#if someone is making a supported claim you at least need to provide counter evidence otherwise you’re just insulting their intelligence

[sorry-i-ship-drarry]

38. Set it up, break it up

For everyone who's been supportive of these| fluff |making out |harry set draco up with someone Only to realise he liked draco all along |

" when was your first time ?" Seamus smugly asked Draco as he drank his butter beer from across the room sprawled over the bean bag

" I will prefer not to answer the question. It is highly confidential and that information shall only be revealed to Someone I'm with. So dear Seamus you can enjoy asking this question to other, while I would refuse to answer " Draco sophisticatedly replied, tilting his head to put on more emphasis upon his words.

" Merlin, you could've just said I'm not answering that. No need to go all Shakespearian " Ron rolled his eyes at Draco.

Harry chuckled as he joined Draco over the couch, putting his legs over Draco's laps, not that either of them ever minded that physical touch " that's Draco for you. He'll never give a direct answer. I can bet, if he were in an English Muggle class, he'd top "

" I topped nonetheless " Draco rolled his eyes, his hands automatically falling into a pattern of softly stroke the bottom of Harry's leg, a habit he's grown attached to.

" really? From what I remember I got 7 owls while you got only 6. It's just as if I was infact better than you " Harry smirked

" whatever Harry. I was the headboy " Draco rolled his eyes at harry, yet again but then again he liked these small bickerings with him. Blaise eyed them from the corner of the room, enjoying it himself, not Daring to say anything.

" and I was given the opportunity, I just denied "

" as if "

" whatever helps you sleep at night darling" Harry teased as he pinched Draco's cheeks softly

" don't " Draco growled as he swatted Harry's hand away

" one angry kitten aren't you " Harry chuckled, picking up his can of butter beer and drinking it.

" don't call me that " Draco sneered, not in a furious way, just slightly threatening way.

" anywaysss " Seamus echoed, breaking off their not so private conversation " when was your first time harry ?"

" Ron, you might wanna cover your ears for this one " Harry chuckled. Ron gave him a look but refused to do so " it was after war, when I got back with Ginny, in the time we were going out for a short time "

" what about in 6th year ?" Dean asked snuggling closer to Seamus on the bean bag

" we couldn't really ever get to it. I mean for one neither of us were ready, and we were just kids. Although when we did it after we got back together, we realised almost instantly it wasn't something we enjoyed, not that part, just with opposite sex kind of thing. Well mostly her, no offense. Or it could've been we weren't just attracted to each other that way " Harry explained

" really ? I always thought you guys would work out you know " Dean said. Harry looked at Dean amused but didn't say anything.

" I never thought you guys would end up together really. Never seemed as if so " Seamus added

" interest me in why ?" Harry asked

" it just, I always knew you were sort of bi even before you started going with Ginny. It was Evident really sometimes. And with Ginny herself, she didn't seem like a person to be with a guy. I mean coming from I figured my sexuality really early on, I just sometimes knew it.. besides after the first time you guys broke up, it seemed almost impossible for it work later on " Seamus explained. Everyone including Draco thought about what he had said and nobody could even deny that it was a lie.

" what's your dating track anyway right now Harry ?" Blaise asked standing over the chair behind Ron.

" oh it's not that bad. I do go out on a few dates. I went on a date last week infact and believe me that guy was really good, dashing, almost ced- well Cedric diggory Kinda hot but right in the middle of the date, I feel something going up my leg. I almost choked on my Tuna fish and he goes, do you like it ? I was more shocked than anything else. It was weird if anything "

" so what next ?"

" I didn't call him back. I think somewhere along the date, he might've said he had feet fetish.. he would much rather make love to my feets than me and it was just plainly weird "

" people have all different sorts of fetishes " Ron frowned

" yeah, I respect them but feet fetishes just creeps me out " Harry almost shivered at the thought of it.

And everyone soon fell into talking about weirdest kinks and fetishes, something they all were rather amused to be in conversation about, except, Harry.

Draco stopped stroking Harry's leg for a moment to softly clutch on them to seek his attention.

" it's alright Harry.. you can't change anything.. besides I think he lived a good life" Draco softly said.

" I still can't forget though. It's almost as if I can still see it happening in front of my eyes " Harry Whispered back.

" I know. He was a brave guy though. You can't do anything anymore. I'm sure- he'd want you to get over it too " Draco whispered. Harry bit his lip softly before nodding. To provide comfort, Draco again started stroking Harry's legs.

" feels nice" Harry smiled at Draco, who simply smiled back.

" talking off that, what say about going on a date with someone ?" Harry asked Draco but had inevitably grabbed attention from a few others in the room.

Draco raised his eyebrows in strange surprise " really ?"

" I met some guy at the animal shop across the street. He seemed like someone you could date " Harry replied

" why me, why not you ?" Draco defensively asked

" well, he's not my type but he's yours and he did seem to notice you with me a couple of days ago, so I thought maybe you could talk to him and see if you'd like to go out with him " Harry suggested.

Draco frowned at harry before clearing his throat " I'll pay that animal shop a visit then "

" great " Harry grinned

" I'm gonna use the loo " Draco sighed and got up abruptly

" unbelievable " Blaise announced. Harry looked around the room to receive strange looks " what are you all staring at me for ?" Harry asked confused

But nobody responded except that most of them groaned, leaving Harry more confused. Draco returned a few minutes, chatted a bit and then left claiming he had to feed his cat.

As a few weeks goes on by, Harry discovered that draco did started going with the guy he had told him about and was infact in a happy place to be with him. And it was all fun and games until Harry was offended that Draco no longer gave him that much time anymore or the fact that he kept cancelling on him over and over or that he longer was interested in watching movies with harry but sure had fun plans with his so called boyfriend or the guy he's dating, he cared no less. By which he meant, he did cared. To say his friends were tired of Harry ranting on about Draco cancelling on him that one time Ron even put up muffalito charm on him. It was splendid how things were going, in a sarcastic way of course until Draco decided it was time for him to make everyone meet his boyfriend, and harry wanted to burn himself on flames.

" I frankly don't understand why the expensive dinner, I mean, couldn't he had just invited us to his place or his so called boyfriend's place " Harry vented air quoting boyfriend

" Harry you were the one who set him up in the first place, stop being mad at him and jealous not to mention " Hermione rolled her eyes eating the chips off the packet

" jealous, I'm not jealous " Harry defensively said

" sure " Ron rolled his eyes.

" look Harry, you're clearly jealous that he isn't spending as much as time with you and its bothering you, so just talk to him about it " Hermione suggested shrugging her shoulder

" look, I don't know what's cooking in both of your brains but I'm-not-jealous " harry slammed the cloth over the counter and went inside his bedroom

" I miss the time when he wasn't such a dramatic ass " Ron taunted

" I can hear you " Harry yelled from inside the room, hearing faint whispers from Ron and Hermione in the living room..

And the truth infact was that Harry was jealous, which he Only discovered over the dinner when Draco was practically almost all over him that harry wanted to tell him to just sit in his lap, didn't of course. And to make it worse, he was jealous of how good they actually looked, which resulted in harry losing his appetite and almost groaning every five minutes. Hermione had to kick him under the table to behave a couple of times.

Spending the night in his thoughts, Harry came across things he wished he had known earlier or things he never felt but whatever it was, he felt frustrated in himself to set Draco up and he had no idea what to do next, so he decided to take advice from the only man he knew the best was at.

" Harry ? What a pleasant surprise. Ron's not at home though " Blaise said as he opened the door for him

" I actually came here to talk to you " Harry sighed as he went in. Blaise frowned in surprise before walking behind Harry himself

" well what can I interest you in, a joke, a mimickery,-"

" an advice actually " Harry groaned as he slumped down on the couch.

" oh- Ron's better at that-"

" he isn't, he told me to talk to you " Harry replied. Blaise walked into the kitchen, opening the window to the living room to converse through the kitchen.

" did he ? What can I help you with then ?" Blaise asked as he poured water for Harry and walking in to give it to him.

" I think, that I might have feelings for Draco" Harry replied

" you are officially the last person to know that " Blaise chuckled as he walked back into the kitchen and fetched something to eat.

" what ? You guys knew that ?" Harry sat uptight

" of course " Blaise scrunched his eyebrows as an obvious face

" why didn't you guys tell me ?" Harry asked agitated with his friends

" because these are the things we're not supposed to tell you, you're the one supposed to tell us, you dimwit " Blaise rolled his eyes, throwing his hands in the air.

" well you could've at least warned me " Harry groaned

" how could you not have known !! When did you even figure It out anyways?" Blaise asked as he shut the cabinet for the last time, bringing a packet of cookies and chips with him and slumping down in front of Harry.

" I think I've known for a bit since he started going out, but last night i was pretty confirmed that I was jealous " Harry Told him

" well I'd like to say you are that ruined your chances but guessing you came for advice, you came here to know how to fix it and I'll tell you, I do not have even the slightest idea how to fix your shit soup "

" what ?" Harry emphasised

" Harry, you yourself set him up with someone almost exactly like you. If Draco even Liked you at some point, now he knows that you don't like him and he's probably moved on and supposedly happy in his newfound relationship "

" Blaise, If I wanted to listen to how I fucked it up I wouldn't had come to you. I need to know how can I fix this " harry sarcastically responded raising his eyebrows

" look the easiest way is to simply confess or move on. I can't help you harry even if I wanted to. Draco seems happy " Blaise told him emphatically.

Harry was disappointed but knew Blaise was right, there was possibly nothing he could've done to make it right, at least not something that would sabotage their relationship.

It took harry a couple more days to become normal with the fact that draco was dating and finally paving his way to move on, which was definitely hard. And harry could've assumed he was doing good until Draco invited him for a picnic, claiming they haven't gotten out individually in a while. Normally harry would've been very ecstatic about it but considering the phase he was going through it was hard but didn't deny his sweet offer.

" took you a bit long- and your boyfriend's here too " harry pressed his lips in a thin line when he saw them coming together.

"it was just us but his plans got cancelled last moment so he tagged alone.. i hope you don't mind " Draco plead guilty

Harry sighed before giving him a firm smile and nodding " it's going to be one hell of a day "

Halfway through the picnic, harry Would've assumed he would be the thrid wheel but it was infact quite opposite, his boyfriend, jake was infact the third wheel who basically had no idea about draco's life which surprised harry a little more than it should have.

" you- jake, you alright ?" Harry asked looking over draco's shoulder at his boyfriend who looked puzzled

" what? I'm fine, just thinking " he gave them a firm smile.. draco leaned a bit into jake as if to give him the feeling he was still here but jake rejected it, much to draco's surprise.

" what you thinking about ?" Harry asked furrowing his eyebrows.

" what exactly I'm doing here?-"

" shit- I'm sorry for making you feel as if I'm intruding-"

" no, it's not that. It's just so clear that you both are so meant to be together, yet here I am on a picnic with two people who are supposed to be together but are not because of me-"

" that's not true " draco interjected

" is it not ? " Jake asked more firmly than before, not forgetting to give a smile so as to not sound harsh.

Draco opened his mouth to say something but closed it again.

" even if it is true for me, I don't think Draco feels that way . Besides you guys are dating, I don't want to be the reason for your break up" harry replied sympathetically

" you're not harry. I just- I can see it, maybe you two are blind but I'm not.. Enjoy yourselves " jake said as he abruptly stood up

" jake don't be like that " draco too stood up

Jake sighed taking draco's hands in his own " I'll stay if you admit you don't have any feelings for him, if you've never wanted to be with him, if you've felt anything closer to what you feel for him about Me. Admit it freely and I'll stay"

But draco couldn't say anything..

" thought so. I'd be fine by the way. I don't think I've seen two people belonging to each more than you two " and jake departed.

Draco stood there a few minutes watching him walk away, his shoulder slouched as if not believing that he'd just been dumped.

" draco-"

" you're a jerk " draco turned around

" what ?" Harry asked confused

" you're an insolent jerk " draco picked up from dry leaves from the ground and hitting harry with that.

" what the fuck did I do ?" Harry shielded himself as draco threw more and more leaves and grasses

" you fucking moron, you were Flirting with me " draco huffed stopping for a moment

" I wasn't flirting " harry whined. Draco gave him a look before picking up more leaves and throwing it at him

" okay, okay. I was but hey it's your fault to go along with it " harry stumbled back over the ground

" well it's not my fault if you're bloody good at it "

" is it my fault that you enjoyed and I'm not the only victim here, you were flirting too " harry looked up at Draco from the ground

" I wasn't flirting " draco narrowed his eyes. Harry hooked his leg around that of draco, making him trip over and fall over harry, who he instantly rolled over, pinning draco to ground.

" were you not ?" Harry breathed

" it doesn't matter-"

" you were flirting back" harry commanded

" okay, fine I was but you had no right- hmph" draco moaned softly as harry kissed him over the lips, kissing until the need for oxygen finally had made sense again.

" now tell me, how long have you wanted this?" Harry huffed.

Draco rolled his eyes, still pink from all the kissing " I haven't wanted this "

" okay " harry frowned as he leaned down, his lips lightly brushing over that of draco's " you sure ?" Harry asked not moving an inch closer or further

Draco's breath choked down, desperately wanting to lean forward to kiss him again but didn't to avoid giving harry the satisfaction of having the upper hand.

" you don't want me to kiss you again then? That's right yeah " harry whispered as he bit Draco's lower lip, earning a soft moan and his body involuntarily pressed against harry's

" seems otherwise " harry whispered.

" merlin " draco moaned. Smirking harry pulled away looking at Draco from a distance.

Sucking his cheeks, draco immediately pulled harry to him and kissed him again, this time in more desperation and rush.

" guess who's got the upper hand now " draco moaned as he freed his hands and put them in his hair.

" you" harry chuckled, Thoroughly enjoying kissing draco himself.

" jerk " draco chuckled

" you're the jerk " harry chuckled

" and you broke his heart " harry whispered against his lips smiling

" eh, he always knew it anyways " draco shrugged

" you really are a jerk then " harry smiled as he pulled away a bit, admiring draco.

" and you're the jerk who just broke my relationship and has basically manipulated me into kissing you " draco raised an eyebrow amusingly

" I don't regret it " harry regret

" me either " draco smiled and leaned in again.

Requests open

Day 37- you're my home, draco | Day 39- cuddle me in

[chayacat]

Devil’s Sweet Star (23)

Fandom: Dead by Daylight

Ghostface x Female Reader  

Rated M for Violence, Language and Smut  

***

Wealth. There is a lot of meaning for this word. Of course, the first thing that comes to people's minds when we talk about wealth is the financial side of the term. And that's normal! As we say, it's money that makes the world go. Because without money, we don't have anything. No house. No food, no clothes, no care, no access to knowledge... Absolutely nothing. Some manage to acquire a great wealth honestly, by working with the sweat of their hands, by continuing the family tradition or by starting his own business. Others acquire this wealth dishonestly, stealing, lying and cheating the work of others to take credit for it. And in some cases... money can solve many problems. This is how some people avoid prison, paying justice to corrupt them. Not just justice for that matter...

There is also the wealth of knowledge, which is essential to our survival and evolution. Knowledge has allowed humanity to evolve and gradually reach places and stages that until now was impossible. The thirst for knowledge and the wealth it provides can get you out of very dangerous situations. Because knowledge helps to identify what is deadly or not, how to save lives, think about a strategy that can save as many people as possible, build solid buildings, pass on this knowledge to future generations so that they can perfect it even more.

And finally... there is the wealth of the heart. The most beautiful wealth in the world. The richness of the heart is that which one acquires by being good, generous and always ready to help others. Sometimes all it takes is a kind word, a friendly smile or an outstretched hand to feed that wealth. Many people forget this wealth there in favour of money. Money doesn't really make you happy. It is to be with those we love that makes us happy.

But back to the financial aspect of wealth. As I said, money solves a lot of problems when you are rich. But sometimes she can't save you from the media pressure. And currently for a certain Hoggins... Money cannot save him from the scandal that has just erupted about him. The newspapers of the region were getting their hands in gold since the "stock market scam" as they called it in their article, had been updated. And in Roseville, the newspapers were sold like buns, rumours and debates about it filled your coffee.

“Do you realize that? This rotten Hoggins makes money by stealing and destroying its competitors illegally! this guy has no Honor or fucking dignity!” said a man, throwing his newspaper on the table.  

“The worst part is that he denies it! while the evidence is there! he can't lie and say that this e-mail he exchanged with his accomplice is fake! And there he is, free to move as he wishes, saying that he has never done anything and that all this is just bad luck! He struts around like a king!” said the woman in front of him.  

“He will eventually fall... one way or another. And if this goes on, he's even going to get shot. In a way it wouldn't be any worse. For once if Ghostface could slaughter him and McKellan... It'd make us less shit in this country.”  

“Yes, you’re right, for once, I Hoped that Ghostface kill them... Let them pay for what they have done.”

You listen to people argue and see how hateful they are towards the rich of this world. To want Hoggins dead to the point of praying that Ghostface would kill him.... That means everything. It’s true that he deserves to be punished but... not to the point of wishing him death. If Ghostface were there, and if he’s there among the customers, he must rejoice, lick his lips, enjoy himself from these words. Melina entered the café at the same time, with a big smile on her face. She heard the conversations but didn't pay attention to them.

“Hey there Beauty! How are you? Not too busy?” she said with a big smile.  

“It's fine, it's fine. I don't have a lot of people right now. But hey it's only the beginning of the day ... The biggest one is coming. How about you?” You respond posing on the counter.

“The whole newspaper is in a state of boiling between the Ghostface murders, the Hoggins scandal... It's a real furnace, we're running everywhere! Sometimes I dream of being on a beach.... in a sun lounger... a cocktail in hand. But I have to stay realistic for now and focus on the work.”

“Haha my poor Melina... Courage, once he is arrested, tried and thrown in jail, you can breathe a little more... even if there are still the Ghostface murders. But for that there is Jed to write them …"

“Speaking of Jed! Did you transform him with a magic wand? He arrived, his hair loose, in a short-sleeved t-shirt and with a much more confident look than usual! well he still has his glasses in his nose and sometimes he is shy but damn! I feel like I've seen a stranger at work!” She replied, surprised and smiling.  

“Well, I just made him buy new clothes so he would change his wardrobe a bit... But I didn't think it would have that much effect...” you respond embarrassed.

“I don't think it was any new clothes that did that. It must be good for him to have found the soulmate he had been waiting for so long. You see I told you: You were meant to meet you both. You were related! It could only have happened that way.

“Yeah, you’re right...Same as usual?”

“Same as usual.” Melina said with a wink.  

As you turn to prepare Melina's order, you hear the door open and the bell ringing. When you turn around, you see Jed, and as Melina said, he was really more serene than usual. He made you his usual angelic smile heading towards you and Melina, the latter giving him a little punch in the arm. Jed laughs, rubbing his arm before turning to you.

“Well... when we talk about the wolf... We see his tail. We were just talking about you. And you confirm Melina's claims by your presence.” you said.

“I haven't taken off the glasses yet. And then I thought if I didn't put on my new clothes, you'd sulk.” He responds smiling, before kissing you.  

“You're really cute both... My heart is melting. Is it still running in the office?” Asks Melina.

“Yeah, Everyone's in a rush with the murders and everything else. Even the boss runs everywhere. We didn't think this scandal would get so big. And the worst part is that this is just the beginning. Imagine if we find out anything else during this case.” respond Jed.

“In any case, public opinion doesn’t need more to judge him, they want him dead. Some even say that for once, they would be happy if Ghostface killed Hoggins...” you said, looking at Jed, who froze immediately upon hearing that.  

“Wow... At this point? Oh, really? let's not forget that Ghostface is a murderer not a hero. He's not much better than Hoggins. He's even worse than him, he kills while Hoggins steals from other rich people.” Said Melina.

Jed didn't say anything. You notice a strange smile on his face, a smile you've never seen before. He was looking into the void. You finish preparing Melina's order before you give it to her. The latter greeted you before leaving the café. This strange smile had not left him. What could he think of? He ends up sighing as he shakes his head before turning to you, and making you that beautiful angelic smile of his own.

“What are you thinking?” you ask.

“That either the world has fallen very low... Either he goes crazy to asks a murderer to kill someone. Even if he is a rich asshole who deserves it, I think that justice is still in the care of doing its job... At least I hope so.” Jed responds.

“You hope so?”  

“You know how the rich are. With good arguments and a good lot of money... a case can be quickly closed. But I believe in justice. I mean, with all the evidence that's been updated... if Hoggins gets away with it...”

Suddenly he got a call. It was his boss, Mr. Hembrook. And in view of Jed's face... it looked very serious. You didn't dare disturb him and once the conversation was over, he turned with a serious look.

“They found McKellan's body. It was one of the guards who discovered him in his office. Apparently, it had been several days since he had given any sign of life.” He said.

“No one has worried about it before??” You ask.

“It seems not, McKellan only calls his guards when he goes out or when it's an important meeting. But otherwise, he lives alone and no one comes. Looks like Ghostface hit a big shot. I have to go right now with Mattew. Have a good day, my love. I love you.” He replied before kissing you and leaving quickly the café.

“I love you...” You simply said.  

A lot of things jostled in your head. And to know that Ghostface had accomplished this mischief and that he had told you it was anguishing. Why did he tell you? Maybe because he knows full well that if you said anything, you'd be on board with him as an accomplice? Yes... he knows exactly what he's doing. By telling you who he has or is going to kill, he's preventing you from doing anything. Because if you tell the police, they'll want answers or worse! They'll guess you're seeing him and they'll get on board, before they throw you in jail. You're his best asset. Against your will.

Plus, as he told you... you'll owe him a "reward" for getting rid of McKellan. And that's what you wanted to push back as much as possible. Unfortunately, Ghostface has to decide otherwise. One thing's for sure, you can expect to see him at home tonight. It's full of worry that you spend the rest of your day at work. In the meantime, you start preparing a job offer to recruit an additional seller. Jed is right, you can't manage coffee on your own if its reputation keeps growing. After a while you will be overwhelmed by the influx of customers. An employee to support you would not be a refusal.

As you predicted, the afternoon was busy. And the sun was the cause. There's nothing like a good coffee or a cool drink to enjoy the warmth of the sun.  The end of the day came, and something that made you smile, the customers don't get tired to come to your shop! and that's positive. The more you innovate in your recipes and the like, the more customers will come back. If only your parents could be there to see this... In a way they see it all from heaven. And they must be happy to see you safe from need.

You close the coffee after your monitoring ritual, do some shopping to fill the cupboards and fridge, and then you go home. You see Jed's van, but you decide to leave him alone for tonight, the poor man having to be overworked and probably exhausted. You turn on the living room light and startle when you see Ghostface in your living room, standing in front of you, making your usual little hand gesture while giggling.

“Goddamnit ! You could stop coming to my house like a... Fucking ghost?” you said by going to put your shopping bags down and starting to store food.

“Nice attempt but unfortunately you still have some progress to make jokes. It seems... People want me to kill Hoggins? I confess that when I heard this, I was...how to say.... surprised. But flattered.” said Ghostface, playing with his knife.  

“And? Don't tell me you've decided to play heroes in search of repentance. You'd be the king of liars.”

“Hahaha me? A hero? No no my beautiful angel... the only hero I want to be... It's yours in bed. To hear you say my name while I make you discover a forbidden pleasure, to hear you ask again until the end of the night ... That's what I want. And I'm sure you'd like to see how God I am. Even Jed compared to me will be weak in front of my power and control.”

“Oh really? How can you say that? Have you ever seen him in action, while you masturbating from the building at the opposite? You can always dream.” you replied by finishing tidying up.

“But I'm already dreaming about it! and believe me, I don't lose a crumb. I enjoy every second of my dreams where you beg me to take you to heaven.” replied Ghostface approaching you from behind, sticking you to the wall, his hand descending to touch with a firm hand your ass.  

You make a little moan at this gesture, which made him sneer. He passed his other hand in front to unbutton your pants and drop it to the ground. you hear the sound of a zipper before you feel his crotch sticking against your underwear. He began to make small movements back and forth, before accelerating as he went along. He put a hand over your mouth, so no one can hear you. You couldn't stop yourself from moaning and you try several times to get out, to no avail.

As you felt the climax coming, he recoiled and put away his crotch while sneering. You gradually find your breath, and you had only one desire, to hit him. You get dressed quickly to face him, and even if you don't see his face, you could feel his animal gaze on you, a look that scans you.

“I'm going to make you languish a little more... just for fun. You only had a little glimpse... maybe if you're wise... You'll get the rest. Good night my sweet little star... Have a beautiful dream.” He said, before vanishing.  

You feel ashamed, defiled and angry. For him it's just a game. And he knows he's in his hand for now! What a bastard... You sigh before you go shower and change. Then you eat, watch a little TV before going to bed. The tension has not left you and it is with a ball in your stomach that you fall asleep.

He'll pay for it. Sooner or later, he'll pay for it.

And you'll enjoy making him regret it.

***

(Phew! I finished it! I hoped you’ll like it just like the others! and i see that you’re almost 50 to follow me! Thank you so much to support a little French potato like me! have a good week-end you all! See ya!)

[lakelewisia]

A Lewisian Year

Presented in partnership with the Lewisia Communications Board and Lewisia Public Library

Sponsored by The Historical Society

Hello, readers, listeners, and psychic osmosizers! Welcome to A Lewisian Year, a monthly showcase celebrating the rich culture here in the Lake Lewisia district. Each month, we'll highlight some seasonal events, local celebrations and interpretations of national and world holidays, and historical tidbits.

AUGUST

First Harvests

Today, we're all taking a trip out to the community gardens--no, not that one--not the one over there either--look, Lewisia has a lot of community gardens. This is the garden out by the Old Town train station, where they do all the raised beds made of railroad ties and salvaged metal. Let's go early in the morning, to avoid the worst of the heat. Volunteers are out watering right now, to give the water a chance to sink in, rather than just evaporating, so everything feels damp and cool. Water seeps through the walls of the planters, picking out the runes carved there for bounty and health.

Grab a basket and some clippers. Snip a bundle of basil. Pluck a handful of cherry tomatoes. Be careful when you move the pumpkin leaves aside: they're prickly devils and intent on protecting the growing pumpkins hiding among them. Oh, good eye--you've spotted a summer squash that nearly evaded harvest, and it's already big enough to club someone with. The corn, off on the edges of the lot, rustles invitingly, still green and not yet powerful enough (probably) to steal you away for longer than a few hours.

Everywhere you turn, there is something growing, something coming in ripe and full, something ready to eat like a mouthful of sunlight.

It may seem strange to think of August as harvest season, when most places outside of Lewisia have relegated all thoughts of harvest to the window between Halloween and Thanksgiving. In truth, though, harvest has been going on for months already and will only get more intense as the season wears on. Tomatoes have been filling up bowls on kitchen counters since early summer; zucchini have been terrorizing local neighborhoods nearly as long. Growth does not restrict itself to a season; abundance is not the province of a single holiday.

Oh, and if you see any piles of first fruits or bundles of last leaves set in out-of-the-way places, leave them be. They are offerings of thanks from some well-pleased gardener or lucky forager, who does well to remember that we did not make all we receive and so it is not all ours to take. Gratitude is also not something to be kept to one day a year.

Back to School

On the other hand, there is something Lewisians will delay much longer than the outside world: the return to school. It seems like every year, my own schools resumed classes earlier than the last and summer break got shorter and shorter. By the time I was old enough to take on a summer job as well, the supposed holiday seemed little more than a pause in an otherwise overwhelming schedule. So I was surprised to see the number of children and teens freely roaming the town and surrounding areas so late in the summer, clearly heedless of such considerations as syllabi and new backpacks and locker assignments.

Once again diving into the library's records of the Lewisia Herald, I found a persistent tradition of announcements related to the official start of school and the (much later) actual start dating back to the seventies. Various public announcements indicate compliance with state rules about school days even as they offer--sometimes blatantly--alternative instructions to students about how to spend their dwindling summertime. This subterfuge seems to have been prescient, as the eighties would bring about nationwide hand-wringing over the length of the school day and the school year amid broader anxieties about global competitiveness. But while the outside world focused on using education as a training ground for generations intended for industrial work, Lewisia chose a different path.

A survey from 2003 showed that Lewisian students actually spent more hours on educational activities compared to the general population annually, though they spent fewer hours in classrooms and formal school settings. This becomes less surprising once one becomes accustomed to the Lewisian fondness for clubs and hobbies with a strong basis in hands-on learning, community participation, cultural preservation, and self-directed learning. In short, Lewisians don't need to be chained to a classroom desk from mid-August to mid-June, because they're perfectly happy to learn when left to their own devices.

Editor's Note: we have explained that this is all an elaborate misunderstanding on the part of your columnist. Lewisian schools absolutely resume sessions on the state-approved schedule and all Lewisian students receive the required number of instructional days, including make-up days in the event of weather-related school shutdowns. We have preserved the original, definitely incorrect information in this column for educational purposes only, to be used in a unit on fact-checking by the journalism students, who certainly are not currently out by the waterfront learning to make reed flutes and annoying the shorebirds.

Open House Night

It's only been two months since we focused on housing needs as part of Pride Month, but August gives us a wonderful opportunity to see that need met through the Open House Night. Throughout the region, on the last Friday in August, unoccupied dwellings open themselves up in search of someone who needs to live in them. In the evening, tours are conducted at regular intervals at all the known open houses. Come morning, there are at least a few dwellings no longer standing vacant and a few people no longer in need of stable shelter.

Notably, while the tours and guides help the process along and provide much-needed assistance with the bureaucratic details of documenting a home once one is found, the event itself is not put on by the town or any identified organization. No authority in Lewisia dictates who lays final claim to a dwelling. There is a fundraising arm to the event, however, which is managed by Lewisians. This provides funds for repairs that may be needed on any dwelling that has sat vacant long enough to suffer damage.

Also, despite the name, the event is not restricted to houses. Individual apartment units sometimes come up, and there have been a number of previously-abandoned trailers who took on new inhabitants. Occasionally, even less conventional forms of shelter make themselves known, such as heavily modified shipping containers, houseboats (with or without associated bodies of water), and once, memorably, the discarded shell of an ancient and enormous hermit crab. Mostly, though, people end up with slightly down-at-heel houses that need the care of an occupant as much as the people need a place that will be warm and dry and safe, particularly with winter just around the bend.

The Open House Night is not a systemic solution; it isn't a national solution; it isn't enough of a solution. But sometimes the victories look small from the outside: one person safe and warm, one house full and appreciated. For the houses and the people in them, a victory like that can never seem small.

This Month in History

On the night of August 17th, 1893, the Necessary Observance, a trading ship bound for Mexico, encountered a lightning storm at sea that forced it to seek safe harbor. Unfortunately, the stretch of coast it had been sailing nearest to, due west of Lake Lewisia, was and is a treacherous churn of huge rocks and unexpected shallows unsuitable for any sailing vessel not interested in becoming so much driftwood. As the waves came up on deck and the lightning seemed determined to turn the Observance into a pyre before it sank her, Captain J. R. Meade made the bold choice to seek shelter inland--far inland. The ship's crew included a chronowitch, known only as Hawthorn, who was able to find time traces of the vast body of water that once joined Lake Lewisia with the Pacific Ocean in prehistoric times. Through her herculean efforts, and with the support of the first mate's regular offerings of good whiskey as she worked, the Observance rode that forgotten water many miles inland, all the way into the center of Lake Lewisia, where the weather proved substantially less murderous.

With the chronowitch entirely exhausted from the strain of such a journey, the Observance found herself stranded in the lake for some time. Records differ, in fact, on both when and how the ship eventually made her way back to the ocean and the rest of her interrupted trade run. Since there is not (usually) a centuries-old tall ship stranded in the middle of the lake, evidence suggests they did somehow make the return trip.

That's a taste of what August has to offer us. See you next month, when September brings an anniversary for a local business, a second chance at mail, and one last sunset.

[oracleofdelphl]

Know Your Rights: Advice on Arrest/Police Powers During Protesting (London Edition)

Hey all, I haven’t seen a post like this advising on what to do in the event you are taken to police custody that is UK-based. so I thought I would share some tips/contact numbers/advice. In light of the upcoming #BLM protests coming up in London, I thought I would share some resources/tips on your rights and dealing with the police. 

[Disclaimer: I am not a legal practitioner - this is NOT legal advice. This is all advice that I have collated from various grassroots organisations, charities, and government websites] 

1. Here is a bustcard - print one out and keep it on you during the protest! Always have either this bustcard on you, or write down the contact number of a trusted solicitor and the Protest Support Line at all times. (If you are outside London, check the greenandblackcross website for a bustcard specific to your location)

Plain text version:  ADVICE ON ARREST 

Say “NO COMMENT” to all police questions during casual chats, ‘booking in’ & interviews. At the police station you may wish to give your name, address and date of birth to speed your release. If asked your nationality you must give it. For protection and that of other people don’t answer further questions. 

Do not accept a CAUTION without advice from a recommended solicitor. This is an admission of responsibility and goes on the police national computer. 

You have the right to FREE LEGAL ADVICE at the police station. Duty solicitors do not always have experience with protest law, we recommend asking the police to contact one of the following: 

ITN (Irvine Thanvi Natas): 020 3909 8100  HJA (Hodge Jones & Allen): 0808 252 8678  Bindmans: 0207 833 4433 / 020 7305 5638 (out of hours)  Kelly’s: 01273 674 898 / 0800 387 463 (out of hours) 

You have the right to have someone informed of your arrest. (Make that the Protest Support Line unless otherwise arranged: 07946 541 511).

You have the right to an interpreter if English is not your first language.  If you are or appear under 18, an appropriate adult should be called.

LEGAL QUESTIONS about PROTEST? 

STOP AND SEARCH: You do not have to give your name and address under any stop and search power, see below website for more details. Legally you must be told the reason and the power that you are being searched under. 

If you witness an arrest, want support or have legal questions about protest: courtsupport@protonmail.com  07946 541 511 

Legal Observers are independent volunteers who gather evidence on behalf of protestors and act to counter police intimidation and misbehaviour. Read more about your rights and protest legislation: www.greenandblackcross.org

After arrest &/or if you have a court date & want advice, email courtsupport@protonmail.com

2. Stop and Search: Know Your Rights Linked above is the official gov.uk webpage regarding the police power to stop and search. Read it fully before a protest so you know what your rights are when asked to submit under this power.

Important: ‘stop and search’ is NOT the same as ‘stop and account.’ Under stop and search, you are well within your rights to refuse to answer and walk away! 

Police Powers  A police officer has powers to stop and search you if they have ‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect you’re carrying:

illegal drugs

a weapon 

stolen property 

something which could be used to commit a crime, such as a crowbar

You can only be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds if it has been approved by a senior police officer. This can happen if it is suspected that: 

serious violence can take place

you’re carrying a weapon or used one 

you’re in a specific location or area

Before you’re searched  Before you’re searched the police officer must tell you: 

their name and police station

what they expect to find, for example drugs 

the reason they want to search you, for example if it looks like you’re hiding something 

why they are legally allowed to search you 

that you can have a record of the search and is this isn’t possible at the time, how you can get a copy

Removing clothing: police powers A police officer can ask you to take off your coat, jacket or gloves. 

The police might ask you to take off other clothes and anything you’re wearing for religious reasons - for example a veil or turban. If they do, they must take you somewhere out of public view. 

If the officer wants to remove more than a jacket and gloves they must be the same sex as you. 

3. Key Messages  NO COMMENT  NO PERSONAL DETAILS WHAT POWER?  NO DUTY SOLICITOR NO CAUTION

No comment: 

You do not need to answer police questions, so don’t.

This is for your own protection and for the protection of others.

The police will try to pressure and deceive you into incriminating yourself. Instead of trying to decide when it seems ‘safe’ to answer, just say “No comment” to all questions. During ‘informal chats’ in the police van and especially in interview. 

If your friend in the next cell knows you aren’t going to talk, they will feel better able not to talk themselves. Remember, interviews only help the police - they will not interview you if they already have enough evidence to charge you. 

A good solicitor will sometimes suggest that you make a prepared statement in interview. In that case, you or your solicitor will read the statement and you should answer “No comment” to any more questions. 

For a longer discussion, see the “NO COMMENT” booklet produced by the Legal Defence and Monitoring Group. [Their website seems to down at the moment - will update when I can get the link!] 

No personal details: 

You do not have to give personal details under ANY stop and search power, so don’t. 

On protests, the police often use searches as a way of finding out who is present, both for intelligence purposes and to intimidate you.

Police also use arrest as a means of gathering information, particularly when they arrest a large number of people together (“mass arrest”).

As a default, you do NOT have to give your personal details to the police at any point during the arrest process. However, since 2017, if you have been arrested, the police can require to say what your nationality is and can require you to produce nationality documents, if they suspect that you are not a British citizen.

We recommend not giving personal details to the police for as long as possible – for more information on why, see the page “Do I have to give my details?”. If you have been arrested and taken to the police station you may wish to give your name, address and date of birth at the custody desk to speed your release. Police will usually check the address and may visit at a later date.

Once you reach court, you can be required to give your name, date of birth and nationality.

There are a few situations in which police may have a power to require personal details: if someone is driving a vehicle (or another licensed activity); if they are being fined under a Fixed Penalty Notice; under a particular anti-social behaviour power (which should not generally be used against protesters); or if there is a particular by-law.

What Power?:

Ask “What power?” to challenge the police to act lawfully

Some police officers rely on you not knowing the law. If you are asked to do something by a police officer, ask them what power (i.e. what law) they are using and why they are using it. Make a note of what was said, by whom (numbers) as soon as possible afterwards.

Don’t let them turn this into a situation where they ask you questions though – just walk away once you have your answer, and remember No Comment!

No Duty Solicitor:

Use a recommended solicitor with protest experience. Here is a list of trusted solicitors who are experienced at dealing with cases surrounding police and protest. 

The “duty solicitor” is the solicitor who is present at the police station. They may come from any firm of solicitors, which means they almost certainly know nothing about protest.

Duty solicitors often give bad advice to protesters; we recommend you always use a good solicitor who knows about protest. 

You are entitled to free legal advice inside a police station and can ask for one of the solicitors in the above list. 

If you do not know which solicitor to call, contact the Protest Support Line. 

No Caution:

Cautions are an admission of guilt

Offering you a caution is a way the police may ask you to admit guilt for an offence without having to charge you. It is an easy win for the police, as they don’t have to provide any evidence or convince a court of your guilt.

At the very least, you should never accept a caution without taking advice from a good solicitor.

4. Guides

For supporting yourself:

Key Advice when going on a Protest Stop and Search Being Trans and Protesting Looking after your health on actions Trauma and Emotional Support What happens if I’m Arrested? I’ve been Arrested! What Next? Should I ignore Police Bail? The Post-Charge Legal Process DBS checks and being arrested on protests Key Advice for Protesting in France Demonstrations and International Students

For supporting others: 

How to give Police Station Support My Friend has been Arrested! Support for People going to Court What is a Legal Observer? Witness to an Arrest or Police Violence?

For organising an action:

Guide to Injunctions Planning an Action Protesting on Private Property

Protest Laws:

Filming and Photographs at Actions Laws Commonly Used at Protests Obstructing Workplaces: Trade Union Legislation Police Liaison Officers

Challenging the police:

Holding the Police to Account How do I find out what Information the Police hold on me? Making a Claim Against the Police Making a Complaint Against the Police What is a Judicial Review?

For more information: www.greenandblackcross.org 

5. General protest advice

Look out for things that don’t seem right. Stay alert for undercover white supremacists who may be infiltrating the protest. If anything seems off to you, document it. 

Follow the directions of grassroots black organisers. 

Film safely - do not film anyone’s faces/anything that could identify individuals at a protest. There are other, better resources online for successful filming.

Wear unassuming clothing and face coverings.

Buddy up - write down each other’s contact details on your arm, as well as the Protest Support Line. Make sure someone is keeping an eye on you and check in on them. 

Keep socially distanced - we’re still in the middle of a pandemic! 

Wear masks and protective eye gear if possible. 

Tie hair up.

If you can, leave your phone at home and bring a burner phone for contacting your buddy/contacts.

If you must bring your smartphone, first turn off Face/Touch ID, disable data and location services, and go on airplane mode. Also, watch this video on signal proofing your phone.

Don’t bring anything incriminating e.g. drugs, weapons (including pocket knives) - don’t give them a reason to arrest you! 

Don’t wear contact lenses or jewellery 

Bring water (for hydration and tear gas) 

Bring snacks (thank me later) 

Bring first aid supplies

STAY SAFE AND LOOK OUT FOR EACH OTHER.🖤 

Safe protesting, y’all ✊🏽 #BlackLivesMatter

[secretgamergirl]

“What can I do to help?”

As I’m writing this, I’m dealing with a rather astounding amount of vicious harassment which is taking a very serious toll on me. Usually when this is happening, I try not to talk about it publicly, because the sort of people who do this love nothing more than seeing evidence that it’s working, but sometimes, exceptions need to be made. And more to the point, as someone who deals with these sort of attacks as a constant presence in my own life, as well as helping others deal with the same in what is arguably a professional capacity, it seems to me the state of things today is at a point where we need a fresh round of public education on how these sorts of attack play out, and what any given person can do to actually help people deal with them in a meaningful way.

Predators and Herds

As a basic fundamental primer here, I’m going to need everyone to start looking at things from the perspective of a herd animal, because not only is it a pretty clear metaphor for a lot of this, I honestly think this is literally the sort of ancestral memory/instinct that drives this sort of thing. Plus there’s an amusing irony in telling people dealing with these sorts of predatory scumbags that they aren’t acting ENOUGH like sheep.

Some animals are predators. In order to survive, they have to stalk/chase/pin down other animals and kill them in order to eat. Invariably, the animals they target are those that are the most vulnerable. It’s the easiest way to go, and the one with the least risk of anything going wrong. If you’re a hungry wolf, you’re not going to mess with the big beefy ram who can headbutt you and break some ribs, or the really fit sheep you’d have to chase for an hour and still might never catch up with. You’re just going to go for the one with the broken leg, or the little defenseless baby lamb. Those ones you can definitely pick off without much effort at all, and they can’t really fight back in any meaningful way.

Some animals deal with predators by just focusing single-mindedly on defending themselves. If you can outrun the predators, and never let them get the drop on you, or you hide well enough they can’t ever find you, or you know how to really fight back and hurt them badly enough they know not to mess with you, then cool, you aren’t going to get eaten. At least until you let your guard down at the wrong time, or you get injured, or age starts taking its toll. Plus with all of these you’re just living your whole life in this constant state of fear, actively aware that death lurks just around the corner, and you can’t really form any real attachments with anyone else or protect them. It’s no way to live your life, and all of these require you to be able to outperform any predator who comes at you.

The other way to survive with predators wanting you dead is to be part of a herd. If everyone the predators want to prey on are in a big group, there’s inherent safety in numbers there. Not, to be clear, simply because having so many potential meals to choose from means the odds of you being chosen drop. Predators have to weigh the risks now of coordinated defenses. That big tough ram they’d rather not tackle for fear of getting hurt is right there next to that shaky-legged little lamb that would otherwise be the easiest meal to snag there is.

Herds cause a whole lot of headaches for predators, so when they’re a factor, the first step is pretty much always going to be to scatter the herd in some fashion, so all the prey that would be a pain to deal with leave, and the easily picked off targets are left behind to move in on. There’s a lot of ways to do this, and I don’t want to get into too much detail because the metaphor would get too strained, but the real key counter-strategy is to keep the herd from scattering.

Wolves are going to show up, they’re going to show up in packs, they’re going to start snarling and howling and all that, and some sheep are always going to run when that happens, and some sheep aren’t going to be able to. The trick is to have as many sheep as possible stand their ground. If there’s only a couple who do, they’re just going to get picked off along with the ones who can’t run or fight back. But if enough sheep stand their ground to keep those intimidating numbers, nobody’s getting eaten.

There’s our big framework for looking at this, don’t ever let it drop.

How Predators Attack

Now, the next thing to keep in mind here is that people who haven’t been really hit hard by the sort of attacks I’m talking about here tend to be totally clueless about what they actually involve, and even those who have been targeted tend to be really bad at recognizing when other people are being put through the same.

What people imagine to be a “really devastating attack” is when, say, 2000 different twitter accounts all coordinate to hurl violent threats and horrible slurs at a single person over a single one-hour period or something. Don’t get me wrong here. That does happen, regularly, and that’s never a fun thing to deal with, if only because it essentially serves as a DDoS attack, rendering you unable to see any messages from people you want to see things from, but at the end of the day, it does no more harm than having your router go down for a few hours, maybe a day or two in the most extreme cases. It’s also not something that ever really gets sustained in the long term. It’s more like the predators are just holding a pep rally and testing how many accounts they can direct at once.

The really devastating attacks are the effort to drive herds away. They’re a hell of a lot less flashy, generally. They’re hard to point out to others. When really well executed, the target doesn’t even necessarily see anything happening. And what’s happening is elaborately orchestrated character assassination.

I can’t really convey the seriousness of this without some very specific examples. I may follow this up with a roundup of every attack I’ve personally had launched against me, but for now, let me present a very old and famous example, along with the one I’m most recently dealing with.

The classic, of course, from way back in 2014- “Zoe Quinn slept with five guys from various publications in exchange for good reviews of a game.” If this were the first time you encountered this statement, odds are good your personal reaction would be along the lines of “who?” or “who cares?” The goal here isn’t to make everyone hate Zoe Quinn though, just people immediately around Zoe Quinn. The premise of trading favors for good press is something anyone involved in the press is going to take quite seriously, with even baseless claims having an extreme chilling effect. For another crowd, promiscuity is considered a crime worthy of stoning someone to death (and it’s rather telling that the most commonly repeated version of this attack shortens it to simply “Zoe Quinn slept with five guys”). Much more to the point though, the premise that anyone reading this hasn’t previously encountered this line. That message was shouted from the rooftops all over the world for five straight years, over every possible channel.

More recently, I’ve been dealing with... this incoherent mess. This is much less coordinated, with just a handful of people in the think tank, testing every attack live on the fly. You can watch, more or less in real time, as this predator tosses out a variety of defamatory attacks, switching to a new one every time one falls flat. I’m friends with Graham, then I’m business partners, then I’m either paying him or maybe sleeping with him in exchange for promoting some website. I’m a professional journalist (which is a rather weird angle to press as an attack). Then suddenly I’m a “pedophile defender.” A new attack every day.

Now, in both these cases, there’s no truth at all behind any of these attacks. None of these are even stories with two sides to consider. Zoe Quinn’s game was a little choose your own adventure story comprised of a few simple HTML pages linking to each other. No one ever reviewed it to begin with, so the whole thing falls apart. Graham Linehan is a disgusting crusader who attacks children’s charities for daring to provide support to trans children, and quite famously has some weird fixation on publicly attacking me, and I’m a trans woman who hasn’t had any real luck finding work of any kind since coming out half a decade ago. I’ve never run any website that wasn’t a simple blog like this one, or this one which I think puts that last claim to bed well enough.

But again, the idea with attacks like this isn’t to be credible, or even plausible. People don’t make these sorts of attacks based on anything the target has done, it’s all about what will do the most harm if even one person actually buys into it. You want to hurt an indie game dev? Get people to believe they have to bribe people with sex to get any positive mention of their output. You want to hurt a trans woman? Get people to believe she’s friends with and/or sold everyone else out to the king of the transphobes. Someone who does real work to shut down child porn sites? Secretly a pedophile. Etc. Etc. And the success rate of attacks like this is never zero. No matter how transparently false the claim is, shout it at enough people and SOMEONE is going to treat it as ironclad fact, spreading it around in turn and coming off more credible because they’re quoting someone.These rumors spread like wildfire since, let’s be honest, social media sites are all just glorified gossip mills at the end of the day, and all those laughable details from the original lie drop away, replaced with lists of all the very credible people who always know what they’re talking about these scathing claims have been filtered through.

In my experience, honestly it’s the all the most pathetic claims that do the most damage. “Slept with five guys” sticks more than “in exchange for reviews” because it’s such a non-crime that people default to “let’s say that’s true - who even cares?” rather than question the veracity. And I swear all the most damaging attacks I’ve ever suffered really just boil down to baseless claims that I really just don’t like some arbitrary collection of mostly women (a mix of strangers and people I generally view in a positive light).

Having established all of that, we can finally get around to the big question found in the title of this post:

What can I do to help?

Really, the most meaningful and impactful thing you can ever do when someone is being attacked like this is just to do whatever you can to get in front of it. If you know someone has some predator out there trying to convince people she eats puppies, broadcast a big announcement about how that’s happening, along with how and why you’re as confident as you are that she doesn’t, and it’s a baseless hit job. If you have media connections, try to get a story printed about the whole mess, or set up an interview where the victim can talk about how surreal the experience is. If you don’t, just shout about it where you can, so people know not to trust it when word eventually reaches them of all the depraved puppy feasts.

Past that, just be an active support. Tell the alleged puppy eater how you have her back. Ask how she’s holding up. Offer to talk for a bit, or watch a movie. More often than not, attacks like this cost people career contacts and close friends, and cause a lot of trauma. Whatever you can do to help beat the encroaching darkness back helps.

Also? Don’t fall into that trap of granting these sort of BS claims are true to argue the point that they’re stupid reasons to attack someone. They’re always going to be a big deal to someone, and your hypothetical just makes it seem more factual.

Do keep in mind though that these sorts of solidarity moves are going to make the predators real mad. They want to drive you away, and failing that, they’re going to want to take you down too for not running off with the rest of the herd. If we can establish these sorts of defenses as a cultural norm, or you’re personally the sort of person it’s too risky to go after, this is a total non-issue, but if you’re also particularly vulnerable, and nobody else is following suit, be aware of the risks you’re taking.

Finally, make sure you don’t fall into the trap of becoming a predator yourself. So many people get this idea in their heads that the best defense is a good offense, and set out to “turn the tables,” but frankly it just doesn’t work. When you go on the offense, you can’t help but take on those predatory instincts. You end up targeting the most vulnerable people you can find and convince yourself are “the enemy.” I mean that’s almost certainly how the batch of predators you’re trying to fight got started in the first place.

So just... try to be kind. Be supportive. Get out in front of life-ruining rumors. And don’t just do it for people you know and trust. Do it for strangers who are plainly being preyed on. Look for people who just live to tear into people, especially when they keep tearing into the super marginalized. Object to that on principle. And remember anyone can fall into doing it, no matter how long you’ve known and trusted them, or what their politics are.

And some more thoughts on this topic.

[ryanfoell-blog]

Research Project - Final

Introduction Society as a whole is declining in mental wellness. This claim may seem dramatic, but in 2018, The New York Times analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHNES) and discovered that in 2010, 15.5 million individuals were taking [antidepressants] for at least 5 years and by 2018, almost 25 million adults had been taking them for at least 2 years. This rate nearly doubled in just eight years (Carey and Gebeloff, par. 4). The World Health Organization defines mental wellness as, “a state of well-being in which every individual realizes his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community” (WHO website). We can see from the data from the NHNES a dependency on pharmaceuticals, specifically antidepressants. This shows a lack of mental wellness due to the need for external aids to “cope with the normal stresses of life.”            The internet has allowed us to feel connected with our peers more frequently and intimately than any other time in the history of the world. However, this artificial connection has taken away from the meaningful daily connections we have through social interactions and experiences. Due to the lack of meaningful connections, we can see depression becoming more prevalent in society. While depression is frequently treated with pharmaceuticals (as evidenced by the NHNES), it could be argued that there is a better solution. Depression and other social disorders should not be remedied primarily with pharmaceuticals; rather, they should be primarily remedied with meaningful connections and positive social interactions. It is with the meaningful connections in mind that one should study the effects of social solutions to depression in adults. Literature Review Hides, Leanne, Sharon Samet, and Dan Lubman. “Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for the treatment of co-occurring depression and substance use: Current evidence and directions for future research.” Drug and Alcohol Review 29 (2010): 508-517. Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) is a type of psychotherapy that focuses on changing the mindset of the patient in order to produce improved mood and coping strategies for the stresses of life. In 2010, Leanne Hides, Sharon Samet, and Dan Lubman published an article investigating prior research regarding CBT “for the treatment of co-occurring depression and substance use.” While no primary research was performed, Hides et al. evaluated over 50 other studies and found 12 to be credible sources of primary research. Through thorough analysis, it was found that CBT works, but hasn’t shown to be better than other forms of psychotherapy treatment. The conclusion made by the researchers was that variables that mediate treatment outcomes must be defined and identified more specifically in order for CBT to be beneficial. It was also found that CBT hasn’t been applied to patients over a long enough period of time to determine efficacy. While Hides, et al. did extensive research and found underwhelming support for their thesis, this shows the potential for other methods of behavior therapy to be effective for treating patients diagnosed with depression. I propose that meaningful experiences could prove more beneficial than CBT, because it specifically addresses the four factors of mental wellbeing as defined in my proposal (“a state of well-being in which every individual realizes his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community”). However, it could also be said that CBT combined with experience-based therapy would be even more successful in the long run. Hari, Johann. Lost Connections: Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression - and the Unexpected Solutions. Bloomsbury Circus, 2018. This book talks about the author's experience taking antidepressants for his depression. Many people that are depressed are told that they have a chemical deficiency of serotonin in their brain and are prescribed SSRI medication to help this chemical imbalance. Although this is sometimes it actually is a chemical imbalance in the brain, medication is not always the best way to treat depression, in fact, this can be harmful to the person and their brain if this solution is the only option presented. Johann covers the many different causes of depression and mental illness and also covers some of the potential solutions to the mental health crisis that is happening in today’s society. He talks about the dramatic differences between the environment in which someone becomes depressed and how to avoid those circumstances. This book and source will assist my research in exploring the solution to treating depression and other illnesses such as PTSD, anxiety disorder and addiction. My hope is that this source will help connect the audience to the research emotionally because I think that this is something that we should all care about because we are all at risk of facing these mental health disorders. The same way that we take care of our body and our physical health we need to also take care of our mental and emotional health. Johann does a good job applying these topics to our everyday lives and also provides some inspiration. Jonasson, Cajsa. “Using Intensive Longitudinal Data to Study Treatment Effects in Patients with Major Depression: A Systematic Review.” Journal for Person-Oriented Research, vol. 5, no. 1, Dec. 2019, pp. 17–26., doi:10.17505/jpor.2019.02.            In this Journal article, it is discussed the different methods and options for treating mental illnesses like depression. Cognitive-behavioral Therapy, Exercise, Diet and sleep all are huge contributors to our mental state. I believe that this journal will support my thesis because Cognitive-behavioral Therapy (CBT) has been shown to be one of the most effective ways to treat depression. I think that this journal is a good demonstration of the options and measures that should be taken when treating and diagnosing someone with moderate or mild depression or anxiety. Some of these feelings are very natural and all humans will, at some time or another, feel these emotions. The emotions only become a problem when they begin to affect the thought process of the person and the decisions that are made by the person in this mental state. Frequently these thoughts and decision patterns are unhealthy for the individual. This journal will explore the methods that can be used hand in hand with SSRI medication and well and without medication, depending on the doctor's recommendations for the individual. I think that this information will support my research because it isn’t selecting one method of treatment. It explores the combination of treatments that can be customized to fit the individual needs of a patient. The peer-reviewed discussion shows that many people in the scientific community have had the discussion and therefore has diverse information that can be drawn from to help support my research. I believe that the combination of these methods is what makes this source important to the research. Peterson, Jordan thoughts on antidepressants; diet change cured depression, autoimmune disease and depression. Joe Rogan Podcast. Jordan Peterson is a clinical philologist that has dedicated most of his career and practice to the treatment of depression. In this podcast, he explains to the podcast host Joe Rogan that there are many different causes of depression and how there are things in life that go wrong in our lives and they can strongly affect the ways that we see the world. The view that someone has towards the world can then strongly impact the mood of said person. Dr. Peterson brings up a variety of questions that we can ask our selves to determine whether or not we are predisposed to depressive feelings or if the influences in our lives are what is causing the problems people could face in depressive states. Examples of some of the questions that he asks are “Do you have friends? Do you have an intimate relationship? Do you have a reasonable career? Are you as educated as you are intelligent? Do you have something useful that you like to do outside of work? Do you have a drug or alcohol problem? Are there any other behavioral issues? If you are sick, do you do what is necessary to get better? Are you working towards your own personal goals?” As these questions are presented I believe that if someone struggling with depression is able to honestly answer these questions, I believe that they will have a much better understanding of where they stand with their mental illness. Dr. Peterson shows that through the answering to these questions people can slowly diagnose their main source of depression and then work to improve that aspect of there life and in doing so lessening the feelings of depression and long term find the joy and happiness in life that we all seek. Counter Argument R. L. Carhart-Harris, M. Bolstridge, C. M. J. Day, J. Rucker, R. Watts, D. E. Erritzoe, M. Kaelen, B. Giribaldi, M. Bloomfield, S. Pilling, J. A. Rickard, B. Forbes, A. Feilding, D. Taylor, H. V. Curran, D. J. Nutt. Psilocybin with psychological support for treatment-resistant depression: six-month follow-up. 8 November 2017. Psychedelic therapy is a very uncommon treatment method in the United States because many of these drugs have been illegal for many years and performing research and studying them would be highly illegal and risky for anyone wanting to participate. In recent years the government has allowed small clinical trials to take place to try and find positive medical use for these frequently misunderstood drugs. This article states, “Recent clinical trials are reporting marked improvements in mental health outcomes with psychedelic drug-assisted Psychotherapy” although it is difficult to draw any firm conclusion on the effectiveness of these psychedelic drugs, these studies show that further research could be very worthwhile in the treatment of depression and Post-traumatic stress disorder. The study performed was only with a group of twenty patients, six females, and fourteen males. Everyone was given two doses of psilocybin 7 days apart in a “supportive setting” depression symptoms were evaluated from 1 week to 6 months post-treatment. The treatment was mostly well-received. One of the most interesting things about this study was “No patients sought conventional antidepressant treatment within 5 weeks of psilocybin. Reductions in depressive symptoms at 5 weeks were predicted by the quality of the acute psychedelic experience.” Although the research is severely limited by sample size and length of post-treatment follow up the results still justify further study because the majority of patients experienced a positive improvement in depression symptoms over the period of 6 months post-treatment. Hypothesis            Based on the World Health Organization’s definition, we see there are four factors that contribute to mental wellness. Realizing one’s potential, coping with normal stresses of life; ability to work productively and fruitfully, contribution to the community. I predict that if we “prescribe” a social experience that focuses on one or more of these four factors, we will see less dependency on pharmaceuticals, namely antidepressants, to treat depression. Problem and Purpose As we grow to understand how depression and mental wellness impact our lives, we can see why it is so important that we address them. The ease of taking a pill (a perceived solution) can dilute the complex nature of depression and mental illness as a whole. It is because of this, alternative treatments are being overlooked as viable options. “Originally intended for short-term care and episodic mood problems,” we now see that society has now veered towards open-ended use of anti-depressants (Carey and Gebeloff, par. 13). This dependence on anti-depressants must be minimized in order to address the deeper psychological needs of an individual.            In addition, depressed individuals will find relief and confidence to reestablish meaningful connections through the four factors of mental wellness. All of this can be done, without the negative side effects of an anti-depressant. A redirection of treatment for depression would have infinite benefits to society as a whole. As individuals properly address the needs of their mental wellness through meaningful connections, they will, in turn, help others merely by association. Not only will they be able to cope with the “normal stresses of life” but also as they realize their potential, work productively, and contribute to the community, they will be an example to those within their circle of influence. The benefits are limitless. Conclusion Mental illness and depression are so multi-faceted and nuanced, that one might feel it is too difficult to address. However, the scientific community should seek out the proper and healthiest methods for treating depression in any form. Not simply the quick-fix of a pill. Especially when long-term happiness is the ultimate goal for those seeking relief. When the proper methods of treatment are applied, patients will begin to experience freedom from the bonds depression and mental illness. Depression and other social disorders should not be remedied primarily with pharmaceuticals; rather, they should be primarily remedied with meaningful connections and positive social interactions. As we do our best to remedy these issues through social solutions, the people that continually suffer from depression will be able to realize their personal potential, cope with normal stresses of life; have the ability to work productively and fruitfully, and contribution to the community in a meaningful way. While one solution may work for some, the diversity of those who suffer from depression proves that we need diverse solutions for this epidemic that is infecting the lives of adults. Meaningful connections and positive social interactions can be the catalyst for a societal transformation towards mental wellness and long-term happiness.

[robert-c]

Why Democrats Should Be in Power and Why They’re Not

The simplest answer is this: the Republican agenda represents and serves only a minority of the populace; the very rich and the very extreme religious right. So how do they manage to maintain so much control for so long? Because while a majority of the populace doesn’t agree with them a significant portion are more afraid of the Democrats. 

Some of those fears are untrue and unreasonable but have taken hold after decades of lies promoting them that were not successfully countered. Some are fair concerns based on the fact that the Democratic party has always been a much more “open tent”, welcoming many diverse ideas. Those diverse ideas are important, they often challenge us to think ahead to the sorts of changes that we should be moving toward. At the same time they are often too far ahead of their time. Ideas like the 40 hour work week and time and a half for overtime, were considered extreme, called “socialist” or even “communist” when they were first proposed. The key is they weren’t implemented until the time was right.

Another reason people fear the Democratic party is that it is the party for change, for progress. In our individual lives change is upsetting and stressful, even if it is positive change we ourselves have chosen. In a society it is even more fearful. We also need to remember that in every situation, no matter how manifestly unjust or exploitive, some people are rich and powerful because of it. They definitely don’t want things to change and they will never be so honest as to say it is because they fear losing their wealth and power. They can come up with very persuasive tales. For example, the masses of poor, landless whites who fought for the Confederacy thought they were defending “State’s rights and a way of life”, not that they were defending a relatively few rich plantation owner’s “rights” to own slaves.

The mechanics of modern campaigns give entirely too much influence to the extremes.  Here’s how and why. The extremists of any position are the people who let that idea consume their life. The vast majority of their time and/or money go to their “cause”.  As such, they are terrific tools for a political party to use. In addition to being a source of volunteers they are also a funding source. But as the party relies more and more on their efforts they naturally want more say in the platform and the policy decisions of any administration or Congress that is elected with their help.

That alone would create an ever increasingly vitriolic partisan divide. One might argue that when there is a clear majority for one side or the other it would be resolved. But that ignores two basic truths about this division. The first is that the more extreme the positions, the more they try to paint themselves as morally superior, making compromise or acceptance of defeat more difficult. The second is that fear of change unifies any diversity of conservative opinions, and that fear always makes conservative positions appear the safest, while the forces for change are often fractured and diverse, and in truth the outcome of these changes is not always easy to predict. Thus extremes on the “right” tend to cluster closer together on their issues and agenda than the extremes on the “left”.

Following the “traditional” political advice of the late 20th and early 21st centuries the Democrats have catered to their extreme left flank. Except that it isn’t a unified flank, and incorporating all of its divergent pieces in the party’s main platform has scared away the significant group of “moderate” voters who don’t agree with the Republican’s extreme right wing agenda, but who think it will create less chaos than the combined ideas of the extreme left.

Historically there have mainly been two ways major social changes occur. In the first the forces resisting change remain very strong, creating an ever greater need for change until the forces for change put aside any differences and agree that getting rid of the status quo is the most important next step. Unfortunately this is usually a turbulent if not outright violent transition. The second way is for there to be a strong voice for change that is more peaceful and less extreme, a choice like that between a Dr. King and the Black Panthers. Of course a mix of these methods is what we often end up with, and that complicates our map forward.

This much seems clear – the forces that want to return America to some version of the 1950’s (institutionalized racism, sexism and all) are much better organized than they have ever been. They have been using their own version of the truth so long that now they feel confident in calling actual facts “fake” while continuing to offer no evidence for their outrageous claims. It is a lesson straight out of history. The Nazis were masters at the constant repetition of lies. Heard often enough, from enough apparently different sources, people inevitably believed that there must be at least a grain of truth in it. Given some of the Republicans most outspoken supporters I don’t think the Nazi reference is out of line.

All of this should lead us to a three conclusions: 1) we need to select a platform and candidates which appeal to those voters who oppose the core issues on which the Republicans stand, without incorporating our most extreme elements. 2) The most outspoken extreme elements need to understand that their ideas still have a place and discussion in the party, but moving them front and center risks making any progress toward them at all. 3) We need to find a mechanism for getting out the message and the vote that is less dependent on the resources (time and money) that have typically been provided by the most extreme supporters.

To the argument that our most committed (i.e. extreme) elements will just stay home and not vote I can only say that I fervently hope they are not that stupid. I can understand that they could be so caught up in their causes that they don’t expend extra energy to get out the message and the vote (that’s why there’s item three above). But failing to vote for a side that isn’t everything you want, while the other side is everything you don’t want seems colossally stupid. One must give the Republicans credit, they have kept their extreme elements at the voting booth, even while only going part of the way down their path under most administrations. Our supporters seem to think “likes” on social media, or even demonstrations count for something, even if there is no voting. Let’s be perfectly clear about this: It doesn’t matter how the majority of people feel, the government only responds to the feelings of those who vote.

Some lies get repeated so long that they seem to acquire an element of plausibility. Like Democrats just want to tax and spend. There is far more truth to the saying that Republicans only want to give tax breaks to the rich and leave the middle class and the poor to fend for themselves. But we don’t seem to spend enough effort exposing that. The elephant in the room, that we don’t talk about, is that conservatives (ever since Ronald Reagan) have harbored a pernicious belief that if you aren’t rich, it must be because you are lazy, stupid or in some other way unworthy. We rarely get to hear them enunciate this clearly, but if you look at the things they say, it is there, even if between the lines.

To call this a naïve and “Pollyanna” view of America is way too charitable. What makes this such a powerful lie is that it is something most people want to believe. Everyone likes to feel like they are in control of their life. It is easier to believe, if you also believe that misfortune is the result of things that someone did wrong. It has the additional benefit of relieving you of any moral or ethical obligation to feel compassion or sympathy for the “less fortunate” let alone any sense of charity. In all, it is about as perfect a delusion as could be contrived to allow a rich, ruling class to feel self-righteously, morally secure. At the same time it’s attractive to the wannabe rich with its promise that they can achieve their wildest dreams of avarice through whatever means, without a shred of guilt. It even appeals to a certain element of the poor who would rather believe that the rich are there because they deserve to be, rather than feel that there should be some call to action on their part. All in all it is a “perfect” belief system for those who are lazy or limited of thought and those who like to think highly of themselves regardless of their actions. It is at the heart of every story from the so called “self-made man”. He (or she) started with nothing and built it all, and if they can do it, so can you. You have no excuse for your circumstances.

To make matters worse, there is a germ of truth in it. Most people can do more for themselves than they imagine. At the same time ‘more’ does not equal enough in every situation. Likewise, there is also some truth to the idea that too much charity and support can breed a dependence that is not good for either the individual receiving it or the public budget. The whole truth is that the ‘more’ people could do, is usually not nearly enough. And whether or not the dependency feared is as prevalent as Republicans would have us believe, it is more often the result of a patch work quilt system that works against itself. Requirements to reapply periodically at government offices during “normal business hours” makes keeping a low wage job very difficult. Most Americans not working at the bottom end of the economy imagine that a day off, or a few extra hours off can easily be approved by their supervisor. This is not the case for the majority of people working at jobs even a few dollars above the minimum wage.

Lately some Republicans have found another bogeyman to blame for the poor prospects of some people – ‘cheap foreign labor’. The next best thing to blaming the poor and less advantaged for their own plight is to give them a scapegoat. If you can claim to slay the scapegoat you can temporarily win their support. Of course it won’t work and can’t last; this is really about changing economies and more reliance on automation and high technology. This is more of a replay of the time when we simply didn’t need buggy whip makers in the age of the automobile.

The solution consists of three parts, I think. First we need to educate our extremes that it is more important to unite for victory, even if all of their agenda is not enacted, than it is to be “morally” superior and completely, uncompromisingly devoted to a single cause.

Second, we need to develop a strategy and tactic for getting out the message and the vote that doesn’t depend on so much manual effort being put in by volunteers (who tend to be the most extreme devotees).

Third we need to tell a simpler story about who we are, one that counters the myths and outright lies that have become accepted by the public.

The second most likely involves social media and perhaps using donation money to pay for Lyft or Uber transport to polling places if there are not enough volunteers to provide rides.

The third probably consists of two parts. The first is to tell stories about the personal impact of the injustices the current system creates. People responded to Ronald Reagan’s myth of the “welfare queen” who supposedly drove a late model Cadillac and lived in a plush apartment all on welfare – even though it was later proved to be a complete fabrication. That story appealed to a bias that people had about others getting around the “rules” that everyone else had to follow. We should have been countering that lie with stories of real people who were struggling through no fault of their own, and for whom the so called “social safety net” had failed.

The second part might be as simple as starting the conversation with the idea of looking at the profit motive. So often touted as the key to America’s greatness, it is actually a two edged sword. Where is the profit in providing a cure for a disease compared to a treatment that must go on forever? If I sell you a promise to pay for medical care (medical insurance), do I make more or less money if I manage to keep you from getting medical care? Remembering that time is money, do I make more or less money even if I only delay paying for your care? In the ordinary businesses of the world, is it easier to make money by cutting corners on quality and service or by educating the consumers about the cost and value of quality?  Let’s call out the supporters of “free markets”. Most business people talking about free markets really mean free of taxes and the regulations that make their work environments and products safe. They aren’t talking about a system where there is open access to compete on the basis of price and quality of the goods and services offered. On the contrary, most businesses seek to eliminate their competition and to stifle the emergence of new sources of competition.

And let’s not forget about the reasons we have most of these regulations that are so often treated as inherently bad things. It’s because of the abuses of profit seeking people who thought that it didn’t matter if their promises were lies, and their product was worthless or worse, dangerous. “Let the buyer beware” may be a fine piece of cautionary advice, but it is hardly the basis of a code of ethics or responsible governance.

We like to believe that the “free market” brings about innovation and technological improvement. But the sad truth is most of the actual inventors and innovators don’t make money from their discoveries. They are either bought out (usually for a lot less than the idea will ultimately reap) or suppressed so that the current technology can have a longer life. This has been the actual history of business in America for a long time. Certainly there are exceptions where the actual innovator did make good, but not only are those the exceptions, on closer examination you will often find that they succeeded in retaining the profit of their innovations through the same sort of ruthless and questionable practices of other businessmen. In other words, the system itself, doesn’t reward or properly incent innovative behavior exclusively or directly. In fact, it most successfully rewards a short term oriented, exploitative behavior. All of which alone, are enough reason to regulate and monitor the “free market economy” in order to ensure that there is at least a level playing field for those new to the market or with a longer term idea for the betterment of all.

It is most often government “regulation” from visionary leaders that helps us get to the next stage. Without the FAA promoting and supporting airlines the railroad lobby was more than happy to paint air travel as dangerous and to support the sort of regulation that would cripple the emerging industry. Do you imagine that the people supplying natural gas to the gas lights in cities didn’t try to stop the electric lights from being installed? And aren’t those same fossil fuel magnates the ones trying to convince us that we don’t need to convert to clean and sustainable energy sources?

There is certainly a lot more to be said about the economic system and the myths surrounding it, but if we could just get people to realize that it is not always about the betterment of all; that in fact the profit motive actually works against the common good at least as often as it (unintentionally) helps it, that would be a step in the right direction.

It took decades of slowly building these lies into a cohesive mythos, but we don’t have that sort of time to break them down. We need to tell this story more clearly and forcefully. We need to start with health care because I believe most people will understand that their health is not completely within their control.

The opposition likes to appeal to a bias we all want to believe, which is “bad things only happen to bad people”. We want to believe that because it gives us a sense of control over our lives. To be sure, certain life style choices do have a negative influence on our health; smoking, too much drinking, etc. But that is not the whole story. People who never smoked can get lung cancer, and where is the “moral outrage” over choices like eating lots of red meat and a sedentary lifestyle, which are just as injurious to overall health as things like smoking?

This all goes back to picking the right issues at the right time, instead of trying to make a “full court press” on every issue. Take the issue of the rights of transgender people. Personally I’m only interested in the character and talents of individuals. I really couldn’t care less about their sexual identity unless I’m pursuing them as a sexual/romantic partner. I also think that long term, the majority of people will come to the same idea. But in the meantime, the Republican base likes to promote “anti-transgender” laws to provoke a kind of fear that there is a great movement afoot to push this acceptance on everyone, ready or not. Spending lots of resources to counter these idiotic moves only validates their fears, and wastes precious capital that could be spent on battles we can win. A simple condemnation of these ideas and pointing out their ineffectiveness (any passable transgender could move completely unnoticed through any number of public restrooms etc.) should be all the attention we give it. We are talking about an extremely small minority of the population, not that their rights don’t matter because of those numbers, they do. However, we are in a “battle field triage” situation and we simply can’t afford to spend time and money on fights that only help the opposition make their bigoted cases. Transgender rights and acceptance have a much better chance of moving forward with us than they do with Republicans and so we need to tell our TG friends to keep faith with us, but not expect that we are going to mount a Supreme Court fight over every idiotic law some moronic right winger gets passed in some redneck red state  haven.

I do truly hope that my fellow Democrats and progressives will take this to heart. We need to win, now more than ever. And I think I can speak to these tactics because I count myself among those who support some of the more ‘extreme’ positions. I just know that the time is not right for all of them. But it will be if we stay in the forefront and continually push, I believe we will be successful.

I believe personal tales of injustice, where everything was done “right” and according to the “rules” and it just didn’t work will win folks over. People want to believe that we have a basically good society that doesn’t let the deserving get a bad deal. But that isn’t really how it is. We need to show people the places where the system fails and people suffer unfairly. Intellectual and philosophical arguments may win over the better educated, but chances are most of them are already on our side. If we want to reach the vast majority of people we need to engage them with the facts that the simple fixes they think should solve these problems don’t work and let them see people who could but for the grace of God be themselves suffering because that system doesn’t work.

I am a member of that generation called the ‘Baby Boomers’. We grew up with the ‘Greatest Generation’ telling us how great America was, and watching super heroes  who fought for ‘truth, justice and the American way’. I remember believing it was a place where no matter who you were, or where you started in life, you could achieve anything your talent could deliver. Later we discovered that America wasn’t quite all of the things we were told it was. We demonstrated, we voted, and all because we wanted it to be the America we thought it was. We need that spirit, that commitment again.

[yandereaffections]

Sherlock's crush is a genius hacker who helps him with his cases. Crush has been feeling a little blue lately cuz she is suspecting that her fiance, a famous lawyer, is having a affair behind her back.~ Deary

Sherlocks thankful for your skills and willingness to help

Impressed with each and every action you take

Admires you significantly

Conversations of your fiancé do come up from time to time

Recommending him to Sherlocks clients when he points out a legal situation

Of course Sherlocks nice enough towards you to endure your talk of your fiancé, though he’s never seen him

Always having the time to be around sherlock and John, to the point you’re considered to live with them

The only time Sherlocks actually introduced himself was when your fiancé picked you up to go on the rare occasion of a date

Needless Sherlock doesn’t like your soon to be husband, claims to love and adore you yet he doesnt even seem to have a moment of time to spend with you

Lawyer or not, no ones that busy in life to completely avoid they’re significant other

You mentioned recently how you both had a bit of a domestic fight, small issues coming together to form a gigantic fight

How apparently you’re not putting enough effort into the relationship, how everything’s crumbling cause of the amount of time you spend away from him, not staying and watching over the home you both share, how he’s doing everything he can to keep this relationship going yet your not putting any form of effort

You stayed with sherlock and John that night, John providing emotional support while sherlock makes obvious statements on how he’s wrong from time to time, staying quiet sitting next to you as comfort for the majority of it

The morning concluding of silence, your mind wondering as each and every thought pulls you down

John at work, Sherlock being the only one to share this silence with

While you’re usually on your computer typing away finding ways to gain multiple strands of information, today you seem to be avoiding it completely

Standing at the kitchen with tea infront of you on the counter, your arm resting next to it holding your head up with your eyes closed

While sherlock would assume this behavior is because of last nights argument your attitude was completely different compared to now

Sighing and shifting constantly implying that whatever you were thinking of you didn’t want to believe

Joining you, making another cup before standing next to you asking what you’re thinking about

Sighing for the hundredth time that hour a moment of silence fills the air before you mumble out “I think he’s with someone else..”

Sherlocks expression dropping as you turn to look at him, forgetting about your tea

“I want to see if I’m right or not. I want to hack into the security footage of his work and where ever he might’ve gone, but I know it’s only going to make me look suspicious. I can’t talk to him about it since hes never around,,”

Your eyes showing hints of sorrow as you pause figuring out what to continue with

“I don’t know what to do, not wanting to just endure a relationship that’s ultimately going to end, but I’m still not sure of anything..”

“I might be a idiot when it comes to relationships y/n.. I’m not sure when to say the right things or how to make one feel better” Sherlock starts, looking down at you obviously not pleased with how you’re feeling

“But I know the facts, and the truth is that.. yes your fiancé is cheating.”

A mix of emotions evident across your face

“John and I were talking about it, he told me not to tell you. That you needed to figure it all out on your own.”

Breathing getting heavier as your eyes glossed over while Sherlock observers your unsettled form, not knowing what to do exactly

Sniffeling as you rubbed your nose trying not to cry

Setting down his tea and hesitantly leading you towards johns chair, sitting you down and giving you a blanket, thinking that it should at least comfort you

“How did you know” you whispered out holding back sobs

Sitting down in front of you on the floor his hands fidgeted “while I could only assume from the small statements you told me from time to time, once he picked you up for that date I deduced him..”

Looking down at him from Johns chair with red nose and cheeks, waiting patiently

“His hair was messy compared to the pictures usually seen of him, cloths shuffled and not as aligned as usual, hands shown to be damp along with the fact he wasn’t wearing his ring that day. When he leaned across the seat to kiss you,, multiple faint scratches were along his back of a different nail length than yours.”

Nodding, slowly accepting the fact that the relationship is going to end

Sherlock will be by your side the entire time, supporting you along with John

[shsuschoollibraryprogramming]

Multiple Days #1

“What Do You Meme I’m Arguing?”

Planning

A) Spend time visiting with RLA teachers (6th grade) prior to their argumentative text unit.  Ask questions and view content & vocabulary that they are using in class to support the TEKS and inquire as to their unit outline.

B) Ask what they are specifically looking for in an argumentative writing piece (offer to create a rubric together if there is a need).

C) Prepare a prompt of interest (Do memes make the internet better?).

Promotion

A) Promotion will be simple at the beginning --- students will see the posting in Google Classroom with choice memes attached to attract their attention prior to the lesson* (school appropriate memes used).

B) Begin printing meme submissions to display in the library (check for appropriateness and review spelling/grammar), increasing interest in what we are doing for our lesson. 

  Preparations

A) Search for memes online (usage rights: creative commons license) or incorporate pictures of classroom teachers, aides, staff, and administrators (with their permission). 

B) Work on importing pictures to Google Draw to use as a template within Google Classroom.  Templates will be added to the assignment so that each student has the chance to make a copy.  Have at least 3-4 available for choice. 

C) Print Google Doc responses for visits with students in Lesson 2 to discuss how to enhance their writing.  Also, have notebook paper readily available if students prefer writing versus typing. 

  Procedures

A) Lesson 1 in the library will focus on the question: “Do memes make the internet better?”                --Discussion will be held on what memes are, their purpose or lack thereof, and what their initial                response to the question would be.                --Show memes found from the internet to students – ask how each made them feel and if they’re                relatable.                --Segue the conversation to how their opinions tie in with argumentative texts and writing.  “How                would you prove or convince or argue that memes are necessary to making the internet better?                    What would someone say to counter your claim?”                --Students may work in singles, pairs, or triplets to respond to the prompt.  Walk around and read                what they are typing/writing and listen to their discussions.                 --When students have established a claim, provided evidence/examples, and produced a                counterclaim, they may open the templates to create memes of their own.  What would they                  want them to say – something relatable, humorous, etc.?

B) Lesson 2 will revolve around reviewing their writing and taking note to enhance their claim, provide more detailed and connected evidence + examples, and include a counterclaim. 

C) If there is opportunity for Lesson 3, have students research memes in connection to the internet and people, and how they can/cannot help (it may be necessary to have sites already linked for their access to prevent any inappropriate searching.   

  Payoff

A) Extra practice with exposure to argumentative style of writing through their own creative, thoughtfulness will help reiterate the purpose of this text.

B) Content teachers will have an extra teacher working with their students to reinforce the curriculum needs and personal growth.

C) Students can have a bit of fun with creating a meme to be shared within the library after completing the writing portion. 

D) Pushing their writing to see that they each have the potential to grow their thoughts. 

  *We have been working on this the last full week of classes until we were interrupted by the ice and benchmarks.  Some sixth graders were intrigued when they saw the assignment notification in Google Classroom, and by the time I printed the first 2 class memes to hang up, they were ready!  Slightly disappointed that writing had to occur first, but that was offset once they could create. 

  References

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/learning/130-prompts-argumentative-writing.html

[schraubd]

Tamika Mallory’s Israel Rehabilitation Tour

[For whatever reason this didn't cross-post properly. Apologies if it comes up twice. As a bonus, though, here's a link to a related thread I wrote on Twitter in conversation with Mallory] 

 When the controversy over antisemitism and Tamika Mallory first flared up, I noted that it had one very interesting characteristic: it wasn't about Israel. This is somewhat uncommon in left-of-center antisemitism disputes, and one could almost hear the gears grinding in Mallory's would-be defenders. So used to having "criticism of Israel isn't antisemitic" as their "get-out-of-talking-about-antisemitism-free" card, they were left almost dumbstruck. 

Mallory has been notoriously resistant to any serious reckoning with antisemitic sentiment on her part. She views herself as the victim here, and so she's seemingly cast about for new avenues to antagonize her Jewish tormentors. First it was going after the ADL. Now, as part of a "fact-finding" trip to Israel, it's blaming Netanyahu for Trump's border wall and Muslim ban.

Be clear: Donald Trump’s wall + #muslimban + #deportation plan are all lines out of the #Netanyahu book of oppression. Trump has referenced this himself. We ought pay attention & not allow folks to label us + try to black list us in to silence. #JusticeDelegation (more 2 come) — Tamika D. Mallory (@TamikaDMallory) May 7, 2018

In response to this tweet, Abe Silberstein articulated a common sense of Jewish dismay.

I dislike Bibi and Trump in equal measure, but our xenophobic politics precedes Israel's. I appreciate the fact that you visited the region, but I wish you had a better sense of your own reputation in the Jewish community before commenting like this https://t.co/V6bCi9CuPf — Abe Silberstein (@abesilbe) May 7, 2018

But in some ways I think Silberstein is missing the point. Mallory isn't tweeting unaware of what Jews think about her. Rather, her goal in this Israel trip is precisely to rehabilitate her reputation -- albeit not amongst Jews. 

Antisemitism, like racism, tends to take the path of least resistance down to the ground. As Paul Berman noted, while we

like to think of hatred of the Jews as a low, base sentiment that is entertained by nasty, ignorant people, wallowing in their own hatefulness. . . . normally it’s not like that. Hatred for the Jews has generally taken the form of a lofty sentiment, instead of a lowly one – a noble feeling embraced by people who believe they stand for the highest and most admirable of moral views.

If one dislikes Jews, there are many ways for that disdain to manifest. But among these diverse options, people with antisemitic views want to express those views in ways that will gain social approval -- at least in the communities they care about. Hence, we should expect that antisemitic sentiments will be systematically channeled in directions where their expression can expect to find validation and laudation. The content of those sentiments will vary from community to community. In some railing against "globalist financiers" will do the trick. In others speaking of those who "crucified Christ" will work. And of course, in still others, lambasting Zionist perfidy is the winning ticket.* 

Note the argument is not that "criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic", any more than I'm saying orthodox Christian beliefs are inherently antisemitic or opposing the political preferences of wealthy billionaires is. My argument is exactly what was stated above: that in certain communities positions of this ilk provide a convenient point of discharge for antisemitic sentiments that offer up the path of least resistance. Precisely because there are perfectly valid critiques of Israel that are, on face, wholly laudable from within a progressive paradigm, a speaker harboring antipathy towards Jews and looking for a socially-acceptable vector to express them will gravitate toward that issue. A conservative speaker with the same internal sense of grievance towards Jews might pick a different path to the ground. Put another way, we should expect that if someone with progressive-inclinations harbors antisemitic sentiments (consciously or not), they'd be most likely to express them in the idiom of anti-Israel speech. Why wouldn't they? Antisemitism will always be expressed in the dominant language of the place and the time, and it is entirely predictable that people will seek to express antisemitism in ways that enhance rather than detract from their social standing. 

In Mallory's case, then, the shift from Farrakhan to the ADL to Israel is a move from forms of antisemitism that encountered great resistance to that which will (again, in the relevant communities) gain plaudits. It is a rehabilitation tour because it moves her sense of grievance towards Jews out of a context where even her allies would have trouble defending her, to an arena where people in her community are quite accustomed to dismissing Jewish complaints. Even though the sequence of events for Mallory offers compelling evidence that she's at least in part motivated by a sense of antipathy against Jews, because she's now expressing her disdain in terms of anti-Israel sentiment people will ironically view further complaints about her antisemitism as weaker rather than stronger.

Finally, I want to remark on the specific content of her tweet -- claiming that Trump's anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim policies are cases of him following the Israeli lead -- because I think it's also "rehabilitative" in its way, and it's worth articulating why that's so. As many people have noted, there is something more than a bit absurd about the contention that American conservatives need an Israeli example to enact racist and White supremacist policies. Moreover, it ends up acting as an indirect apologia for American racism -- asserting that it is not truly homegrown but rather is a foreign disease imported from Israel. Why would Tamika Mallory find that sort of claim attractive?

I discussed a similar move when Winona LaDuke made a putative critique of America's implication in colonialist and genocidal practices by saying "we are Israel". One would think that "Israel is us" would be the more accurate label, since "even if we thought that Israel was a valid case of colonialism ... surely it isn't the paradigm case."

But note the subtle shift of responsibility here -- our misdeeds are characterized as following another's evil example. Israel stands in for our own misdeeds -- it is the platonic ideal of our own wrongs. We are not intrinsically bad, we're only bad insofar as we're "Israel". Our absolution comes when we're no longer Israel. It offers a way to maintain a sense of moral growth and possibility by externalizing the source of the sins onto another body deemed irredeemably corrupt.

There is, I suggest, a perverse form of patriotism at work here. By suggesting that American misdeeds are actually instances of a foreign (Jewish) infection, the implication is that the American body itself is not the problem. The issue is outwards, not inwards. The fundamental appeal of "the Jews are our misfortune" is that it actually allows for a sort of redemptive American narrative to emerge, and for even those most critical of contemporary American policies to lay claim to it. 

One thing that is often-forgotten when talking about antisemitism, or racism, or other systemic hatreds, is that they are productive ideologies. They build things, they engender alliances, they motivate actions. Reflexive claims that antisemitism "hurts our movement" always thus struck me as far too pat -- of course it depends on how one defines the goals of the movement, but more fundamentally it overlooks the way that antisemitism can represent a genuine and attractive tool of mobilization. Given the choice between arguing against American support for the Muslim ban by articulating how it reflects fundamental malformations that are deeply-rooted in our national character, versus arguing against it by saying we've been led astray by the Jews -- it's quite plausible that the second route might be more effective than the first. 

And so again, we see a form of rehabilitation here. Any organization seeking to make the sort of wide-ranging and deep-cutting critique of discriminatory American practices that the Woman's March does is going to face the inevitable charge that it is "anti-American" in some way. It is hard to counter these accusations, even though they are deeply unfair, because it's always hard to demonstrate love for a place or institution while simultaneously leveling a radical critique (something Jews with sharp objections to many Israeli policies are quite painfully aware of). So the temptation will be to cheat: the problem isn't with America, you see; the problem is with those Jews over there ruining America. One need not reject America; one need only "de-Zionise" it. 

People think that when Tamika Mallory blames Israel as the source of American anti-immigrant and Islamophobic policies, she's revealing herself to be more radical than ever before. In reality, though, it is a significant step back towards the mainstream. The radical critique -- the one that it is so hard for many Americans to latch onto -- is the claim that we, America, are our own problem. We are responsible for our own decisions; our hatreds, our injustices, our wrongdoings stem from nobody but ourselves. In Richard Rorty's trenchant words: "There is nothing deep down inside us except what we have put there ourselves." But to the extent that problem is not in ourselves, but rather came to us from Israel -- well much of that discomfort can go away and a radical critique instantly becomes far more digestible. 

Plenty of people who'd resist mightily the notion that there is something fundamentally wrong with America are entirely happy to agree that there's something fundamentally wrong with outsiders, with aliens, with others, who've insidiously managed to infect our great nation. And so I suspect that Mallory will find many willing and eager recipients of this new message. After all, it is saying nothing more than what so many have long wished to hear. 

* Racism almost certainly works in the same way. People don't just want to be racist, they want to be racist in ways that earn them validation and enhanced social standing. Hence, they will flock to argumentative pathways which allow them to express hostility or disdain for racial outgroups in ways that are socially legitimate. There's a reason why so much anti-Latino sentiment now gets channeled through language about "securing the border". The issue isn't that there are no valid arguments to be had about how permissive or restrictive our immigration policy should be. The issue is that, in context, these debates are simply the most convenient forum where persons already harboring anti-Latino sentiments can discharge their antipathy with minimum social resistance. One of the primary impacts of Trumpism has been to greatly increase the number of viable social pathways for expressing racist, antisemitic, Islamophobic, and other bigoted sentiments -- greatly multiplying their "paths to the ground" and hence dramatically magnifying their social reach.

[bakwoodzman-blog]

George Soros Interview 60 Minutes [FULL]

                     George Soros Helped The Nazis Round Up Jews In The Holocaust

March 19, 2017

Alex Jones is a man whose sworn enemy is a group known as The Globalists. Among these Globalists, the target most commonly in his sights is billionaire philanthropist George Soros.

In order to make his case that the Globalists are full-on evil people, Alex consistently refers to Soros as a "Nazi collaborator," or even worse. Here is a clip of him bringing up his feelings about George Soros:

The claim that George Soros actively worked for the Nazis in World War II comes from a 60 Minutes interview he did in 1998. You can watch the full story about him below, the part involving his time in the Holocaust at about the 6:55 mark.

Before we deal with the Nazi stuff, I'd like to just say that I'm not here to fully support or defend George Soros for everything he's ever done. I admit that I do not have a sophisticated enough understanding of the stock market to know enough to speak on that issue, with or without any amount of research.

I can, however, say that definitively, based on the evidence available, claiming that George Soros rounded up Jews in the Holocaust is a horrendous, irresponsible lie. Even to say that he "willingly" worked with them would be an insult to history and truth.

This claim is difficult to debunk, if only because the only real argument that needs to be made "no he didn't." Unfortunately, that doesn't pass muster around here, so here we go.

George Soros, born in 1930, was ages 9-14 when WWII was going on in Europe. Sensing real trouble coming, his father decided to split his family up and bought them all forged papers, in the hopes that they could hide their true Jewish identity, and if they were not all in one place, the odds of some of them surviving increased.

Soros's father then bribed an official in Budapest to take in George, with the backstory being that he was this official's Christian god-son. The official in question was in charge of cleaning up after Jews were sent off to camps; he would come in and take all their valuables, and as part of maintaining his cover, young George Soros assisted in this.

Some may claim that this was an unethical thing to do, but I would posit these important points to counter that argument:

George Soros was, at this point, a maximum of 14 years old. To give some prospective, that is an 8th grader here in the United States. A freshman in high school. Even in ideal circumstances, 14 year olds deserve some wiggle room.

This happened during the Holocaust, and it was a part of George maintaining his cover. If he were to not go along with the confiscations, or speak out against them, he would almost certainly be found out as a Jew in hiding, and be killed.

As Soros puts it in the interview linked above: "...if I weren't there, of course I wasn't doing it, but someone else would, would be taking it away anyhow. And it was, the, whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So I had no role in taking away that property."

I believe the essence of what he's saying that quote is that, no matter what he did, that property was going to be taken by the Nazis. A 14 year old boy cannot fight the will of a genocidal state.

But even beyond that, I believe that he is saying that in the actual confiscations that he went along for, he was not really an active participant, merely "a spectator." I would compare it to a "Bring Your Child To Work Day," where the kid is there, but they can't really do a whole lot, so maybe you give them some busy work to let them feel like they're helping.

But back to the major claims: 1) George Soros was a Nazi collaborator, and 2) George Soros helped round up Jews in the Holocaust.

As to the first count, there is no evidence that he was a willing participant or collaborator with the Nazis. In his biography, it is made clear that he only occasionally went our with his false god-father in his work to collect the possessions of captured Jews. He had a passing involvement in this, at best.

As for the claim that he helped "round up Jews," that is just made up out of whole cloth. It's a claim that's been repeated by every right wing blog, every bigoted talking head from Alex Jones to Glenn Beck, and the only evidence they ever provide is the 60 Minutes interview that is posted above, which does not contain any evidence to the claim.

I understand that Alex Jones has to grasp at straws to paint his enemies as terrible people, but this claim is particularly repugnant, and definitely at least borders on a slight antisemitism.

The truth, as is so often the case with these Little Lies Alex tells, is that context is incredibly important, and when you erase context, you are lying. As for the context here, I think that Matt Welch puts it perfectly in a 2010 post on reason.com:

As a native son of the free world you can and damn well should cheer a person who acted bravely in the face of a pervasive and murderous totalitarian state, but with the exception of the monsters who willfully abused power there, you had better err massively on the side of reticence before casting negative judgment on the compromises that captive citizens made under a pressure we literally cannot fathom.

In this instance, as is so often the case, Alex Jones errs massively, but does so on the wrong side.

[southeastasianists]

Singapore’s two main public universities have risen in global reputation, lifted by the state’s economic might. For most Singaporeans – as well as many of the region’s brightest students – getting a place to study at the National University of Singapore or Nanyang Technological University is a proud accomplishment. In several fields, our universities have become research powerhouses, worthy of mention alongside the traditional brand names of the West.

But the NUS and NTU suffer from stunted development. Even as they rise in global rankings, their contribution to the country’s intellectual life is relatively modest. Particularly in the humanities and the social sciences, they are largely absent precisely when their expertise is most needed – when complex and controversial issues call for the clarity, context and research-based insight that we academics claim to be able to provide. This retreat from the public sphere has been so complete and enduring that it is no longer noticed. It doesn’t occur to most Singaporeans that our universities could be playing a much broader social role.

I hasten to clarify that the public shouldn’t expect university departments to replicate thinktanks, which are meant to insert themselves directly into current policy debates. Given how compressed news cycles are getting, with controversies exploding and fizzling out within a week, it would be a mistake for academics to flit about, reacting to every matter that grabs people’s attention. That shouldn’t be the job of serious scholars.

But a strong university department or scholarly association should be visible in major public debates that are relevant to its field. At the very least, universities should be able to serve as honest brokers, convening discussions on challenging topics. After all, they are the only institutions in our society that give their employees the time and resources – largely taxpayer-funded – to think differently. They are not pressed to arrive at policy positions. They are not required to be popular or profitable. They can examine problems deeply, challenge conventional wisdom, clarify issues, offer insights that are counter-intuitive and keep contrarian viewpoints bubbling on the back burner for future reference. One might even say that they have a moral responsibility to do all this.

Singapore’s two public universities have very busy calendars, but their activities focus on non-Singaporean matters. While many other universities are seeking desperately to overcome their parochialism and climb university rankings by internationalising, ours have the opposite problem (rankings organisations don’t really measure a university’s local relevance – it probably hasn’t occurred to them that universities might fail to be local enough). Singapore has already emerged as one of the top centres of learning for anyone interested in Asia; it is academia’s contribution to Singapore’s own intellectual and cultural life that is lacking. Consider, for example, the government’s move to amend the Constitution to reserve presidential elections periodically for candidates from Singapore’s racial minority groups. There were individual academics interested enough to make submissions to 2016’s Constitutional Commission, but the activity fell far short of what would be considered normal elsewhere, perhaps for want of a critical mass of such scholars. In a different setting, universities would have been falling over themselves to convene public events to discuss such a major move before the parliamentary vote. Legal scholars and political scientists would explore constitutional implications and issues concerning political representation. Sociologists might want to showcase their research into ethnic identity and politics. For anthropologists, this could be an opportunity to share their research on the construction of race. In a normal developed country, local universities might run a series of public seminars on such subjects. Not in Singapore.

Some Singaporeans might feel that there is nothing wrong with universities staying focused on teaching enrolled, fee-paying students without the distractions of public outreach. But one can’t really compartmentalise a university’s mission this way. Universities have to fertilise the soil they depend on. Just as our national orchestras give free concerts at the Botanic Gardens to help cultivate an appreciation for music, research universities need to be out there showing the public that their intellectual work is worth supporting. Furthermore, schooling that’s confined to textbooks and classroom learning, by professors who show no interest in the real world passing by their window, wouldn’t amount to much of an education.

The lack of engagement in the local can compromise institutions’ ability to mount even basic Singapore-related courses. Our universities do have a Singapore studies requirement in their undergraduate curricula, but departments often struggle to mount relevant courses, sometimes relying on adjuncts or faculty borrowed from other departments. When I worked at NTU’s communication school, I taught a freshman course called Media in Singapore, introducing all communication majors to our media industries and their political, economic and cultural contexts. Since the school’s founding, this course – or earlier iterations of it – had been considered important enough to be listed as a compulsory module. But when I left, the school didn’t consider it a priority to find a replacement teacher. It simply dropped the course. After a year, the course was revived – but no longer as a core requirement; it became an elective.

The most disappointing case of going regional and global at the expense of the local must be political science at the NUS. I’ve followed public forums on local politics for decades. In recent years, one thing that has become practically guaranteed is that none of the speakers on Singapore politics will come from the NUS department of political science. To understand why, visit the department’s website and study the faculty profiles. At the time of writing, of 29 full-time faculty members, only one – a veteran now in his sixties – claims Singapore’s domestic politics as a research interest. In contrast, 22 colleagues – including all seven assistant professors – do not have “Singapore” anywhere on their research profiles or publication lists. Just five of the department’s scholars list at least one published work with “Singapore” in the title, and only two of these publications are more recent than 2013. You have to go back to Chan Heng Chee in the 1980s to find an NUS political science don who has made a seminal contribution to our understanding of Singapore politics. It’s a situation that would be unthinkable in virtually all developed countries.

Political science is an extreme but not unique case. If you scanned the research interests and backgrounds of faculty in NUS economics, for instance, you’d have a hard time guessing which country or even region the department belonged to. You might think it was based in Greater China, or perhaps in a US university with an Asia-Pacific focus. When I checked one commonly used database of scholarly articles, I was able to find 152 articles on Singapore categorised under “economics” published since 2015, but only one was by someone currently listed as a regular faculty member of the NUS economics department. The NUS accounted for about 30 other articles, but these came from elsewhere on campus, such as the public policy and business schools, and the real estate department.

NTU’s history department website suggests that perhaps three out of 22 faculty members could claim a focus on Singapore history. The history department at the NUS is more illustrious but is nevertheless short on local expertise. Consider the books that have been published on Singapore history: the National Library has compiled a useful bibliography. Of the 27 recommended titles covering Singapore’s history up to 1964, just one is (co-)authored by a current faculty member of the NUS history department.

There are two fairly obvious reasons for our universities’ C-minus performance in Singapore studies: the lack of academic freedom and the absence of a Singaporean core in many departments. Political restrictions date back to the first decade and a half of independence from Malaysia, in the 1960s and 1970s, when the government cracked down on activism in what were then the University of Singapore and Nanyang University. From the ashes, the new NUS and NTU rose like phoenixes – with a permanent phobia of the fires of politics.

In many fields, academics are also thwarted by a lack of access to government data. For this reason, one can hardly blame economists for choosing not to specialise in Singapore. Historians have a different problem. They know too much. Declassified British records in London offer a rich vein of evidence concerning Singapore’s pre-independence history – but mining this lode puts historians on a collision course with the government’s official narrative. Sadly, this has meant that young academic historians of Singapore are able to find work more easily outside the country.

It would be simplistic, however, to blame only the government. The universities’ problems are partly own goals scored by administrators obsessed by the research productivity game. This rewards those who churn out papers in so-called top-tier journals, ignoring the fact that these journals are published in, by and for the West. To illustrate how this bias works in practice, consider an American political scientist writing a 6,000-word article about voting patterns in Ohio. He can quickly get to the heart of his findings and theoretical contributions. In contrast, a scholar researching Singaporean elections would have to devote half her paper to justifying why Singapore is worth studying, and would need to explain the local context in painstaking detail for an audience of mystified journal editors – all before she’s finally able to discuss her actual study. The problem is compounded by the fact that the off-the-shelf theoretical frameworks currently in circulation were mostly developed in the US and Europe and might not fit Singapore. It’s therefore much harder for scholars working on Singapore to sail on the main theoretical currents in their fields.

This bias results from the uneven distribution of power in global academia. The US and its concerns lie at the core of most disciplines; the rest of the world is peripheral. It is a frustration familiar not only to scholars of Singapore, but also to academics in Australia, the UK, Hong Kong and elsewhere. In these other societies, however, universities put up stiffer resistance to the imposition of key performance indicators that would undermine their core mission to study their own locales. Top-tier journal publication is still prized – but not at the expense of neglecting impactful local research or teaching needs. Our universities could do the same, prioritising Singapore-focused research even if it is likely to generate lower citation scores. Bibliometrics are not ends in themselves, but merely crude proxy measures for research impact. Our university leaders and education policymakers are free to adopt different yardsticks. As things stand, the metrics don’t encourage research into our own milieu. Furthermore, it is an open secret that, in many departments, hiring and promotion decisions focus more on a candidate’s research numbers than on what he or she is able to teach – hence the problem of not having enough faculty to teach Singapore content well.

Responding to these market signals, many locals and almost all foreigners decide to focus on regional or international topics or on purely abstract theoretical work that is not grounded in any particular context. There are still scholars who, despite the disincentives, persist and study their first love – Singapore. But in many social science and humanities fields, they lack clout. The situation suits the foreign faculty who now dominate departments – and in many cases run them. Singapore is the only place in the world where foreigners can work at a top-ranked university without feeling any shame at knowing nothing about their host society; where, indeed, such ignorance is often more of an asset than a liability.

Singaporean economists Pang Eng Fong and Linda Lim have similarly commented on the lack of a strong local core in our universities ( “Singapore’s fling with global stars sidelines local talent” , News, 24 August). But one shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that foreign faculty as such are a problem. It’s simplistic to equate local origins with local commitment. Some foreigners have had a transformative impact on Singapore studies. The NUS archaeologist John Miksic is a prominent example. Others have been conscientious institution-builders for Singapore. I personally benefited from the mentorship of two such giants, Taiwan-born sociologist Eddie Kuo, the founding dean of NTU’s communication school, and historian Anthony Reid from New Zealand, founding director of the Asia Research Institute at the NUS. Philip Holden, a professor of English at the NUS, is another model foreign-born scholar. He became a respected authority on the Singapore literary scene. But after more than 20 years, he began facing problems maintaining his permanent resident status. When his application for citizenship was denied, he and his Singaporean wife decided to relocate to Canada. Hearing this sad news, a former student who had become an English teacher commented on his Facebook wall: “Without you, a generation of Singaporeans wouldn’t have known what SingLit was, and SingLit would be nowhere near what it is today.”

Whatever the mix of reasons for the lack of emphasis on Singapore-focused work, the overall pattern is striking. The government’s new Social Science Research Council is trying to come to the rescue with substantial funds earmarked for research relevant to Singapore, but the problem has never been money. Grants alone won’t counterbalance the factors weighing against independent research on Singaporean society, especially if, as with arts funding, the council denies money to projects that are seen as critical of the government.

The university has a role that goes beyond equipping and credentialing students for employment; beyond serving the needs of industry; and beyond developing its region’s pulling power as an educational and research hub – all great strengths of the NUS and NTU. It also has a civilising mission, to show how the pursuit of knowledge and reasoned deliberation are the best ways for a society to manage its contemporary and future challenges. This can be achieved only if a university is engaged with the society of which it is part. And this is where Singapore’s institutions of higher learning should do much more to live up to their stratospheric global rankings.

Cherian George, a Singaporean, is professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University. This essay is an edited extract from his new book, Singapore, Incomplete: Reflections on a First World Nation’s Arrested Political Development (Singapore: Woodsville News, 2017).

[orbemnews]

Republican state lawmakers look to empower partisan poll watchers, setting off alarms about potential voter intimidation Bills in several states would grant new authority to poll watchers — who work on behalf of candidates and political parties — to observe voters and election workers. Critics say it could lead to conflict and chaos at polling places and an improper targeting of voters of color. In Texas, a measure under consideration by the Republican-controlled legislature would grant partisan poll watchers the right to videotape voters as they receive assistance casting their ballots. Meanwhile, in Georgia, the state’s controversial new voting law makes it explicit that any Georgian can challenge the qualifications of an unlimited number of their fellow voters. The new law comes after a Texas group, True the Vote, teamed up with Georgia activists last year to question the qualifications of more than 360,000 voters ahead of two Senate runoff elections. Most counties dismissed True the Vote’s challenges, but Georgia’s new statute requires local election administrators to consider these challenges, threatening them with state sanctions if they don’t. “If you believe that these challenges aren’t going to be racially targeted, then you are crazy,” said Marc Elias, a leading Democratic election lawyer who has sued on behalf of voting rights groups to stop the Georgia law from taking effect. “This is going to become a tool of voter suppression by Republicans in the state of Georgia.” The moves to empower partisan actors come after record numbers of voters turned out in 2020. States relaxed election rules to allow more voting by mail and the use of drop boxes to avoid spreading Covid-19. That turnout surge in states such as Georgia helped Democrats seize the White House and the majority in the US Senate. As part of their failed efforts to overturn the election results, former President Donald Trump and his allies repeatedly argued fraud could have occurred because Trump-aligned poll watchers lacked sufficient access to the voting and counting process in several states. There is no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election. Around the country, Republican legislators have responded with measures that grant more authority to poll watchers. A new analysis by the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice found that, as of April 15, lawmakers in 20 states had introduced at least 40 bills to expand poll watchers’ powers. New powers proposed in Texas Poll watchers are partisan volunteers who, as their name implies, “watch” or observe what’s happening at polling places. Their primary function is to help ensure their party or candidate has a fair shot of winning the election. Both political parties deploy them. Federal law prohibits harassment of voters, and most state laws prevent poll watchers from interfering with the voting process. In Texas, bills moving through the state legislature would give them new authority. One Texas provision gives a poll watcher the right to record images and sounds at a polling place — including at the voting station if the poll voter is receiving help “the watcher reasonably believes to be unlawful.” A separate measure bars election judges — the poll workers who preside over each precinct — from removing poll watchers unless the watcher “knowingly or intentionally” tries to “influence the independent exercise of the voter of another in the presence of the ballot or during the voting process.” It also threatens election workers with misdemeanors for knowingly preventing poll watchers from observing the process. “It’s a surveillance role,” Sarah Labowitz, policy director of the ACLU of Texas, said of the way the proposed laws treat poll watchers. “It really empowers the poll watchers over the voter and the election judges.” In a recent interview on CNN, the bill’s sponsor, GOP state Sen. Bryan Hughes, said the videotaping provision will “make sure voters are casting their ballots — not being influenced by someone else.” He described the taping as akin to a police body camera that will help resolve disputes between poll watchers and election officials. The law provides for the tape to be sent to the Secretary of State. Floor action on sweeping election bills in the Texas House could happen as early as next week. In Florida, the observation requirement during signature-matching raised concerns among election supervisors. In an interview Saturday on CNN’s “New Day,” Mark Earley, the supervisor of elections in Leon County, said the law will allow observers to see the ballots via video feeds — after election officials worried about poll watchers crowding secure areas. “But many counties don’t have the technology or the money to make that happen or even the space to make that happen, so there’s still concerns going forward with that,” he said. Fraught history Poll watching and citizen challenges have been fraught issues. State laws in the 19th century made it difficult for African Americans to vote and to prove their qualifications — even after the 15th Amendment granted Black men the right to cast ballots. In Florida, for example, a challenged voter needed to produce two witnesses to vouch for him. But the law said election officials needed to know each of the witnesses — which a Brennan Center study on the history of voter challenges described as an enormous hurdle for Black voters. Polling places in segregated Florida were staffed by White residents who were unlikely to know African American witnesses. Last year’s election was the first presidential contest since 1980 in which the Republican National Committee could conduct its own poll watching operations. A federal consent decree had barred the RNC from the practice for more than three decades after the national party targeted Black and Latino voters in New Jersey. The operation, carried out during a 1981 gubernatorial election, involved posting armed, off-duty law enforcements officers at polling places in heavily minority communities. It also included erecting posters warning the area was being patrolled the “national ballot security task force” and offering a $1,000 reward for reports of violations of state election laws. The consent decree ended in 2018. Carol Anderson, an historian and professor of African American Studies at Emory University, said the new proposals build on a history of voter intimidation that long has targeted people of color. “What’s built into this is the inequality of the system itself,” she said. “You know that somebody who is Black or Hispanic will not be able to go up into an all-White precinct and start challenging those voters without having a massive law-enforcement response.” She called the wave of new laws “infuriating.” “It’s infuriating because we’ve done this dance before,” Anderson said. “We know what a Jim Crow democracy looks like and the damage it does to the United States of America and to its people.” Georgia challenges One provision of Georgia’s controversial new election law requires that watchers can observe procedures at ballot tabulation centers. But the measure that could have a far greater impact sets out new requirements for handling challenges to voters’ qualifications. In the run-up to the US Senate runoffs, True the Vote teamed up with Georgia residents to challenge the qualifications of more than 364,000 voters whose names it says appeared on databases from the US Postal Service and commercial sources as having changed their addresses. Voting rights advocates counter that the change-of-address information is not a reliable way to determine eligibility and could unfairly target students, military personnel and others who temporarily change where the receive mail but remain eligible to vote in Georgia. Most Georgia counties opted against taking up the challenges. But under the new law, local election boards must set a hearing on a challenge within 10 business days of notifying the voter of the challenge. “Failure to comply with the provisions of this Code section by the board of registrars shall subject such board to sanctions by the State Election Board,” the law adds. Elias said it will be impossible for election officials to comply with requirements to hold a hearing on each voter challenge when outside groups mount tens of thousands of such challenges. “It’s going to require these counties to drop everything and adjudicate these hearings before the election,” he said. “How the hell is a county supposed to do that?” That failure to do so, he said, could give state officials grounds to sanction local election officials and invoke other provisions of the new law that allow the state elections board to replace local superintendents. Voter challenges could lead to long lines and chaos at the polls on Election Day, he added. Rep. Barry Fleming, the Republican architect of Georgia’s new law, did not respond to several interview requests from CNN. Catherine Engelbrecht, the founder of True the Vote, cast her effort as a push to clean up Georgia voter rolls as election officials prepared to send out absentee ballots in the runoffs. Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock prevailed in those races, giving their party control of the US Senate. In that election, Georgia relied on signature matching in absentee voting. The new law now requires voter identification to cast absentee ballots. Engelbrecht, who rose in conservative politics as a Tea Party activist in Texas, has aggressively pursued claims of voter fraud, including in the 2020 election. In an interview with CNN, Engelbrecht said the challenges she supported in Georgia involved so many voters because she took a broad brush — examining the voting rolls in every one of state’s 159 counties — to avoid targeting any particular group of voters. “We, as a country, should agree that accuracy in voting matters,” Engelbrecht said. “There has to be some standard of we’re going to make sure when people move away that we don’t send a live ballot that doesn’t require any standard or identification or no way of tracking it once it’s opened and voted. That just begs for controversy.” This story has been updated with additional information. CNN’s Kelly Mena contributed to this report. Source link Orbem News #Alarms #empower #intimidation #lawmakers #Partisan #Politics #Poll #Potential #Republican #Republicanstatelawmakersaregivingpartisanpollwatchersnewpowers #setting #settingoffalarmsaboutpotentialvoterintimidation.-CNNPolitics #state #Voter #watchers