyfriend sing-songs. “How are you?”

In the month you’d spent watching your boyfriend move into your flat, you’d also been subjected to your complete lack of personal space. Every time you entered, he’d be there talking his head off. Every time you came home at night, he’d be there. You felt suffocated. Scared, even if you couldn’t sleep at night without some part of you touching him. You’re simply a human with needs, and you needed space. You needed silence. Needed it. Absolutely needed it. You knew this because every time you opened your own door, it collided with a—

“Box.” You shove yourself through the gap and wedge the door closed, pointing an accusatory finger at the cardboard. “Another box by the door. Don’t make me burn those,” you mutter, fussing with your hair and toeing off your Blahniks. Across the foyer, Carlos is nailing something into the wall, noisy and incessant and you want to shrink into the floor.

“Sorry, sorry. Lo siento. I have so many stuff.”

“Yeah! You do. My flat’s only nay fucking big,” you respond, raising your pointer finger and thumb to exaggerate the size of your (in actuality, wide) living space. “Carlos, couldn’t you unpack some of these? Just some. It’s—you know, it’s piling up. And you know I hate mess.”

“I know, baby. I will as soon as I finish this up. I promise.”

You nod once, sighing and moving into the study to gather your laptop for work. You’re halfway into the room, eyes scanning your desk’s surface and finding your Mac laying flat atop it, unassuming next to a figurine of a wooden duck. You pause and blink. The wooden duck does not, its eyes painted wide and smooth and you definitely did not purchase this duck.

Somehow, this is the straw that breaks your back.

“What is this duck doing here?!” You yell, voice loud even from the study into the foyer. Carlos pulls off the goggles he’d been wearing to drill shit into your wall and smiles. A gift from me.

“A gif—I, I, I don’t like ducks.” You flail your arms around. “I just… hearing you talk or drill as soon as I come into my own home feels weird. For so long I’ve been alone and… and I’m supposed to hear silence and I—I’m scared that you’re going to figure out how scared I am and you’re going to leave me.”

He just stares, eyebrows knitted. You smother a hand over your face. You pause and breathe for a minute, then two.

“It’s just—I’ve only lived with someone three months, and that was ages ago, and before that it was my parents, so. I’m going to be really frank with you and I’m sorry if this sounds… but I’m gonna close the bedroom door and I don’t want you to talk to me for thirty minutes. I need space. And keep the duck first. I’m sorry. Is that selfish? Is that okay?” When he shakes his head and then nods, you deposit it into his arms and back up into your room.

His face, torn between concerned and endeared, softens into an understanding, patient smile. Okay, he mouths. I love you, you mouth back, and then you’re shutting it softly, leaning your forehead against the white wood and letting a long exhale leave your lips. You half-expected him to fight you back, to raise his voice, but it’s your own worst expectations weighing down on you all over again, born out of memories of your ex.

You stay like that for a while, and slowly with the quiet you realize—you find the duck cute.

You like the boxes because they remind you this is becoming a home. You like hearing him talk because it means you know he’s there. (The drilling will always be irritating, but he makes it better.) You don’t dislike anything he does, but you’re not totally lying either: you are scared. Scared of the commitment it’d take to make this a sure thing. The commitment you’d given before and the commitment that’d been betrayed.

But this is Carlos. This is Carlos, who’s understood every part of you, who’s given you time and patience even when you didn’t know how much you needed it. The Carlos who knows how you like your toast, who eats the yolk off your sunny-side eggs and gives you the white of his hard-boiled ones. The Carlos who said I love you first, surprising you into shock, and then took it back in embarrassment before you cut him off with a kiss. The Carlos who stays.

The air clears and you breathe easier. You open the door after five minutes. “You okay?”

He’s unpacking a box. He turns and smiles wryly, mimicking a zip motion across his lips. He shakes his head. No talking, remember?

You pout, smiling. “Sorry if I’m neurotic.”

You pad softly toward him and it’s easy, too easy for him to pick you up into his arms, wrap your legs around his waist, stay standing and hugging you. He’s quiet still, patient, warm. “I like hearing you talk. I like your boxes. I like that you’re mine and we’re here.” You inhale. “‘M just scared. And I don’t… want to be, but I am, and… it’s just me. I’m crazy.”

“Hey, Crazy. So am I. Take your time.” He hugs you tighter. “I’m not gonna leave you, even if you hated the duck.” I didn’t, you say quietly. It was cute. “I know it’s hard, baby. I know. You have to let me take care of you. You have me, okay? You have me.”

“And when you’re not here?” Fear slithers up and tries to tug at you but his arms are around you, secure and holding you there, so you don’t let it.

The thing with needs, really, is when they’re met—met in the best, most understanding way, especially…

He kisses your neck. “I’ll always be.”

…You find you no longer need them at all.

[madamspeaker]

In an interview for a forthcoming book, Mrs. Clinton also suggested that if Donald Trump won in November “we may never have another actual election.”

Hillary Clinton criticized her fellow Democrats over what she described as a decades-in-the-making failure to protect abortion rights, saying in her first extended interview about the fall of Roe v. Wade that her party underestimated the growing strength of anti-abortion forces until many Democrats were improbably “taken by surprise” by the landmark Dobbs decision in 2022.

In wide-ranging and unusually frank comments, Mrs. Clinton said Democrats had spent decades in a state of denial that a right enshrined in American life for generations could fall — that faith in the courts and legal precedent had made politicians, voters and officials unable to see clearly how the anti-abortion movement was chipping away at abortion rights, restricting access to the procedure and transforming the Supreme Court, until it was too late.

“We didn’t take it seriously, and we didn’t understand the threat,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Most Democrats, most Americans, did not realize we are in an existential struggle for the future of this country.”

She said: “We could have done more to fight.”

Mrs. Clinton’s comments came in an interview conducted in late February for a forthcoming book, “The Fall of Roe: The Rise of a New America.”

The interview represented Mrs. Clinton’s most detailed comments on abortion rights since the Supreme Court decision that led to the procedure becoming criminalized or restricted in 21 states. She said not only that her party was complacent but also that if she had been in the Senate at the time she would have worked harder to block confirmation of Trump-appointed justices.

And in a blunt reflection about the role sexism played in her 2016 presidential campaign, she said women were the voters who abandoned her in the final days because she was not “perfect.” Overhanging the interview was the understanding that had she won the White House, Roe most likely would have remained a bedrock feature of American life. She assigned blame for the fall of Roe broadly but pointedly, and notably spared herself from the critique.

Some Democrats will most likely agree with Mrs. Clinton’s assessment. But as the party turns its focus to wielding abortion as an electoral weapon, there has been little public reckoning among Democrats over their role in failing to protect abortion rights.

Even when they held control of Congress, Democrats were unwilling to pass legislation codifying abortion rights into federal law. While frequently mentioned in passing to rally their base during election season, the issue rarely rose to the top of their legislative or policy agenda. Many Democrats, including President Biden, often refused even to utter the word.

Until Roe fell, many in the party believed the federal right to an abortion was all but inviolable, unlikely to be reversed even by a conservative Supreme Court. The sense of denial extended to the highest ranks of the party — but not, Mrs. Clinton argued, to her.

“One thing I give the right credit for is they never give up,” she said. “They are relentless. You know, they take a loss, they get back up, they regroup, they raise more money.” She added: “It’s tremendously impressive the way that they operate. And we have nothing like it on our side.”

Mrs. Clinton did not express regret for any inaction herself. Rather, she said her efforts to raise alarms during her 2016 campaign went unheeded and were dismissed as “alarmist” by voters, politicians and members of her own party. In that race, she had talked about the threats to abortion rights on the campaign trail and most memorably in the third presidential debate, vowing to protect Roe when Mr. Trump promised to appoint judges who would overturn it.

But even then, internal campaign polling and focus groups showed that the issue did not resonate strongly with key groups of voters, because they did not believe Roe was truly at risk.

Now, as the country prepares to face its third referendum on Mr. Trump, she offered a stark warning about the 2024 election. A second Trump administration would go far beyond abortion rights to target women’s health care, gay rights, civil rights — and even the core tenets of American democracy itself, she said.

“This election is existential. I mean, if we don’t make the right decision in this election in our country, we may never have another actual election. I will put that out there because I believe it,” she said. “And if we no longer have another actual election, we will be governed by a small minority of right-wing forces that are well organized and well funded and are getting exactly what they want in terms of turning the clock back on women.”

Mrs. Clinton described those forces and her former opponent as part of a “global phenomena” restricting women’s rights, pointing to a push by Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader, pressing women to focus on raising children; the violent policing of women who violate Iran’s conservative dress code; and what she described as the misogyny of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

“Authoritarians, whether they be political or religious based, always go after women. It’s just written in the history. And that’s what will happen in this country,” Mrs. Clinton said.

Mrs. Clinton viewed her remarks as another attempt to ring an alarm before the 2024 election.

“More people have got to wake up, because this is the beginning,” she said. “They really want us to just shut up and go home. That’s their goal. And nobody should be in any way deluded. That’s what they will force upon us if they are given the chance.”

But she also seemed to expect that many would dismiss her concerns once again. “Oh, my God, there she goes again,” she said, describing what she anticipated would be the reaction to her interview. “I mean, she’s just so, you know, so out there.”

But she added: “I know history will prove me right. And I don’t take any comfort in that because that’s not the kind of country or world I want for my grandchildren.”

Nearly eight years after her final campaign, Mrs. Clinton remains one of the most prominent women in American politics, and the only woman in the country’s history to capture the presidential nomination of a major party.

Her life encapsulates what could be seen as the Roe era in American life. She embodies the professional and personal changes that swept the lives of American women over the past half-century. Roe was decided in 1973, the same year Mrs. Clinton graduated from law school. Its fall was accelerated in 2016 by her loss to Donald J. Trump, which set in motion a transformation of the Supreme Court.

Had Mrs. Clinton won the White House in 2016, history would have turned out very differently. She would most likely have appointed two or even three justices to the Supreme Court, securing an abortion-rights legal majority that probably would have not only upheld Roe but also delivered rulings that expanded access to the procedure.

Instead, Mrs. Clinton said Democrats neglected abortion rights from the ballot box to Congress to the Supreme Court.

Along with her prediction for the future, Mrs. Clinton offered a detailed assessment of the past. For her, the meaning of the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was clear — and devastating.

“It says that we are not equal citizens,” she said, referring to women. “It says that we don’t have autonomy, agency and privacy to make the most personal of decisions. It says that we should be rethinking our lives and our roles in the world.”

She blasted Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in the case, saying his decision was “terrible,” “poorly reasoned” and “historically inaccurate.”

Mrs. Clinton accused four justices — John G. Roberts Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — of being “teed up to do the bidding” of conservative political and religious organizations and leaders — though she believed many Democrats had not realized that during those justices’ confirmation hearings.

“It is really hard to believe that people are going to lie to you under oath, that even so-called conservative justices would upend precedents to arrive at ridiculous decisions on gun rights and campaign finance and abortion,” she said. “It’s really hard to accept that.”

Yet, she also had tough words for her former colleagues. In the Senate, she said, Democratic lawmakers did not push hard enough to block the confirmation of the justices who would go on to overturn federal abortion rights. When asked in confirmation hearings if they believed Roe was settled law, the nominees noted that Roe was precedent and largely avoided stating their opinion on the decision.

Those justices “all lied in their confirmation hearings,” she said, referring to Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett, all of whom were appointed by Mr. Trump. “They just flat-out lied. And Democrats did nothing in the Senate.”

She added: “If I’d still been in the Senate, and on the Judiciary Committee, I think, you know, I hope I would have tried to do more about what were just outright prevarications.”

It is unclear how Democrats could have stopped those justices from reaching the bench given that they did not control the Senate during their confirmation hearings. When Mr. Trump took office, Republicans also had unified control of 24 state legislatures, making it all but impossible for Democrats to stop conservatives from pushing through increasingly restrictive laws.

For years, she said, Democrats failed to “invest in the kind of parallel institutions” to the conservative legal establishment. Efforts to start the American Constitution Society, she said, never quite grew as large as the better established Federalist Society, a network of conservative lawyers, officials and justices that includes members of the Supreme Court.

“I just think that most of us who support the rights of women and privacy and the right to make these difficult decisions yourself, you know, we just couldn’t believe what was happening. And as a result, they slowly, surely and very effectively got what they wanted,” she said. “Our side was complacent and kind of taking it for granted and thinking it would never go away.”

Mrs. Clinton was born in 1947, when abortion was criminalized and contraception was banned or restricted in more than two dozen states. In Arkansas, where she practiced law while her husband served as governor, she watched the rise of the religious right and the anti-abortion movement.

From the time she arrived in Washington as first lady, Mrs. Clinton fought openly for abortion rights. She famously declared that “human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights” in a 1995 speech at the World Conference on Women in Beijing. When she became a senator, Mrs. Clinton voted against the partial-birth abortion ban, unlike more than a dozen of her fellow Democrats. As Barack Obama’s secretary of state, she made a mission of expanding women’s reproductive health across the globe.

In 2016, Planned Parenthood endorsed her candidacy, the first time the organization waded into a presidential primary. In her campaign, Mrs. Clinton promised to appoint judges who would preserve Roe, opposed efforts in Congress to pass a 20-week abortion ban and pushed for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which banned the federal funding of abortions.

Even her language was updated. For years, when it came to abortion, she championed her belief in a phrase popularized by her husband during his 1992 presidential campaign: “safe, legal and rare.”

In a private, previously unreported meeting recounted in the book, campaign aides told Mrs. Clinton to drop the phrase during her 2016 run. Her staff explained that increasingly progressive abortion-rights activists thought calling for the procedure to be “rare” would offer a political concession to the anti-abortion movement. And with so many new restrictions being passed in conservative-controlled states, abortion was increasingly difficult to obtain, particularly for poorer women, making “rare” the wrong focus for their message. Abortion should be “safe, legal, accessible and affordable,” they told her.

“Well, that doesn’t make any sense,” she said in response at the time. “That’s stupid.”

In the interview, Mrs. Clinton said she quickly came to embrace the shift in language. What she and other Democrats had tried to do in 1992 with “safe, legal and rare” was “send a signal that we understand Roe v. Wade has a certain theory of the case about trimesters,” she explained. But by 2016, the world had changed.

“Too many women, particularly too many young women did not understand the effort that went into creating the underlying theory of Roe v. Wade. And the young women on my campaign made a very compelling argument that making it safe and legal was really the goal,” she said. “I kind of just pocketed the framework of Roe.”

Still, Mrs. Clinton felt like many of her warnings over the issue were ignored by much of the country.

When she delivered a speech in Wisconsin in March 2016, arguing that Supreme Court justices selected by Mr. Trump could “demolish pillars of the progressive movement,” Mrs. Clinton said that “people kind of rolled their eyes at me.”

Mrs. Clinton said she saw her defeat in that election as inextricable from her gender. As she has in the past, she blamed the former F.B.I. director James Comey’s last-minute reopening of the investigation of her private email server for her immediate defeat. Mr. Comey had raised questions about her judgment and called her “extremely careless” but recommended no criminal charges.Other political strategists have faulted her message, strategy and various missteps by her campaign for her loss in 2016.

“But once he did that to me, the people, the voters who left me, were women,” she said. “They left me because they just couldn’t take a risk on me, because as a woman, I’m supposed to be perfect. They were willing to take a risk on Trump — who had a long list of, let’s call them flaws, to illustrate his imperfection — because he was a man, and they could envision a man as president and commander in chief.”

Mrs. Clinton said she was shocked by how little the reports of Mr. Trump’s sexual misconduct and assault seemed to affect the race. They did not disqualify him from the presidency, at least not among most Republicans and conservative Christians. But his promises to appoint justices that would reverse Roe helped him win, she said.

“Politically, he threw his lot in with the right on abortion and was richly rewarded,” she said.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ramon Antonio Vargas at The Guardian:

Elizabeth Warren says “American women are not stupid” and therefore do not believe JD Vance’s promise that Donald Trump would veto any nationwide abortion ban passed by Congress if the Republican presidential ticket wins November’s election. “American women are not stupid, and we are not going to trust the futures of our daughters and granddaughters to two men who have openly bragged about blocking access to abortion for women all across this country,” Warren said on Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press.

The Democratic US senator from Massachusetts added that she suspects conservative activists could use the Comstock Act, a 19th-century anti-obscenity law which bans mailing abortion-related materials, to enforce a federal ban on abortion if the former president clinches a second presidency with Vance as his running mate. She said it would not be all that “hard to accomplish” with “the right person [in] the Department of Justice and one of their extremist judges out in the world”. “Understand this: today 30% of all women live in states that effectively ban abortion,” Warren said, referring to how 14 US states have enacted near-total bans on the procedure since the 2022 US supreme court ruling that eliminated federal abortion rights. “Donald Trump and JD Vance in the White House – it won’t be 30%. It’ll be 100%.”

Warren’s remarks came in response to a separate Meet the Press interview with Vance in which he was asked whether Trump, if elected again to the Oval Office, would use the presidency’s veto powers overrule a congressional federal abortion ban. “I think he would,” Vance told Meet the Press host Kristen Welker in a pre-recorded clip which the show began promoting on Saturday. “He said … explicitly that he would.” Trump himself pledged in April that he would not sign a national abortion ban into law, with polling showing a clear majority of Americans favor abortion being legal in all or most cases. But Democrats maintain that he is lying. They point out that Trump has spoken proudly of his three supreme court appointees who formed part of the conservative majority that dissolved the federal abortion rights previously established by the Roe v Wade decision in 1973.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren (D) went on NBC’s Meet The Press Sunday to rebut J.D. Vance’s lie that Donald Trump would veto a nationwide abortion ban that was made on the same program.

Earth to Mr. Vance: Trump would sign a nationwide abortion ban if it reaches the desk should he get elected again, and he could order a backdoor de facto abortion ban via the Comstock Act.

From the 08.25.2024 edition of NBC's Meet The Press:

[vote-democrat-president-congress]

Trump tells Christians ‘you won’t have to vote anymore’ if he’s elected.

2024/07/27: Former President Donald J. Trump at the Turning Point USA Believers Summit in West Palm Beach, Fla., in the closing minutes of his speech to a gathering of religious conservatives on Friday night, former President Donald J. Trump told Christians that if they voted him into office in November, they would never need to vote again.

“Christians, get out and vote. Just this time,” he said at The Believers’ Summit, an event hosted by the conservative advocacy group Turning Point Action, in West Palm Beach, Fla. “You won’t have to do it anymore, you know what? Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”

Mr. Trump, who never made a particular display of religious observance before entering politics, continued: “I love you, Christians. I’m a Christian. I love you, you got to get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not going to have to vote.”

Mr. Trump’s comments came at the end of a nearly hourlong speech in which he appealed to religious conservatives by promising to defend them from perceived threats from the left. Earlier in his remarks, he lamented that conservative Christians do not vote in large numbers, a complaint he had made repeatedly on the trail.

“They don’t vote like they should,” Mr. Trump said of Christians. “They’re not big voters.”

Mr. Trump’s suggestion that Christians would not have to vote again if he is elected quickly spread across social media. Some argued that it was a threat that the 2024 election could be the nation’s last if he were to win and claimed it was further evidence of an authoritarian, anti-democratic bent he has displayed throughout his political candidacy.

The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment to clarify Mr. Trump’s intent.

The former president — who continues to falsely insist the 2020 election was rigged, a claim that inspired some of his supporters to storm the Capitol in a bid to keep him in power in 2021 — has raised alarm from Democrats and some Republicans. He has compared his political opponents to “vermin,” said he would have a prosecutor investigate President Biden and his family and framed his campaign as one of retribution.

James Singer, a Harris campaign spokesman, criticized Mr. Trump in a statement for lying about the 2020 election, among other things, during his Friday remarks. Mr. Trump “went on and on and on, and generally sounded like someone you wouldn’t want to sit near at a restaurant — let alone be president of the United States,” Mr. Singer said.

Since his 2020 loss, Mr. Trump, who often praises strongmen leaders on the trail, has further embraced a brand of conservatism that experts on autocracy have said veers toward totalitarian.

Mr. Trump provoked further outcry when, in an interview with Sean Hannity, he said he would not categorically dismiss concerns that he might abuse presidential power but instead said he would not be a dictator “other than Day 1.”

Mr. Trump added: “We’re closing the border. And we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.”

Mr. Trump and his allies have long dismissed the criticism as alarmist political attacks from liberals. They argue that Democrats have been anti-democratic, labeling the criminal cases brought against Mr. Trump as an effort to weaponize the justice system.

The Harris campaign — and the Biden campaign before that — have consistently attacked Mr. Trump as a threat to democracy. More recently, Democrats and their allies have highlighted Project 2025, a set of conservative policy proposals developed by a group that includes former Trump advisers and that would bring about a radical shift to the federal government.

Mr. Trump himself was not behind Project 2025, and he has repeatedly tried to distance himself from it. But The New York Times has reported on his plans for a second term, which would include casting aside the norm that gives the Justice Department independence from the White House, appointing ideologically aligned lawyers who would be less resistant to Mr. Trump’s policies and a vastly expanded crackdown on immigration that would involve scouring the country for undocumented immigrants and deporting millions of people annually.

by Michael Gold, NYTimes. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/27/us/harris-trump-biden-election

[muridae3]

Bliss in Domesticity | Harvey x Donny

In Pelican Town, Dr. Harvey and his husband Donny brighten the lives of their community with care and compassion. Despite challenges, their love and dedication win hearts, fostering acceptance.

Special thanks to @tuuna-jsgross for allowing me to use their character, Donny! I hope I did him justice.

“I understand your views, Mr. Mullner. However, the closest doctor other than myself is a forty-five minute drive away. I cannot in good conscience let you travel all that way in your current state.” Harvey sighed, setting down his stethoscope.

George stifled a cough, grumbling. “How can two men get married? It's unnatural... Hmmph.” 

“George, dear, please…” Evelyn pleaded from the other side of the bed. “Just let him treat you. I haven’t heard a single complaint about him from the neighbors, and he’s been here nearly ten years.”

This made Harvey balk. 

Ten Years?

Had it really been ten years since he and Donny ditched everything in Zuzu city to move to a failing clinic in the middle of nowhere? It seemed like yesterday, yet the change in the town was evident– the clinic, once dilapidated and failing, was now thriving under Harvey’s care. He had many patients that he cared for, including the one in front of him. 

“I assure you, my level of care for my patients has not changed. I am the same doctor I was before I married Donald. Please, Mr. Mullner, let me help you.”

George said nothing, glaring at Harvey. 

“George…” Evelyn trailed off, looking more scared than Harvey had ever seen her.

George’s gaze softened when he realized his wife’s fear. “Fine. But I’m watching you.”

Harvey nodded, his expression serious. “I understand. Your health is my priority, Mr. Mullner. Let’s get you better.”

Harvey’s hypothesis had been correct– George was battling a serious case of pneumonia. He was optimistic, though– a round of antibiotics, good food, and strict bed rest should fix him right up.

“I’m sorry about what he said, Doctor.” Evelyn sighed, closing the front door to the house. “I’ve tried to convince him that a marriage between two men is the same as ours, but he just won’t listen. He means well, but…”

“It’s quite alright, Mrs. Mullner. It’s not the first time I’ve heard it, and it certainly won’t be the last. Change takes time, after all. Now, you should go back inside. I don’t want you catching cold in all this snow.”

“You can call me Granny, dear.” She said, smiling sweetly.

Harvey left her with detailed instructions for George’s care and a promise to return the next day before walking back to the clinic. 

Though it was a short walk, Harvey’s fingers were partially numb by the time he got back to the clinic. Every year, the winters seemed to grow colder.

 After struggling with the lock, he finally got inside and shut the door behind him. 

“That you, Harv?” He heard someone call from the back office.

Harvey couldn’t help but smile. His husband was home.

“It’s me!” He responded, quickly removing his coat before entering the office. 

Donny was sitting at the computer, typing notes from the day’s appointments. 

“How was your day, darling?” Harvey asked, planting a small kiss on top of his husband’s head.

“Better, now that you’re here.” Donny said, grinning. 

Harvey felt his cheeks heat up. He would never get tired of Donny’s compliments. 

“How was Mr. Mullner? I know Granny was worried about him.” Donny turned away from the computer to look at Harvey.

“You know I cannot discuss patient details with you. HIPPA and all.” Harvey began unpacking his travel medical bag. “I can tell you that he will most likely recover.”

“Oh, good.” The relief in Donny’s voice was evident. “I hate seeing her upset.”

“Me too. Coffee? It’s freezing out there.”

“Yes please! I’m almost done, I’ll meet you upstairs.”

Harvey left the office and entered the apartment, getting two mugs from the small kitchenette and setting the coffee maker to brew. 

Flopping onto the couch, he turned the television to the history channel. 

Donny soon made his way upstairs, bringing the two steaming mugs over to the tiny sitting area.

“Thank you, honey.” Harvey gratefully took the mug into his still-cold hands, reverently inhaling the scent of the steaming liquid.

“I will never get over the way you enjoy coffee.” Donny said, chuckling as he sat down.

“Without the olfactory input, the coffee experience would simply be incomplete.” Harvey stated matter-of-factly. 

Donny stretched out, propping his feet on the small end table and placing his head in Harvey’s lap.

Harvey subconsciously pet his hair, taking a sip from his mug. “We can buy a larger couch, you know.”

“I know, dearest. But if we did that, I wouldn’t be able to do this anymore. And I like looking at your pretty face.”

Harvey rolled his eyes, blushing in spite of himself. 

A comfortable silence fell over the two, Harvey watching the television and Donny watching Harvey. 

Before long, though, Harvey’s mug was empty. He felt so comfortably warm from the combined heat of the coffee and his husband. And Donny’s head on his lap was providing enough pressure to help his muscles relax. Though he kept a rigid sleep schedule, it wouldn’t hurt to rest his eyes, just for a moment…

After the program ended, Donny looked up at Harvey and smiled, seeing he was asleep. Gently sitting up, he took the empty mugs and put them in the sink before draping a blanket over Harvey. He softly kissed his forehead before silently leaving the apartment to pick up dinner. 

Harvey woke up to the smell of something delicious in the apartment. He rubbed his eyes and adjusted his glasses, cringing when he saw his watch. He had been asleep for over an hour.

“Why didn’t you wake me up?” He asked, stretching.

Donny shrugged, humming an ‘I-Don’t-Know’ as he set two plates onto the table. “You just looked so peaceful. It was cute.”

“What did Gus have tonight?” Harvey got up from the couch, crossing to the small table. 

“Fiddlehead risotto.” Donny opened the box with a flourish, revealing the steaming pasta.

“Mmm. Smells good.” Harvey inhaled the scent, sitting down in his usual chair.

“Everyone at the saloon was wondering where you were.” Donny said with a chuckle. 

“Did you tell them I was sleeping?”

“I told them that their wonderful doctor was working hard to provide them the utmost care.” 

Harvey smiled slightly. “You could have woken me up, I would have gone with you.”

“I needed to walk. Being in the car all day has made me stiff.” He said, stretching.

“I don’t understand why you don’t just see your patients in the clinic…” Harvey sighed.

“Because they pay me more if I go to them. And someone has to fund your model airplane addiction.” Donny said with a sly smile.

“I suppose so.” A blush once again spread across Harvey’s cheeks. 

After dinner, Harvey cleaned up the apartment while his husband jumped in the shower. He turned the radio to the Jazz station, humming along to the music as he wiped the table down. 

He was so lost in the music, he didn’t see Donny exit the bathroom and sneak up behind him, grinning. He grabbed his waist, spinning him around and waltzing in time with the music on the radio. 

Harvey leaned his head on Donny’s bare chest, smiling at the Mermaid’s Pendant. “You never told me why you changed your mind.”

“Hm?” Donny hummed, turning them in a small circle. 

“On marriage. You said you never wanted to get married after your parents…”

“I was afraid we’d end up like them. And I didn’t…” Donny smoothed Harvey’s hair. “I didn’t want to lose you. But I realized that we’re probably more emotionally mature than they were.”

“And are.” Harvey looked up at Donny.

“And I knew you wanted to get married.”

“I would have been fine just being with you, darling.”

“I know. But I like the way the little pendant looks on you.” He said, lowering Harvey into a dip. 

Harvey grinned as Donny pulled him back to his feet. He planted a chaste kiss on his husband’s lips. “Not to ruin the moment… but you missed that spot on your neck again.”

“Ah, shoot. Care to help me out?”

“Yes. I will not have my husband going in public looking like a ragamuffin.” He pulled Donny back to the bathroom, hoisting himself up onto the counter before grabbing a razor and shaving cream. He trimmed the excess hairs with surgical precision, smiling with satisfaction as he put away the instruments and looked at his work. 

“Thanks, honey.” Donny placed a kiss on Harvey’s forehead and picked him up, cradling him to his chest. 

Harvey yelped, not quite used to the sensation even after the two decades they had been together. “How can you still pick me up?” 

“You’re not that heavy, love. Plus, I’m really strong.” He shifted Harvey to one arm, flexing his muscles to prove his point. He set Harvey down onto the bed before getting a shirt and a pair of Harvey’s pajamas.

“Thanks, love.” Harvey took the pajamas and went to the bathroom, doing his nightly routine as usual.

By the time he emerged from the bathroom, Donny was already sound asleep. He set his alarm, took off his glasses, and gently slipped into bed beside Donny. Wrapping his arms around Donny’s frame, he closed his eyes, falling into sleep. 

The next morning, Harvey woke up to a cold bed. He wrapped the blanket around his shoulders as he got out of bed, shuffling to the coffeemaker and setting it to brew.

“You forgot these, love.” Donny slipped Harvey’s glasses onto his face. He had already changed into his scrubs. 

“Thanks. You’re up early today.” Harvey said, stifling a yawn.

“I got an early appointment. And so do you, if I recall. You should get ready.”

“But it’s so cold outside… and it’s so warm in here.” He wrapped the blanket tighter around himself. 

“Come on, doc.” Donny took the blanket off of Harvey’s shoulders. “I want a hug before I go.” 

“You are always welcome to a hug.” He wrapped his arms around Donny, squeezing him gently before letting him go. “Have a good day, sweetie. I love you.”

“I love you too, Harv.” Donny kissed the top of his head before leaving the apartment. 

Harvey sighed, returning the blanket to the bed and getting ready for the day. 

He pulled his jacket a little tighter around himself as he left the clinic, headed towards the Mullner’s. The winds were so strong, he could barely get the door open. 

He was surprised to hear voices coming from the bedroom. 

“I understand you’re a little under the weather, Mr. Mullner. I’m happy to reschedule if you’re not up for an evaluation.” 

“I don’t think I need a physical therapist at all.” George grumbled. “But Evelyn insisted, and I’m not paying a missed appointment fee. Do what you have to.”

Harvey was confused, but he didn’t want to violate patient privacy, so he sat in the living room, patiently waiting for George’s first appointment to end. 

“Oh, I’m so sorry, Doctor!” Evelyn exclaimed, exiting the kitchen. “I completely forgot I scheduled both of you at the same time. Memory’s not what it used to be.” 

“Quite alright, Mrs. Mullner.” Harvey said. “I’m happy to come back this afternoon.

“That would be lovely. Thank you for understanding. I’ll give you the late fee then, is that alright?”

“Don’t worry about it.” Harvey said, standing to leave. “I’ll see you this afternoon, okay?”

“You’re a dear.” Evelyn opened the door for him, and he stepped out into the cold morning.

He had a minute before the clinic opened, so he decided to stop at Pierre’s to pick up some groceries. 

When he left, arms full of bags, he was surprised to see Donny leaving the Mullners and headed to the clinic. 

“Donny? I thought you would have left by now.” Harvey said, surprised. 

Donny took the bags from Harvey. “I had to see my first appointment.” 

Harvey finally put two and two together. “It was you?” 

“Can’t tell you. HIPPA. But I can tell you that ol’ George is warming up to me.” 

“Finally.” Harvey said, sighing with relief. He unlocked the clinic, letting Donny go in first before shutting the door behind them. 

“I’ll put these up. I don’t have to be over in Grampleton until noon.”

“Thank you, sweetheart.” Harvey made his way back to the main office, setting his bag down before sitting at the computer to type out some notes.

As he typed, his mind wandered to his past with Donny. They had been happy at their hospital jobs, but neither of them had been cut out for the hustle and bustle of city life. When the opportunity to buy a failing clinic in tiny, middle-of-nowhere Pelican Town had arisen, Donny had happily agreed to follow him there. He had been instrumental in modernizing the old building, but he had been happy to resume his job as a physical therapist through a traveling agency. Even though Harvey had been worried about revealing the true nature of their relationship to the good people of the Valley, Donny had no qualms about telling people. Surprisingly, they were accepted with little pushback. Even people like George were starting to come around. The entire town had attended their wedding just six months ago. 

Harvey realized that this was his ideal life— sure, he had wanted to be a pilot, but what he really wanted was someone to go through life with. And he had found exactly that in Donny.

“I’m headed out.” Donny said, entering the main office.

Harvey stood, hugging his husband. “Be safe. I love you so, so much.”

“I love you too, Harv.” Donny said, returning the embrace. 

The two shared a gentle kiss, and Harvey relished in the fact that he was completely satisfied with how his life had turned out. 

[rjzimmerman]

Harris Goes Light on Climate Policy. Green Leaders Are OK With That. (New York Times)

Excerpt from this New York Times story:

In the 2020 presidential election, climate activists demanded that Democratic candidates explain, in detail, how they planned to tackle the planet’s greatest environmental threat.

But in the weeks since Vice President Kamala Harris ascended the 2024 Democratic ticket, she has mentioned climate change only in passing, and offered no specifics on how she would curb dangerous levels of warming. Climate leaders say they are fine with that.

“I am not concerned,” said Jay Inslee, the Democratic governor of Washington, who made climate change the centerpiece of his own 2019 bid for the presidency. Mr. Inslee said he believes it is more important for Ms. Harris to draw a distinction between her and her Republican rival, former President Donald J. Trump, than to drill down on policy nitty-gritty.

“I am totally confident that when she is in a position to effect positive change, she will,” Gov. Inslee said.

As Ms. Harris prepares to address the nation on Thursday at the Democratic National Convention, she faces the challenge of energizing party loyalists while also reaching out to disaffected Republicans and moderate voters. So far Ms. Harris and her running mate Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota, have embraced a pragmatic agenda, calling for things like a minimum-wage increase and child-care funding.

While President Biden has made climate change a signature issue, signing into law the largest clean energy investments in American history, Ms. Harris has yet to detail for voters her climate or clean-energy positions. Some analysts chalked that up to strategy and said new promises to slash greenhouse gas emissions or rein in fossil fuels could alienate voters particularly in the energy-rich swing state of Pennsylvania.

“This doesn’t look accidental, it looks like a deliberate choice,” said Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington-based research firm, referring to the sparse mentions of climate change in the speeches of Ms. Harris and Mr. Walz.

“I think they are worried if she takes a strong position on climate, even it fits the same position that Biden took, it will make her look too progressive,” Mr. Book said, adding, “It’s a divisive issue and they need both sides as much as possible to win Pennsylvania.”

Others said Ms. Harris already has voters who care about climate change locked up and doesn’t need to court them. Climate groups this week announced a $55 million advertising campaign to support the Harris ticket.

[eaglesnick]

“The game is rigged to work for those who already have money and power.”  Elizabeth Warren

A few months ago, before the election, I wrote:

“A vote for Nigel Farage’s Reform Party is essentially a vote for business and the rich.” (13/06/24)

I pointed out that under Reform UK, the biggest tax breaks would go to big corporations and the already very wealthy.

Richard Tice, former leader of Reform UK is a multi-millionaire. Hedge-fund billionaire Paul Marshal and the Dubai based investment company Legrartum, founded by New Zealand billionaire Christopher Chandler who made his fortune in Russian gas, bankroll right-wing GB News, where Farage and Tice have their own shows.

Multi-millionaire Jeremy Hosking gave £2,578,000 to Reform UK coffers.  Another major donor to Reform is the ex-Bullingdon Club member George Farmer. An “ardent supporter of Donald Trump”, Farmer was CEO of the far-right platform Parler, and is married to Candice Owens, a woman who “promotes far-right ideologies”. In 2023 he joined the board of GB News.

According to Electoral Commission records Chris Harborne handed over £10 million to Brexit/Reform. He gained notoriety when his name appeared multiple times in the Panama Papers. These documents revealed:

 “…off-shore holdings of world political leaders, links to global scandals, and details of  hidden financial dealings of fraudsters, drug traffickers, billionaires, celebrities, sports stars and more”. (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists: 03/03/2016)

Reform UK is essentially funded by the rich.  They see Nigel Farage’s party as a means of furthering their own already substantial wealth. Only an idiot would believe these individuals are spending millions of their own money because they want to improve the lives of ordinary working people or because they want to “protect British values".

Farage makes great play with “protecting British values”:

“Nigel Farage signalled a return to right-wing shock tactics for his Reform UK party, as he used his first election interview to attack Muslims in the UK for “not sharing British values”. (Independent 26/05/24)

Strange then that Farage was willing to take money from a rich Muslim donor during the election campaign.

“Muslim millionaire gives major donation to Reform UK…The precise amount Zia Yusef has given to the party has not been disclosed but  Reform UK claims it is the biggest donation to their election campaign so far”  (BBC News: 19/06/24)

Stranger still for a man who promised “a much more muscular defence of our Christian heritage and our Christian Constitution”,  to appoint Yusef as Reform UK Party Chairman only a few days AFTER the election results.

What Reform UK is really about is protecting the wealthy. Talk of defending British values is just a smoke screen to garner votes, playing on peoples concerns about immigration to get into power. It should therefore come as no surprise that it has been revealed that Nigel Farage is the best paid politician at Westminster.

 We learned this week that Farage is earning ££98,000 a month, working for the right-wing GB News. In addition, Farage has received a £30,000 donation to pay for his trip to support Donald Trump during the US election campaign.

The total number of hours worked b Mr Farage for paid employment outside of Parliament is officially 32hrs a week. Clearly, he is more interested in lining his own pockets than in attending to his duties as an elected MP and looking after the interests of his constituents in Clacton.

If you really want to understand what Reform UK is really about then you cant beat the old adage, "follow the money".

[storkmuffin]

Billy Bones agrees with me entirely that the only known-known (omg why am I talking like Donald Rumsfeld?) about John Silver is that he is a specific kind of liar: A SELF SERVING LIAR. And the way to make a self serving liar very mad at you is to drive them into a place where they cannot avoid an ultimatum, because it forces them to commit to a position.

You might think that John Silver is talking about the suffering and torture he's visited on 'his friend' Billy Bones, the one who bequeathed him with all this power, but it's not. He's saying he did not want to have to reveal his truth to anyone, and Billy made him do it.

The ONE THING that Silver values James Flint for is his acceptance of this essential need that Silver as a self serving liar has to not have any true part of himself revealed to anyone for any reason.

All the stuff that Silver says about how he'll let Billy back in because he's an asset and he has to promise not to try to kill Flint blah blah is A LIE. What he really means is what he says immediately after - John Silver will make sure Billy Bones won't survive a second attempt at forcing John Silver to make a choice, and thereby reveal himself in any way.

I didn't realize until I altered the lighting on this but BILLY BONES IS SMILING as he's saying this. The ultimately terrifying thing to John Silver - that some part of truth has been revealed. He has been successfully forced into TAKING A POSITION from which he cannot equivocate. And he's going to hate it.

I love you forever Billy Bones, even though you want to kill my Daddy Flint. You come by this motivation for good reasons (for both Mr Gates and yourself).

[sarkos]

In the closing minutes of his speech to a gathering of religious conservatives on Friday night, former President Donald J. Trump told Christians that if they voted him into office in November, they would never need to vote again. “Christians, get out and vote. Just this time,” he said at The Believers’ Summit, an event hosted by the conservative advocacy group Turning Point Action, in West Palm Beach, Fla. “You won’t have to do it anymore, you know what? Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.” Mr. Trump, who never made a particular display of religious observance before entering politics, continued: “I love you, Christians. I’m a Christian. I love you, you got to get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not going to have to vote.” Mr. Trump’s comments came at the end of a nearly hourlong speech in which he appealed to religious conservatives by promising to defend them from perceived threats from the left. Earlier in his remarks, he lamented that conservative Christians do not vote in large numbers, a complaint he had made repeatedly on the trail. “They don’t vote like they should,” Mr. Trump said of Christians. “They’re not big voters.”

Trump Tells Christians ‘You Won’t Have to Vote Anymore’ If He’s Elected - The New York Times

[sebastianshaw]

Hi, for once you’re getting a rant about retcons that AREN’T the usual ones. In Gillen’s “Immortal X-Men” spotlight on Shaw, he depicts Shaw’s father, Jacob, as emotionally abusive towards Shaw, and as berating him as unworthy for Jacob to talk to until he has money of his own. Jacob is also depicted wearing Hellfire Club livery (frilly cuffs, etc) and they are living in a house with a chandelier and a very nice writing desk. While Jacob speaks of trying to recover the family fortune, they’re clearly not all that bad off either, at least not enough so that they’ve had to sell these things. This is a retcon that contradicts previous flashbacks and other indications that Shaw (1) had a good relationship with Jacob and (2) grew up EXTREMELY poor. Both of which are important to his character, and I much prefer for him, both because they came first and have been an established part of his history for DECADES, and because they just work BETTER than Gillen’s retcon. Unlike Duggan and many other writers for the last dozen years, Gillen does seem to “get” Shaw very well in the present, I like how he writes Shaw in general and I largely enjoy that issue, but he grievously misunderstands how his past influences who he is, and made his own version of a new past instead—one that, sadly, I find inferior to the original. Now I’ll talk about why.

The first time we learn anything about Jacob Shaw or his relationship with Sebastian is in the “X-men: Hellfire Club” four-issue miniseries written in 2000 by Ben Raab. Jacob Shaw was born in England, the son of Cornelius Shaw and younger brother of Esau Shaw. The Shaws seem wealthy, and Cornelius was a member of the London Hellfire Club. After Cornelius’s death, another member, Waltham Pierce (presumably an ancestor of Donald Pierce) approached Esau about recruiting him into the Hellfire Club to take his father’s place (Esau refused) but not Jacob. The madly jealous Jacob is approached by none other than Mr. Sinister, who grants Jacob shapeshifting abilities via a syringe. Jacob used these abilities to kill his brother Esau (while disguised as Waltham) and attempted to kill Waltham (disguised as a woman he bedded) however, the latter attempt was interrupted by Union Jack, and Jacob was forced to flee in his true form. Presumably, he ran to the US, perhaps illegally, and likely without much money, as the next time we see him, he is a wizened man dying in hospital of a mysterious blood disease (possibly a consequence of Sinister’s alteration to him) Though there is no mother in sight, he has a young adult son, Sebastian, who works in a steel mill while struggling to earn a scholarship, as they have no money for him to get out of this life any other way. The very day Shaw gets his letter informing him he’s earned a full scholarship and runs to tell his father, he arrives to find his father has died or is dying. Holding Jacob’s hand, Sebastian speaks to him with tears in his eyes, promising him how he will “make him proud” and is going to be an engineer “just like we always wanted” It’s a sad, touching scene, and does not suggest any ill feelings between the two, quite the reverse.

The next time the subject of Shaw’s father comes up, it’s in the previously mentioned story with Mr. Sinister and the Cronus machine. This story features one panel in particular that sticks out to me:

Sunspot: Your father was a nobody, you said.

Shaw: I did not say that.

Shaw is *protective* of his father here, defending him posthumously from insult. He also trusted his father enough to keep the anti-Cronus device with him his entire life on his father’s word despite having no idea what it did.

Now, could these things be true if his father actually was abusive and Shaw resented him his whole life for it, as in Gillen’s depiction? Well, yes. As with the fact that the sweet, romantic moments between Sebastian and Lourdes depicted in this miniseries could very easily coexist with the “Shaw was abusive to her” retcon that Duggan would pull 20+ years later, Shaw could easily have trusted his father and wanted to make him proud and held his hand on his deathbed and all of that while ALSO having been emotionally abused by Jacob and resenting him as Gillen depicted in his 20+ later version. Abuse dynamics are very, very complicated in real life, and it’s very rare that any abusive relationship is “all bad” all the time, in fact. That’s one of the most pervasive and frustrating myths to me about abuse and abusers, actually, so normally I *want* fiction to depict that kind of realistic nuance. But that’s not what’s going on here. What’s going on here is that Raab told one story, and then Gillen and Duggan told two completely different ones. It’s just normal comics contradiction. Like, yes, these versions COULD co-exist, but that was obviously never the intent. Raab may have only been able to show a few pages of Shaw’s relationship with Lourdes and with Jacob, and he chose to make those pages ones that indicated love. When you’re doing a comic book character’s backstory, and you only have a limited number of pages and panels to cram it all into, you’re going to pick stuff that essentially provides a “snapshot” to sum it up. So yes, if Shaw was a real person, then he could absolutely have abused Lourdes like Duggan while also having the tender moments Raab showed, and been abused by Jacob the way Gillen showed while also having the relationship aspects that Raab and the other writer (name escapes me) showed and suggested. But he’s not a real person, he’s a character in a story, and when you understand how stories work, how comics work especially, it’s pretty obvious that none of these later retcons/additions were ever intended to be the case in the original content, and in fact are intended to be the OPPOSITE of the case, given what we saw. It’s not just that Gillen and Duggan added things, they added things completely CONTRADICTORY to what the original works “snapshots” indicated about these relationships. And while I could just buckle and incorporate them into my understanding…no, I don’t think I shall. For a few reasons: - I’ve been studying Shaw since 2014, writing him since 2016. These retcons were made in the 2020s. They completely change the previous dynamics with Jacob and Lourdes that I originally understood, and accordingly change Shaw’s character. Comics change, contradictions happen, I get it, I accept it (albeit kicking and screaming) but that doesn’t mean I have to use it in my own writing. I pride myself on being MORE canon than canon because I stick with canon as it originally happened, not just what the latest writer did. - Just as I think Shaw actually being a good lover makes him a more interesting character than if he was a shitty abusive one, so too do I think a good relationship with his father adds more interest and nuance to him. The idea that Shaw has the capacity to love and to have good relationships but has destroyed that by becoming so repellant to others, as well as so paranoid due to the shitty experiences with shitty people he goes through by CHOOSING to be a member of the Hellfire Club and be a shitty person himself, is a really interesting setup. And this capacity is shown by his early relationships in life–Jacob and Lourdes—being good ones. There’s also the fact that mean parents, especially mean fathers, are just SUCH a goddamn cliche at this point. Shaw not only NOT having abusive parents, but in fact downright averting that with a GOOD relationship with his father, was different. It also added extra motive for him to want to achieve his dreams—making his dad proud by doing what they had planned together–not to mention there’s the fact that, if he loved his dad and his dad died of an illness, then it follows that if Shaw had had more money at the time, maybe he could have gotten him better medical care and Jacob might have lived. Probably not, of course, given his blood disease was likely Sinister’s work, but not knowing that, I’m sure the thought occurred to Shaw. That’s that much more motivation for his hard work and greed, the feeling of security that money brings. Gillen swaps out “wanting to make his dad proud because he loved him” for “wanting to succeed to rub it in his dead father’s face” and like…that works well, but again, why bother if the first story worked fine to begin with? Plus, it honestly just feels like a repeat of Emma’s dynamic with her own father. Maybe the idea was to draw parallels between them, but if you want to do that, you can already do it with Shaw’s original backstory—- he had a small poor family and a good relationship with his dad, she had a large rich family with a bad relationship with her dad. Despite their opposite circumstances, both were driven to succeed by their relationship with their fathers. There ya go, that’s your parallel. (See also: How Shaw and Emma respond to grief in opposite ways. Shaw committed to a worse path after Lourdes’ death, while Emma changed to a better path because of the Hellions death. Seriously you could do a lot with these two as mirrors if writers would just consider that instead of the nonsensical abuse retcons) - As I’ve mentioned before, I dislike that Shaw’s father abusing him gives an “easy” answer to why he abused Shinobi. As I also said before, what I really like about Shaw being an abusive father despite having a good dad is that it AVOIDED this trope and the easy answer. I really LIKED that Shaw doesn’t have the “well he was abused by his own father” trope going on. I like that it made me think about “well why DID he abuse Shinobi then?” and made me come up with answers that I think make a lot of sense for who he is and how he operates, and why it makes sense to me that he abuses his son but NOT his lovers, etc., - While emotional abuse can give a good characterization reason for why Shaw is awful, it fails on a thematic level. Shaw’s theme from the beginning has been corruption. When Claremont first writes the backstory of his takeover of the HFC in 1985, Shaw originally espouses a Magneto-like speech about using the Inner Circle to make mutants the victors in the world rather than the victims. But by the time he has his first conflict with the X-Men in the Dark Phoenix Saga, he’s gone right back to the original plots he had with the mutant-hating Ned Buckman to simply use the mutants as guinea pigs for profit, and spends the rest of the 80s happily peddling Sentinels to Senator Kelly. He only cares about money, this is made ABUNDANTLY clear, but he’s shown by the same writer as having started OUT as caring about more when he first became Black King. And when Claremont expands on his backstory in an early 2000s story, he has Sage recount that Shaw was actually a noble man when she first met him, a man who would have “spit on Hellfire” and that she would have served him faithfully forever if he hadn’t changed. It’s also implied via art he may have been on a humanitarian mission in Afghanistan when they met. And in Raab’s story, Lourdes cautions Shaw about the Hellfire Club, telling him that it changes people, corrupts them. She even tries to block his name for nomination (and oh look, he DOESN’T hit her for that, he isn’t even angry, DUGGAN) because she doesn’t want that to happen to HIM. And in Steve Lyon’s Legacy Quest Trilogy novels (which I cannot rec enough as a Shaw character source for me) it gets deeper detailed how the longer Shaw spends in the cloak and dagger world of the Hellfire Club, the longer he’s backstabbed by others and does backstabbing himself, the more closed-off and cruel he becomes, the more he only focuses on his wealth and power and disdains personal connections. In other words, the way Shaw is comes DIRECTLY from his own choice to engage in the Hellfire Club and to continue to do so every day he wakes up. It’s a PROGRESSION and it’s his own FAULT, his own CHOICE. He becomes like this through his own corruption and he actively makes that decision. Turning it into emotional abuse from his father firstly takes the progression/corruption aspect away, and it secondly takes Shaw’s own choice and agency out of it. Again, this could be a “well both things could be true” thing, that’s workable, but THEMATICS wise it does not. Again, these are not real people, these are characters in a story with THEMES they are meant to convey. Shaw’s theme of being corrupted by wealth, power, and the company he keeps in pursuit of that, is served much better by his original depiction. - I just don’t like it. At the end of the day, that’s really what it comes down to. Comics often gives multiple choice options for a character’s personality and past, and I’ve chosen mine. And while it’s not the one I chose, I actually think Gillen’s version isn’t bad. It’s a perfectly serviceable backstory for Shaw to explain why he is how he is. It’s just, a different perfectly good one already existed, and I like that one better. Now, on to my other problem with Gillen’s depiction of Shaw’s childhood: Gillen does not show the Shaws poor. He depicts young Sebastian as coming into Jacob’s office to excitedly tell him about something and being cruelly dismissed because he doesn’t even have a million dollars to his name to be worth Jacob talking to. Yes really. Jacob is dressed in Hellfire Club livery (which…is odd, Jacob was never an HFC member, that was his whole motive for murder) and is depicted working behind a large desk in a large room with a chandelier. This is not the home of a poor family. Jacob says he’s working to restore the family fortune, suggesting they used to be wealthier than they are now, but they clearly still have money, they haven’t been driven to selling furniture, property, etc. This is a far cry from the “poor steel mill worker” past we originally saw for Shaw, and provides a very different motive for his drive to become wealthy. In his original past, his motive was pretty cut and dry: He escaped poverty, but then became consumed by greed and ambition to rise ever higher, make more money than he could ever justifiably need, etc. And I think it’s a good motive. It’s never explored deeply, or at all really, but I think the psychological trauma of poverty is what caused this pathological greed; and it is pathological, I don’t know what else you’d call the amount of risk he takes to get more more MORE that he doesn’t need at all. It reminds me of the “food insecurity” you see in people who didn’t have enough to eat growing up, just with money instead. It also makes his decadent lifestyle make a lot of sense, he grew up with nothing so now he wants everything. In Gillen’s retcon, this is replaced by daddy issues. When Shaw makes a million bucks, he comes and dumps it on his father’s grave and burns it. Which…dude, I don’t care how many daddy issues you give him, Shaw’s not going to burn good money. But basically, pursuing money is representative to Shaw of pursuing the love of a father that he never got, and because he never got it, he can never stop. Which….I’m not going to say that it doesn’t make sense, but, as with the “Jacob was emotionally abusive” retcon, it’s just not necessary. Shaw had a good solid motive already. And I prefer that original motive for a lot of reasons. Firstly, it’s unique. Daddy issues are a dime a dozen in comics, so much so that bad dads now make me GROAN in new characters. What’s more, Shaw’s specific dynamic with his dad is pretty much exactly like what Emma and Shinobi already had—”I hate you, rich dad I’m never good enough for, but I’m gonna prove myself to you by becoming successful by your standards!” And maybe that’s intentional, to make him more of a “dark mirror” to Emma and/or indicate a cycle with Shinobi, but it comes off as lazy and uncreative, which is even worse when you consider they were replacing something that WASN’T lazy and uncreative. Secondly, it takes away the fact Shaw is a self made man. Yes, this still depicts him making his own money, but he’s clearly got a good head start, in contrast to Shaw’s classical depiction of the last 42 YEARS of being born dirt poor and becoming a multibillionaire purely through his own effort. Yes, I grant that’s about as unrealistic as getting powers from radioactive spider bites, but thematically it is ESSENTIAL to this character, what he’s about, how he sees the world. The entire THEME of Shaw is that he literally is the embodiment of the American dream—that someone with nothing can achieve everything if they work hard—but then a deconstruction thereof because it also shows how corrupt he became along the way and sacrificed his decency and relationships with others for it. This isn’t just my reading, this is literally TEXTUAL in Raab’s work, he is literally referred to as the American dream by the narrative boxes, that is the POINT. Maybe Gillen was trying to make a statement on the impossibility of this, by saying “no ACTUALLY this “self-made” billionaire was born on third base or at least second” and I get that, but Shaw’s the wrong character for it both because it goes against what’s previously established and because it messes up so much of his theme and his resultant psychology. It also takes away many of Shaw’s admirable traits. As with the Emma and Lourdes retcons, this strips things away from Shaw that were likeable, humanizing, nuanced, etc. He goes from a man that, as awful as he was, did genuinely earn his fortune through hard work and has a right to be proud of it, and can be admired for it even if he’s rightfully hated for his mentality and actions. Now? Poor little rich boy with daddy issues. It’s just…it’s so reductive, it’s so much less interesting, it’s so unnecessary, and it takes AWAY from the complexity of the character, not adds to it. And that’s the reverse of what a retcon or expansion on a character’s history should do. I don’t hate retcons for being retcons. I think some are great in terms of fixing things, adding to a character, etc. Just, every retcon around THIS character have been bad for him, also take away from other characters too imo, and don’t work as well for story, thematics, etc as the originals already did. 

[dollarbin]

Shakey Sundays #21:

Time Fades Away, Part 2

So. I headed north as promised last night, straight into L.A., Neil's very own uptight city in the smog (city in the smog), to see my famous brother make some very grown up music.

It was amazing and upsetting. Amazing in that Prairewolf are, for our current moment, what Booker T and the MG's were for 1967.

But it was upsetting in that my famous brother and his almost as famous bandmates did not obey my directive and perform Neil Young's Yonder Stands the Sinner with a generous dollop of their own wordless cosmic white man cowboy jazz funk slathered on top. Rather they played songs from their first two records.

I made some videos but have no idea how to paste them in here. If I could figure it out, you'd hear me grooving and hollering and jostling about as everyone in the room blissfully lost their minds amidst the rowdy crowd action and psychedelic vibes.

Naw, it wasn't really that kinda show. Even though Dr. Demento himself was allegedly in the room everyone just sat and nodded with appreciative thoughtfulness while they played. My buddy Greg points out that we probably looked a lot like the studious white folks in the Booker T clip. The band made no speeches and pensively sipped at their Tecates. The projected images behind them swirled and danced in time with my brother's patient yet nimble fretwork. I was filled with intensely mellow joy. Then I drove home.

It was awesome.

And yet, because Prairiewolf didn't bust out a single Time Fades Away cover, I do need to issue the following apology: yesterday's post had nothing whatsoever to do with Neil Young's reckless live album of entirely new songs from 73. Please accept my humble apologies and send all your angry feedback to my famous brother at doomandgloomfromthetomb.

I didn't understand Time Fades Away on any level as a teenager. Neil sounded cranky throughout; the pace was frantic until it was dull; there were no noticeable guitar solos (somehow I didn't notice the fairly groovy interludes on Last Dance); and even at the tender age of 16 I wanted to find David Crosby and punch him squarely in the nose for smugly interrupting the record to announce that what followed would be "a little experimental".

For reasons that are not well-founded or clear I've always associated Crosby with my middle school woodshop teacher Mr Halferty: he would not let us touch any wood in his classroom. Rather, we made keychains and sugar scoopers (as if any of had sugar barrels at home that needed accessing a la Laura Ingall's Farmer Boy) outta plastic and he drove an El Camino. On the last day of school we surreptitiously placed all our finished projects around the wheels of his sweet ride gleefully figuring that as soon as he peeled out there'd be shattered plastic everywhere.

The plan was to hide in the bushes and watch it all go down. I don't think we followed through on that part of the plan. But I felt it then and I feel it now: neither Mr. Halferty nor Crosby have any business on a Neil Young record of any kind post Deja Vu (unless they're glowing unobtrusively in the background as in Through in My Sails).

And so I didn't dig Time Fades Away as a kid.

But it's over 30 years later and I now carry Neil's cranky frantic energy on the record around with me just about everywhere I go. I berate my 11th grade students whenever they enter the classroom more than 6 seconds late or act like their phones are their friends. I drive either way too fast or way too slow. I dream of punching Donald Trump, not David Crosby or poor old Mr. Halferty, squarely in the nose.

So, these days Time Fades Away is right up my alley.

Let me count the ways:

The title track sounds like it's played by angry, drunk monkeys. I mistakenly had my turntable turned up to 45 rpm this weekend when I first dropped the needle; aside from the fact that Neil sounds like a bubbly chipmunk at that speed the song sounds basically the same: terrifying, and good.

Neil must have issued 48 different live versions of Journey Through the Past in the last decade and a half. They're all good. But on Time Fades Away's original take Neil is more plastered than on all the other versions combined.

And you know what they say when it comes to Shakey and Freezermen concerts at Vassar College in 01: the drunker, the better.

As Neil works towards and through the last chorus I feel the room spin wildly around him. It's terrifying, drunk and bleak; it's awesome.

Yonder Stands the Sinner is one of the most unhinged tracks in Young's entire oeuvre. It does not sound experimental, David Crosby; rather it sounds wonderfully insane. At 16 years old I just scratched my head and thought about playing The Joshua Tree or something else instead. Today I feel like Neil is reading the words inscribed on my very soul:

Neil Young: he calls my name without a sound.

Up next we've got L.A. I grew up there. It was alright. But this song is way better: Neil borrows much of the hook from Come on Baby Let's Go Downtown and slows it way the hell down. He's already finding his Tonight's The Night sound and groove here with Ben Keith alongside him, the steel guitar throwing shadows on every available wall of the theater. This is probably my favorite song on the record.

Love in Mind, like The Bridge on Side 2, is just lovely. Neil could nail a ballad like no one else at this point. Everything is fragile and quavering. You want to give the poor guy a hug and recommend a good therapist.

My nearly 80 year old mother talked after the show last night about how seeing her son on stage in Prairiewolf was the opposite of all the Kris Kristofferson shows she saw around LA before Kris became a household name. Seeing her drunk, vulnerable, potentially doomed and beloved cousin play live was utterly stressful. She saw that Kris was not well but that he simply had to make earnest art anyway.

I think it would have been similarly stressful to have been an alive and well Neil Young fan in 1972/3. (I was born in 76 and encountered Young as he entered his 90's heyday.) Fans on the Time Fades Away tour must have worried about whether he was even gonna make it through the show without keeling over.

Folks my age and younger have never been properly stressed out by any of Neil's Ditch era; we encountered all that wonderful music with the knowledge that he survived it all; indeed, we knew that he spun the whole era on its head and made it the foundation for his greatness rather than the soundtrack for his demise.

When it comes to great art like this record, time doesn't fade away. It morphs, it swells and it alters perspectives. Kinda like the lights and sounds I saw on stage in LA last night... And check it out: I figured out how to put in a video of it all which captures... almost nothing. But take my word for it, it was awesome!

[newstfionline]

Monday, March 18, 2024

Trump Says Some Migrants Are ‘Not People’ and Predicts a ‘Blood Bath’ if He Loses (NYT) Former President Donald J. Trump, at an event on Saturday ostensibly meant to boost his preferred candidate in Ohio’s Republican Senate primary race, gave a freewheeling speech in which he used dehumanizing language to describe immigrants, maintained a steady stream of insults and vulgarities and predicted that the United States would never have another election if he did not win in November. While discussing the U.S. economy and its auto industry, Mr. Trump promised to place tariffs on cars manufactured abroad if he won in November. He added: “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a blood bath for the whole—that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a blood bath for the country.”

A Shooter’s Parents Were Convicted of Manslaughter. What Happens Next? (NYT) When the prosecutor Karen McDonald decided to press criminal charges against the parents of the teenager who carried out the deadliest school shooting in Michigan’s history, even some members of her own staff expressed doubts, fearing the case was too ambitious to win. “It seemed a huge reach to try to hold the parents responsible,” said Linda C. Fentiman, a professor emerita at Pace University who is an expert in health law and criminal law. “This was new legal territory.” But in the end, prosecutors were able to convince two separate juries that they had met their burden of proof. Now the question is whether the cases will affect the legal terrain around criminal law, parental responsibility and gun legislation.

Musk’s SpaceX is building spy satellite network for US intelligence agency, sources say (Reuters) SpaceX is building a network of hundreds of spy satellites under a classified contract with a U.S. intelligence agency, five sources familiar with the program said, demonstrating deepening ties between billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk’s space company and national security agencies. The network is being built by SpaceX’s Starshield business unit under a $1.8 billion contract signed in 2021 with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), an intelligence agency that manages spy satellites, the sources said. The plans show the extent of SpaceX’s involvement in U.S. intelligence and military projects and illustrate a deeper Pentagon investment into vast, low-Earth orbiting satellite systems aimed at supporting ground forces. If successful, the sources said the program would significantly advance the ability of the U.S. government and military to quickly spot potential targets almost anywhere on the globe.

Driving With Mr. Gil: A Retiree Teaches Afghan Women the Rules of the Road (NYT) Bibifatima Akhundzada wove a white Chevy Spark through downtown Modesto, Calif., on a recent morning, practicing turns, braking and navigating intersections. “Go, go, go” said her driving instructor, as she slowed down through an open intersection. “Don’t stop. Don’t stop.” Her teacher was Gil Howard, an 82-year-old retired professor who happened upon a second career as a driving instructor. And no ordinary instructor. In Modesto, Calif., he is the go-to teacher for women from Afghanistan, where driving is off limits for virtually all of them. In recent years, Mr. Howard has taught some 400 women in the 5,000-strong Afghan community in this part of California’s Central Valley. According to local lore, thanks to “Mr. Gil,” as he is known in Modesto, more Afghan women likely drive in and around the city of about 220,000 than in all Afghanistan. For many Americans, learning to drive is a rite of passage, a skill associated with freedom. For Afghan immigrants it can be a lifeline, especially in cities where distances are vast and public transportation limited. So when Mr. Howard realized the difference driving made to the Afghan women, teaching them became a calling, the instruction provided free of charge.

Looting is on the rise in Haiti (AP) As Haiti once again spirals into chaos with another wave of gang violence, a number of government and aid agencies reported Saturday that their facilities and aid supplies have been looted. Gangs have raged through Haiti in recent weeks, attacking key institutions and shutting down the main international airport. The chaos has pushed many Haitians to the brink of famine and left many more in increasingly desperate conditions. On Saturday, UNICEF said one of its containers containing “essential items for maternal, neonatal, and child survival, including resuscitators and related equipment” were looted in the capital of Port-au-Prince’s main port, which was breached by gangs last week. That same day, the Guatemala’s Foreign Ministry said that the offices of its honorary consul in Haiti was ransacked.

Russian exiles bring banyas and blinis to Buenos Aires (Reuters) When Ilia Gafarov and Nadia Gafarova host the grand opening of their “banya”, a traditional Russian sauna, in April, they hope it will help make a permanent home of their adopted city of Buenos Aires. The couple, a former banker and recruiter from Russia’s eastern port city of Vladivostok, moved to Argentina with their two daughters nine months ago, part of a wave of migration from Russia to Latin America since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. As Russia’s war in Ukraine enters its third year, a growing number of Russian families are putting down roots around Latin America, according to previously unreported residency visa approval data from five countries and interviews with a dozen exiles and experts. Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay, granted temporary or permanent residence last year to a total of almost 9,000 Russians, the data show, up from just over 1,000 in 2020.

A volcano in Iceland is erupting for the fourth time in 3 months, sending plumes of lava skywards (AP) A volcano in Iceland erupted Saturday evening for the fourth time in three months, sending orange jets of lava into the night sky. Iceland’s Meteorological Office said the eruption opened a fissure in the earth about 3 kilometers (almost 2 miles) long between Stóra-Skógfell and Hagafell mountains on the Reykjanes Peninsula. The Met Office had warned for weeks that magma—semi-molten rock—was accumulating under the ground, making an eruption likely. Hundreds of people were evacuated from the Blue Lagoon thermal spa, one of Iceland’s top tourist attractions, when the eruption began, national broadcaster RUV said.

Millions Battle Long Covid Aftermath (Spiegel) International Long Covid Awareness Day marks the focus on the plight of individuals with Long Covid and the lack of effective treatments. An estimated 2.5 million patients in Germany suffer from Long Covid, experiencing symptoms that last over four weeks post-infection, including breathing difficulties, fatigue, and neurological issues. The German government has earmarked up to 81 million euros for Long Covid research and patient care services between 2024 and 2028, but no treatments for Long Covid have been approved, highlighting an urgent need for more specialized care and support for those affected.

Putin is poised to rule Russia for 6 more years (AP/WSJ) Russian President Vladimir Putin is poised to extend nearly a quarter century of rule for six more years on Sunday. The three-day election that began Friday has taken place in a tightly controlled environment where no public criticism of Putin or his war in Ukraine is allowed. The 71-year-old Russian leader faces three token rivals from Kremlin-friendly parties who have refrained from any criticism of his 24-year rule or his full-scale invasion of Ukraine two years ago. Analysts who follow the country’s politics say Putin needs to win big if he wants a free hand in reviving what he says are Russia’s conservative Orthodox traditions and, ultimately, prevailing in Ukraine and in his broader confrontation with the West.

U.N. Documents More Than Two Dozen Attacks on Gazans Waiting for Aid Since January (NYT) The United Nations human rights office has documented more than two dozen attacks on Gazans waiting for desperately needed aid since January, with hunger spreading as a result of Israel’s near complete siege, preventing most food and water from entering the tiny enclave. In a number of U.N. reports and statements, the office has documented at least 26 such attacks since mid-January. They include Thursday night’s attack on hundreds of Palestinians who were waiting at the Kuwait traffic circle in Gaza City for an expected convoy of aid trucks. Gazan health officials accused Israeli forces of carrying out a “targeted” attack on the crowd that killed 20, and three witnesses described shelling at the scene. The Israeli military blamed Palestinian gunmen for the bloodshed and said that it was continuing to review the episode.

As Gaza war rages, U.S. military footprint expands across Middle East (Washington Post) Lt. Col. Jeremy Anderson tilted up the nose of his U.S. Air Force C-130 and tipped 16 pallets of emergency food aid out of the cargo bay and into the sky above northern Gaza. Thousands of miles away, off the coast of Yemen, U.S. fighter jets and attack helicopters roared off the flight deck of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, often just minutes apart, to combat Houthi fighters attacking ships in and around the Red Sea. In both places, U.S. service members said their missions were unexpected, changing as the White House has moved rapidly to contain wider fallout from the Israel-Gaza war. But now, along with a U.S. Army crew on its way to Gaza to build a floating pier, they are firmly part of the U.S. military’s expanding footprint in the Middle East. It’s a region President Biden had hoped to de-emphasize—and one where American involvement has often been devastating and costly. The war in Gaza and worsening humanitarian crisis there have taught Biden a lesson many presidents have learned before: It’s not so easy to quit the Middle East.

Niger junta announces end to military relationship with United States (Washington Post) The military junta ruling Niger—which until last year was seen as a major ally of the United States in West Africa—announced Saturday on state television that it was ending its military relationship with the United States. The announcement by a spokesman for the junta government, which overthrew Niger’s democratically elected president last year, came directly on the heels of a visit to the capital Niamey by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Molly Phee, the State Department’s top official for African affairs, and Gen. Michael E. Langley, who heads U.S. military operations in Africa. That mission was among diplomatic efforts by the United States to find ways to work with military governments in the region. But in the statement read on television, Amadou Abdramane, the junta��s spokesman, said the Nigerien government “denounced with force the condescending attitude” of the head of the recent U.S. delegation, which he said had undermined the long relationship between the two countries.

South Sudan shutters all schools as it prepares for an extreme heat wave (AP) South Sudan’s government is closing down all schools starting Monday as the country prepares for a wave of extreme heat expected to last two weeks. The health and education ministries advised parents to keep all children indoors as temperatures are expected to soar to 45 degrees Celsius (113 Fahrenheit), in a statement late Saturday, They warned that any school found open during that time would have its registration withdrawn, but didn’t specify how long the schools would remain shuttered. Civil conflict has plagued the east African country which also suffered from drought and flooding, making living conditions difficult for residents.

[byneddiedingo]

James Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (Frank Capra, 1939)

Cast: James Stewart, Jean Arthur, Claude Rains, Edward Arnold, Guy Kibbee, Thomas Mitchell, Eugene Pallette, Beulah Bondi, H.B. Warner, Harry Carey, Astrid Allwyn, Ruth Donnelly, Grant Mitchell, Porter Hall, H.V. Kaltenborn, Charles Lane, William Demarest, Jack Carson. Screenplay: Sidney Buchman, based on a story by Lewis R. Foster. Cinematography: Joseph Walker. Art direction: Lionel Banks. Film editing: Al Clark, Gene Havlick. Music: Dimitri Tiomkin.

Perhaps only James Stewart (or Gary Cooper, who turned down the role of Jefferson Smith) could have made Frank Capra's preposterous, sentimental, flag-wavingly patriotic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington into what many people still regard as a beloved classic. But now that we've spent some time being governed by probably the most corrupt man ever to hold the White House, a president elected on populist promises to "drain the swamp" in Washington but who instead spent his time wallowing in it and stocking it with still more alligators, maybe we can take a harsher look at the Capra film's politics. The people who elected Donald Trump seem to have thought they were voting for Jefferson Smith but instead elected the movie's Jim Taylor (played deliciously by that fattest of character actor fat cats, Edward Arnold). David Thomson, among others, has cogently observed that the film celebrates Jefferson Smith's bull-headed integrity, but that democracy necessarily involves the kind of compromises that Claude Rains's Senator Paine has made, and which have made him a popular and successful politician. True, he's under the thumb of the viciously corrupt Jim Taylor, who is even a manipulator of "fake news," but Thomson questions whether the people of Smith's state wouldn't have benefited more from the dam Taylor wants to put on Willett Creek, presumably one that would supply power and other benefits to the state, than from Smith's piddly boys' camp, which would benefit at best a few hundred boys. (No girls need apply?) Smith's dramatic filibuster also seems to be holding up a bill that would provide funding for some essential services. As it happens, I rewatched Mr. Smith on the night after the Senate reached an impasse on funding the entire federal government, and there could hardly be a better example of political stubbornness undermining the public good. Which is only to say that the merits of Capra's film -- and there are some -- transcend its simple-minded fable. Among its merits, it's beautifully acted, not only by Stewart, Rains, and Arnold, but also by Jean Arthur, that most underrated of 1930s leading ladies, and Thomas Mitchell, who appeared in no fewer than three of the films nominated for the best picture Oscar for 1939 -- this one, Gone With the Wind (Victor Fleming), and Stagecoach (John Ford) -- and won the supporting actor award for Stagecoach. And just run down the rest of the cast list, which seems to be a roster of every great character actor in the movies of that day, all of them performing with great energy. Capra's mise-en-scène is sometimes stagy, but Lionel Banks's great re-creation of the Senate chamber gives Capra a fine stage on which to work.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Madeline Peltz at MMFA:

The Family Research Council, an extreme anti-LGBTQ group and Project 2025 partner, is leading a new initiative called the “Platform Integrity Project” calling on the public to get involved with an effort to pressure the Republican Party to adopt a hardline anti-abortion stance as it drafts its platform for the 2024 campaign. FRC president Tony Perkins is a delegate to the GOP platform committee, a position he’s held twice in the past. The Platform Integrity Project website reads, “The GOP Platform has a strong pro-life, pro-family, and pro-freedom track record. Encourage your state’s delegates to protect these fundamental issues when they meet in Milwaukee to draft the new Platform July 8 and 9."

According to the site, which includes a prayer for “state delegates and other officials” writing the new party platform to receive God-given “wisdom and discernment,” the initiative is backed by more than 20 other conservative groups. This push comes amidst an intense intra-party fight over the GOP party platform as the Republican National Convention approaches. The platform has not been updated since the 2016 election, before Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022. Earlier this week, The New York Times reported that a coalition of 10 conservative groups, including the Family Research Council, sent a letter to former President Donald Trump in June urging him to “make clear that you do not intend to weaken the pro-life plank,” while also praising him as “the most pro-life president in American history.” Other signatories of the letter include anti-abortion leaders from Project 2025 partners like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and Concerned Women for America.

[...] Reporting indicates that some at the RNC and in President Trump’s inner circle see taking a hardline as a mistake. According to NBC News, the campaign is taking an active role in stopping the party from moving what it sees as too far right on abortion and marriage. And according to the Times, “In the two years since the Supreme Court that Mr. Trump transformed decided to overturn Roe, he has grown ever more convinced that hard-line abortion restrictions are electoral poison." That’s not to say that Trump is not an anti-abortion extremist. He has reportedly expressed private support for a national 16-week abortion ban and in the 2016 campaign made a promise to sign a 20-week abortion ban into law. He has taken credit for appointing the justices that voted to overturn Roe, and as president took steps to curtail abortion access. FRC has also recruited the support of former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who recently told Perkins in an interview, “I think it’s a mistake for Republicans to avoid such an important critical issue. And I know it’s controversial,” adding “I think it is so central to who we are as Americans to understand the value of every human life."

An intra-party fight in the GOP over abortion language in the platform is happening now, and Family Research Council and other right-wing anti-abortion groups are demanding that the party enact a hardline anti-abortion platform.