#minor attempt at self aggrandizing

[detectivejigsawpines]

Fic authors self rec! When you get this, reply with your favorite five fics that you've written, then pass on to at least five other writers. Let’s spread the self-love❤

As much as I dislike chain letters, I do enjoy trying to hock my fics to an unsuspecting audience.

1. The Wrong Stan-an AU where during Weirdmageddon, Bill captures Stan instead of Ford

2. Return Backwards to the Past Again 4-time travel AU where homeless Stan meets two strange young people who say they want to hire him for transportation to a little town in Oregon

3. Island of the Lost-another AU (there’s a recurring pattern here) where instead of taking the car after getting kicked out, Stan takes the boat

4. Two Worlds, One Family-Crossover AU(!)-a recently divorced Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz accidentally brings a recently kicked out Stan Pines forward in time, and the end result has the potential to work out surprisingly well for both of them

5. One Rainy Night-the beginning of my most ambitious AU ever, where a flip of a coin and a conversation with an old woman make all the difference in the world in changing the Pines twins’ future

@elishevart @guardianoflightanddarkness @darylstorey @orangeoctopi7 @ramblesanddragons

[decepti-thots]

this is only peripherally relevant to my blog but if people would like a fiction rec for Books About Fandom, i bet a lot of people would love Little Blue Encyclopedia (for Vivian), which i enjoyed- and specifically enjoyed so much more than a lot of books in the zeitgeist atm About Fandom TM.

the conceit is that after the author's friend vivian dies, to help her grieve the author writes a book discussing the (fictional twin peaks pastiche, basically) show they watched together, which vivian was obsessed with, interspersed with her remembrances. both of them were trans women who helped each other through periods of their transitions, and the narrator is sorting through her feelings in the aftermath of vivian's death, and their complex relationship. the book alternates between discussions of the fictional show's details, both 'in-universe' and the surrounding fan culture, and the author recollecting their experiences together.

what stuck out to me is how different it is to a lot of the current contemporary romance novels trying to be 'about fandom' in ways that are very... sanitized, let's say. commercial. frankly inauthentic. while i had some very minor nitpicks about the execution, it was an overwhelmingly more sincere experience than basically any other book I've ever read Doing Fandom, and especially as a discussion of bonding over art as trans people navigating the world together, i think it's frankly kind of unique.

idk, i wanted to rec it because it really gets something about how queer fandom can be special i think very few things do, in a way that sidesteps all the things i find annoying about attempts to do it less sincerely for a more self-aggrandizing audience. i think a lot of people in fandom would enjoy it for that reason! so i wanted to rec it here, on my fandom blog. if you like, here is the ebook:

[thatsadorbsyo]

Alexander - 8

FROM THE JOURNAL OF ALEXANDER CORDULA.

29 Thunsheer

In attempting to address this note, I find myself at a loss. During our late night watch on the Martikovs’ roof, Echo and I spoke about many things, and one of them was the importance of choosing an intended audience when one goes to put letters to page, as the act of doing so shapes the thoughts that flow from there. But the conversation sparked an uncomfortable question in me. Is addressing my thoughts to my erstwhile roommate at the academy still the appropriate framework for the problems I wish to address? Can I speak to him honestly about the questions that I have, and the troubles that I face? And if not Simon, then whom?

Failing to choose an audience means I’d have to admit that the only person I’m ever truly writing to is myself, but that simply wouldn’t do. I can’t put on a voice to converse with myself. I see through my own faulty narration every time; I know when I’m using a voice to cover up a thought, or to elide a hidden meaning, or to fluff up a minor detail to distract the would-be listener from something of importance just to the side of it. You can lie with the truth, or tell the truth with lies, but this is a charm that only works on others. The prospect of facing my bitter truths without a sweetening filter is about as appealing as chewing on raw wormwood without any sugarplums.

While I’m on that subject, a brothel witch once taught me that you could make a philter of love by boiling white wormwood and black plums along with a lock of your hair and certain spices in a pot of red wine for several hours. But the very same woman also made a show of swearing on the dawn that I made her come, and a man likes to think that he knows how to sense a fake climax just as much as a sorcerer likes to believe he can spot a fraudulent potion recipe. Would you know it? I want to trust her, on both counts. I choose to believe that both are true.

Wormwood grows as plentiful as a weed in Barovia, but what of plums? Those hags must have sweetened their dream pies with something. Perhaps I can find some in Krezk, or some other dark fruit with a stone in the pit could substitute. The wormwood I can gather on my own, and I can certainly convince Martikov to let me take a bottle of Red Dragon Crush from this house in the morning. Might blood be preferable to hair? I’ve never been much for alchemy, but I know a few things about potions, one of which is that it’s just as much an art as it is a science. To make it personal is to make it potent.

And here I come to the real problem with not addressing my entries; I know not how to sign off. Everything I can think of sounds awkward, or overly self-aggrandizing. I could lean into it, ‘commit to the bit’, as my friends would say. Alright. Fine then.

Most sincerely, your very own self,

Alexander Cordula

[lorenzobane]

I cannot believe I am doing this, but it's just driving me fucking crazy. This is about the utterly exhausting and circular and goddamn endless discourse about AO3, and I simply cannot take it anymore. The hyperbole, bad faith arguments, and deeply strange interpretations of what is going on are..... Why. Don't we have enough problems?

Recognizing that this is exhausting and stupid (it was trending on Twitter???? GUYS??) I'm putting this under a cut to not clog up people's dashes. I just feel like there really are solutions and people keep talking around each other and lobbing wild accusations. Come on- CP apologists? Pro-censorship? Let's take a breath. Apologies, per usual, I talked way too much.

First- let's get some perspective. Fanfiction is a hobby. That is all it is- it is not, at its core, more moral or less moral than crocheting. That isn't to say that you can't be a remarkably talented fic writer or that fic writers are never professional writers (though when professional writers are writing professionally, they are not writing fic. Therefore they are not engaging in the hobby of fic writing. They're engaged in the vocation of writing.).

Just like any other hobby, people who do it often get better at it and begin to hone their skills in much the same way that any other hobbyist does in any other skill. But at their core, the point of writing fanfiction is to have fun doing a creative activity with people who are interested in similar topics to you. It is not going to solve racism or cure wealth inequality, or usher in a new shining dawn for gender equity. It, because it is written by very normal people, will always reflect the real flaws and virtues of real and normal people. To suggest otherwise is self-aggrandizing and nonsensical. I'm glad people find joy and pleasure in writing fic (I am one of them!), but we have got to stop saying things that deify fic above other forms of art or writing. AO3 is basically a hobbyist forum and that is okay.

Now- onto my actual point: whatever happened to nuance?

"These freaks will do anything to defend child porn/racism." Okay- well, that is a pretty incendiary thing to say. What is actually being said? People who oppose bans are typically looking at the censorship on TikTok, Tumblr, Facebook's attempts at monitoring, and fanfiction.net and see nothing but colossal failures. So when people suggest potentially banning or deleting erotic works with minors, others who have never seen it done well and have only ever seen it backfire for basically every other tech company are understandably skeptical. Why would it work on Ao3 when it hasn't worked anywhere else? And if these people are still going to write it, except untagged, now we have an even bigger issue because you can't avoid it.

The typical solution for this is "okay, well, hire moderators or build an algorithm," which is expensive and will almost certainly lead to more backlash because they'd need to fundraise for even more money that people already resent having to do at all. Not to mention the backlash when they do/don't decide that something is harmful that other people might/might not. This is especially true of issues regarding racism- unless everyone they hire has a Ph.D. in the topic, I doubt taking the problems to a random committee will solve anything. And maybe I'm insane, but I REALLY do not want a computer taking charge of issues as sensitive as this. As a general rule, I do not want an archive to be making moral decisions about anything. As even more of an aside, I just refuse to describe a dead person as "unalive" in a fic because an algorithm went too far.

Okay- but does that mean we shouldn't do anything about those problems? Do I think the people who sincerely believe we need to fix things are "pro-censorship"? Of course not. There really are existing solutions that are common sense and broadly popular that would put the power in the hands of the readers as opposed to censoring the writers. Instead of focusing so hard on regressive policies to punish or try to eliminate the problem (which is pernicious enough that a simple ban wouldn't work anyway), why not focus on progressive policies that people agree on and can actually work to make people's lives better? People are capable, smart, and thoughtful- when given the tools they absolutely can manage their own online experience.

Author blocks: People should absolutely be allowed to block authors. This one is easy and obvious- it doesn't do much by way of protecting people before they see content but it does help protect themselves from ever seeing it again.

Saved excluded tags: Create a system where you can input certain tags that you always want blocked no matter which fandom you're looking on at the site. This one is another great way to put power in the hands of the reader.

Community fics: Allowing authors to select a group of people that they want to share their particular fic with. If you want to write your cannibal mermaid fic about Hamilton and you don't want to face backlash? Just set it to only be accessible to selected users.

For ideas that go a bit further*:

Stronger age restrictions: If the concern is that young people are being groomed, maybe a solution here could be to have members (I really can't remember how this works because I signed up so long ago) give their birth year. Then just automatically filter out any E or M rated fics for people under 18, similar to how they filter out member-specific fics.

Member-specific fics: On a related note, an option could be to have fics that include an "underage" tag and are E/M are automatically member-restricted.

*Caveat: these two face a similar unintended consequence that would restrict minors from interacting with erotic content at all. Now, for little kids that is fine but for a 16 year old... I mean, there really are teenagers who write porn and there really are young people who are going through puberty and... well. This restriction would obviously be a burden specific to them, but would protect them. Also- they can just lie, lol.

Anyway- as with all policies and all problems, you are always going to deal with unintended consequences of any new policy you put out but you have to be willing to accept that and at least think them through. It drives me CRAZY when people act like we either decide to do an ineffectual ban or we do nothing at all. I am begging you to be at least willing to LOOK for middle ground.

But at the end of the day, remember: This is a HOBBY. It really is not that deep. There are about 5 million users, and even if you say that the real number is closer to 8 million that is still .1% of the global population. I am BEGGING you guys to stop calling each other CP apologists and freaks and pathetic losers and pro-censorship weirdos and purity culture losers. There IS a real problem here and everyone is a little bit right. Just, like, chill a little.

[thepeachgreentea]

this got Real Long Real Quick...

I wanna know more about Luka's soul song gift - like how much do emotions or personality play into it? ((I’m going with a lot)) Does it only work in person?? Or can he get like snippets from videos or vibes from pictures? Like it would make sense if it was only in person...... But where's the fun I'm that? Realistically it wouldn't be as strong as in person but I could see him getting some stuff. Pictures it probably wouldn't be a lot, or even much of anything, unless the soul song really didn't match the picture...

Which means Luka is one of the first people to realize something is Up with Adrien (and the Agrestes in general)

The ads around the city never felt right, never matched up with the snippets/vibes he was able to get - unless Adrien was supposed to be sad or melancholy. Which is... yikes...

Then the Adrien The Fragrance commercial happens. And that's an additional big Fucking Yikes

Like I can only imagine that Adrien isn't particularly big on modelling in general from what we've seen (with the Marinette-exception) so the filming of that could have only been Worse than normal. How many times did it take to get the emotions at the ‘right’ level? How long did it take to get the angles and all the action done?

Anyway: after the first time Luka literally cannot stomach watching it or even listening to it because it is so Wrong. The soul song snippets from the video are longer and more intense and it is just so discordant that Luka can't deal

Adrien is most certainly NOT feeling carefree. Or radiant. Or remotely dreamy. He's goddamn exhausted, frustrated, resigned, depressed, sweaty, anxious, awkward, stressed. It is a whole stew of (teen) angst offset with that upbeat music and the bright blue sky & all that w h i t e and the jumping for joy

It is such a strong dichotomy Luka has a visceral reaction every time and has to either leave the room or mute it and look away,

All of that means that after he meets Adrien in person, and gets to hear his soul song in a couple different situations and can see his emotions matching internally and externally he basically tells him they will always have space for him on the Liberty. (Also the first time he saw the LB + CN movie and heard Adrien's voice acting he only picked up some nerves - easily attributed to a new situation rather than a secret identity - but he was clearly enjoying himself even if it was a terrible script)

Therefore, Luka doesn't have particularly good feelings towards Gabriel, even before seeing any videos of him.

Style Queen was a Time. He was happy for Adrien but the bits he was getting from Gabriel were so rigid and tight... And rather selfish to boot. Which was weird given the situation

He has to try very very hard to not sneer or snarl at the tablet he first "meets" him on - probably at a Kitty Section practice or concert or at some class + family event.

I can also v easily picture him meeting him in person and being super uncomfortable at the sheer amount of manipulation and self-aggrandizing, selfishness, etc that rolls off of Gabriel, basically choking out his soul song. Either Lula barely refrains from punching Gabriel and manages to shake his hand but then desperately needs to clean his hands. Orrrr he does punch him and then basically coats his hands in sanitizer (either way he is Nino’s absolute favorite person for this alone)

Also, this would not be the first time Luka has figured out an abusive situation. It has happened with both his own and Juleka's friends & classmates. He is v much a protective older brother at heart

And because I damn well can have some Lila salt, some of which has been touched on before, unlike with Gabriel:

He had heard about her from Juleka and Kitty Section and was a bit confused about it but it wasn't until Rose was over and the girls were telling him about some of Lila's stories that he saw a picture of her.

And that was The Strongest he had ever reacted to a picture before: instant chills up his spine and an actual hiss escaped him

All 3 of them are shocked. Luka then has to explain that reaction as best as he can. Which is hard when you aren't great at words and while the soul song fragments are rather clear he would never make his guitar suffer trying to recreate them.

He manages tho and Julerose are at least wary of her afterwards. They start observing her more and a lot of her behavior and the way she talks can be very off-putting. They start noticing some of the digs that she makes at others, that she contradicts herself 5 different ways, and how she is constantly bringing the attention back to herself.

During all this they start noticing how both Marinette and Adrien react to her and it is Not Good. Mari gets defensive and will often try to bring up those contradictions that they started noticing. But jealousy is only a minor factor, at most. In certain situations it is possible that it could be involved... except those only happen when Adrien is looking very uncomfortable and Marinette notices or they make eye contact and then Marinette creates an opportunity for him to escape

Which is something that no one else is noticing which is really terrible and unhealthy...

Around this time is when Ivan has started to figure out something is up. and then he definitely knows when Julerose show Luka a video at a private band practice.

Because video and in person interactions make the BadBadBAD feelings worse and Ivan, while he often struggles with understanding & expressing emotions, has definitely noticed Lila - even though she is not actually there - causes a lot of stress and anxiety to Luka and he has gotten really good at methods of lessening those.

So, Luka sees the video with/of Lila and has an even stronger reaction than the picture before. His eyes get huge, and his face pales (gets slightly sickly?), and he hisses even stronger than the first time

He refuses to try to play her soul song because something like that is nearly impossible to recreate but also doesn’t need to be put out into the world but does his best to try and describe it

Possible: her soul song feels like it is drowning in toxic sludge - there is just so much negativeness that it is barely intelligible. It is being smothered by self-satisfaction and importance, narcissism, aggressive manipulation, pettiness, vile maliciousness, etc

In person interactions are awful. Luka avoids physical interaction as much as possible. Even more than he would with Gabriel, and he wants as little to do with that man as possible, ideally none. But Lila is worse...

There have been multiple times that he has had to step out/away to be able to get some fresh air and breathe again. At least once where he has been or almost has been sick - usually following a hug that he did not consent to or something similar

Ivan is definitely in the fold now, and Julerose share what they have noticed from taking their step back. He realizes he has noticed a lot of those same things but he wasn’t analyzing them and didn’t have the same context for them at the time that Luka, Juleka, and Rose did. But afterwards he picks up on them more clearly, and some other things they hadn’t - benefits of being one of the quiet kids (and a lesser target of Lila’s focus). He is part of the driving force in bringing Marinette and Adrien in first before going to others.

Marinette breaks down because more people believe her?? and support her and Adrien? it is a huge relief of tension. And she didn’t even have to convince them herself!! what a concept... but it is definitely a safe space for her and she can share her own experiences and that certainly is nice

they had all suspected Something was Up but weren’t expecting that so there are lots of hugs and tears and support and mutters of payback 

Adrien eventually cries because Kitty Section + Marinette give him a TedTalk about consent and personal autonomy. And now he has so many people (!!!) telling him he can say no and make his own choices, mistakes, and decisions. (Marinette’s part is largely “I told you so / do you believe us now?” because the Dupain-Chengs have probably already given this same talk as a family but that is just A family’s opinion, others probably think differently) And this is the first time he really truly believes it and... oooof there are a lot of emotions and interactions to unpack and reconsider

but now he knows he really needs to and that he can and should which is new, but so is having an actual support system...

Thus, Luka is ready to fight a bitch the first time he sees Lila and Adrien interacting. There is so much clinging and touching, and Adrien is panicking and no one is doing anything or is being waved off. And (unfortunately) this is one of the things that causes some people to start questioning things about Lila. Because most of them know of Luka as a really chill, laid-back guy who is open and accepting of people. and besides he has no reason to be jealous (((👀👀👀👀 too much to think about and unpack t h e r e))) so why would he be upset about Lila leaning on Adrien and holding his arm??

So, the questioning of Lila and what she says spreads out from Kitty Section and Adrinette to the rest of the class. They take a different approach. They slowly, carefully approach their classmates and take them aside when possible to talk about the situation

This allows them to be able to get their undivided attention and lay out what they have found out in a logical and cohesive manner, rather than attempting something rash or in the heat of the moment. Marinette grumbled about this method initially but when there were actual results and the burden was shared it was a huge relief for her.

In fact, others start coming to them about Lila.

because of the work of Kitty Section and Adrinette Lila’s audience has been steadily decreasing and it is getting easier to notice things. With a smaller audience the focus doesn’t get split as much and there are less questions for her to build off of or go on tangents from and the contradictions start standing out more, or she’s making more to try and keep them around her by holding their interest with different details

Plus, the comments about those outside Her Circle are getting meaner and more frequent. Usually they are still sneaky or underhanded but nowhere near as subtle as they were originally (were they ever, really?) and it is raising suspicions and hackles.

Eventually, Lila is left without an audience because the class has all been brought out of the cloud of manipulation and are working on trust and listening to each other more/better. and on how to not disregard other’s feelings (which is esp important with the high butterfly population in Paris, but is a v good life lesson in general). they are young and will make mistakes and will have to learn from them. but trials, growth, and change are all part of life so it is good for them.

But it essentially all stems from Luka and his ability to hear soul songs and reacting to those songs, or the lack thereof when they are being choked by evil intentions/emotions/actions/what have you

[ogradyfilm]

Hades: The Labor of Sisyphus

[The following essay contains MAJOR SPOILERS; YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!]

Even if you’re a complete newcomer to the wild world of Greek mythology, pop-cultural osmosis has probably made you at least vaguely familiar with the basic premise of the tale of Sisyphus. According to the experts at Wikipedia:

[Sisyphus] was punished for his self-aggrandizing craftiness and deceitfulness by being forced to roll an immense boulder up a hill only for it to roll down every time it neared the top, repeating this action for eternity[…]The maddening nature of the punishment was reserved for Sisyphus due to his hubristic belief that his cleverness surpassed that of Zeus himself. Hades accordingly displayed his own cleverness by enchanting the boulder into rolling away from Sisyphus before he reached the top, which ended up consigning Sisyphus to an eternity of useless efforts and unending frustration.

Hades, the latest genre-blending masterpiece from developer Supergiant Games, revolves around the same themes of perseverance and futility (indeed, the narrative parallels are only reinforced by the fact that Sisyphus himself appears in a minor supporting role). The player controls Zagreus—the estranged son of Lord Hades—as he desperately tries to fight his way out of the Underworld, navigating an ever-shifting labyrinth of booby-trapped rooms and battling innumerable legions of restless spirits and ravenous monsters. Inevitably, though, every escape attempt ends in failure; whether the culprit is a skeletal Hydra, a snarling gorgon, or a lowly venomous rodent, Zagreus is ultimately slain. Because he is both technically immortal and a native denizen of the afterlife, however, the young prince cannot truly “die”; instead, he is teleported back to his father’s court, where he can interact with various secondary characters (including Cerberus, Achilles, and the severed head of Medusa) and upgrade his weapons and abilities in preparation for his next “run.”

This is where Hades differs from the tragedy of Sisyphus: defeat is not a punishment, but rather an opportunity for growth. Each death allows you to progress the plot, level up your attributes, and improve your skills. Eventually, the Fates reward Zagreus’ persistence; he overcomes every obstacle, reaches the surface, and witnesses his first sunrise…

…before promptly dropping dead of “natural causes.” Unfortunately for our hero, those born in the Underworld cannot survive for long beyond its borders. Still, the demigod refuses to let such a trivial setback thwart his efforts; no matter what destiny decrees, he will taste freedom. The gameplay further enriches this overarching conflict. The “rogue-lite” framework, which is built upon a foundation of randomization and repetition, inherently immerses the player in the action; our desires and experiences become inextricably intertwined with the protagonist’s.

And it is this harmony between story and mechanics that makes Hades the best game of 2020—and, quite possibly, among the greatest ever created.

[queermediastudies]

The Queering of Latin Novelas

Group #2

Antonio Castaneda, Alexandrea Concepcion, & Namuun Jargalsaikhan

Latin American telenovelas tend to hyper-feminize gay men as well as create a sense of machismo in characters, to create the illusion that being gay means identifying as half a man or an aggressive man to hide their own sexuality. The concept of self rejection is the way in which they make characters exhibit more masculine associated traits, which can cause them to vent and lash out on other characters to make sure they aren’t seen as gay. These two portrayals have the tendency to dictate the portrayals in novelas and latin film. These images all reference characters in novelas that fit these characteristics as well as express characters that could have negative influences on a younger viewer when considering the idea of coming out. On top of that, hyper feminization of gay Latin characters is taken to the max, creating a very inaccurate portrayal of the queer community. In this project, we argue that though we see a larger representation of gay characters in Telenovelas, there’s a prominent pattern of hyper feminization of these gay Latin characters that is harmful because it reinforces false depictions and negative stereotypes.

(Rosario "Ro" Flores plays as the gay assistant and faithful consultant of Teresa, he is available to her twenty-four hours of the day in the Telenovela named Marido en Alquiler. He’s very sassy, always wears bright colors, and his behavior is considered dramatic.) (Image Retrieved from Google)

Ro even fits the typical occupation that’s been assigned to so many gay characters within telenovelas—on top of being the gay assistant, he serves as Theresa’s hairdresser. Tate argues, that since the debut of Mexican telenovelas in the mid-twentieth century, the presence of gay male characters for the most part has been limited to the inclusion of effete men who are typically the hair stylists, designers, and/or confidants of the female protagonists or antagonists.” Ro reinforces the ideological idea of hyper feminization of Latin American gay characters in queer television—specifically the “overly glamourized” gay man. In reality, one could easily argue that he projects his image onto his superficially interesting boss.

(Scene from an episode where Rubi and Loreto talk about manipulating one of the other characters, Maribel. Loreto can be seen sitting in a more poised position than Rubi. He always carries a lap chihuahua with him, which Rubi comments on, in this scene. Soon after, Loreto sashays across the room, as he makes his dramatic exit.) (Image Retrieved from Google)

Loreto from the telenovela named Rubi also assumes the position of the highly effeminate trusty consultant to the female protagonist, as well as being a high culture fashion designer. He sashays as he walks, he wears a pink handkerchief around his neck, and producers went as far as to incorporate a hand/lap dog who is always in Loreto’s arms. He follows that “gossipy and colorful best friend” theme. Telenovelas often times depict gay men in stereotypical roles which speaks to gender ideologies specifically touching on how the media represents gay Latin character’s attitudes on their place in society. Gay minorities are typically not shown in complex or diverse ways in mainstream media, as touched on by Ciszek. “Many LGBT characters in telenovelas are “relegated to the sidelines,” sending a message to audiences that can lead to marginalizing and trivializing sexual and gender minorities” (Stokes et al., 2016, p. 7), which has evolved into a worrisome trend in Telenovelas.

(In his overly flamboyant outfit, Luigi squats down as if he is trying to capture a precious moment. In this scene he is admiring the beauty of one of his fellow cast-mates while dramatically gazing across the room. After this part of the telenovela, another character mocks Luigi, is saying he’s dramatic.) (Image Retrieved from Google)

Gender identity in Mexico has originally been perceived as a strict binary. Which is why female performance is only applicable to women and gay men. Performance of masculine behavior is the privileged region of hetero-men. This binary has a specific roles in the masculinity and the way men perform manliness in Mexico. Telenovelas highlight the LGBT community in a stereotypical light. This relates to gender theory in that the character Luigi from the telenovela named La Fea Mas Bella, plays to the stereotypical gay man in being the “dolled” up, gay best friend, mostly looked at as an accessory. Luigi plays to the over dramatically constructed role where he is considered but another one of the girls.

(Two characters share a kiss, while children in the back watch in confusion. A few seconds later the father of the children slams the door close to shield his children from witnessing this “non normal” kiss between his two neighbors.) (Image Retrieved from Google)

In the Brazilian telenovela "Que Pobres Tan Ricos" in 2014, the network Univision prevented for the program to air, due to a gay kiss that was captured in a scene. Three years later, in November 15th of 2017, the same network Univision Mexico ran the first gay kiss through the show "Papá A Toda Madre". This was vital to the breakthrough of these characters because it emulated the relationship of two gay characters in a prime-time television for the first time. Although, corporations and media are being more inclusive, they are still marginalizing and misrepresenting LGBT community to the highest degree. They’re perceived as sissy, girlie, and sassy. This program depicts gay men in a light that further stigmatizes gay men. There is a line in the telenovela, which asks, “¿Quien es la esposa?” (“Who is the wife?”) which goes to show, that there isn’t the same respect for a queer relationship, queer space, overall queerness. Although there is a representation, there is still a stereotypical toxic representation of queer relationship, queer space and queerness overall.

(All gather in celebration of Jean and Estefano’s wedding. All of the people in attendance of this wedding admire the couple, and some even shed tears of joy for the couple. Soon after this, we witness some intimate moments when the couple shares a kiss.) (Image Retrieved from Google)

This is the first gay marriage  in a novela and captivates two great examples of the two different types of gay, one can choose to be. The characters In Amores Verdaderos both hold different positions, Jean plays a simple chef, whereas Estefano takes on the image of a masculine guy that aside from his interactions with Jean, shows no feminine gestures. Jean is all over the place and exaggerates all of his emotions and vents/speaks in a way that makes him sound vulnerable. He is but a joke that other characters play off of and can't take seriously making him an accessory to disrespect and use as needed.

(Saddened because he’s been ridiculed, Alejandro grabs his belonging and stares back with tears in his eyes because of how he’s been bullied for exhibiting girl like characteristics. He’s called a girl because he pays lots of attention to his appearance. He leaves the room and reflects on how he’s rejected after coming out.) (Image Retrieved from Google)

The character Alejandro from Relaciones Peligrosas takes time to find himself and struggles with self acceptance. When he finally has his coming out moment, he becomes that stereotypical image of a gay man. He spends a lot of time being almost an accessory for his best friend and seeks no true relationship. He experiences feelings for a character and is rejected for being flamboyant and out. Other guys acknowledge him as a girl because of how he dresses and cares so much about his appearance. “Presents acceptance by  family and friends as the most crucial issues,” this quote captivates how gay characters fall into a role where they are meant to seek the approval of those around them and that might be adjusting who they were to what people expect (Dow, pg.11).

These ideas surrounding “machismo” have been around for so long, and is  described as, “Machismo is complex and multifaceted and too often, in Anglo-American interpretations, reduced to self-aggrandizing male bravado that flirts with physical harm to be sexual, like some rutting for the rights to pass on genes”(Coronado). This quote brings on the discussion on how in Latin American culture the acts of being a man are dominated by the hegemonic assumptions on gender. This could range from positions they hold to the role they play with in their environments and what form of position they take around other members of the same sex.

(Diego is seen posing next to Gabriella. Gabriella is the girl who Diego has been having a fake relationship with, in attempts to hide his sexuality.) (Image Retrieved from Google)

When looking at the character Diego in the telenovela named Relaciones Peligrosas, one might notice that he rejects  his sexuality and  chooses to play the role of a straight man. He is aggressive and can be identified as a bully. He also hopes to follow in his father’s footsteps, in being a doctor. He takes on this persona where he ignores his partner and focuses on work and really any other activity where he is able to look more masculine, such as drinking games and teasing amongst him and his friends. Yet when alone with another gay character he tends to act a little more human.

(In this scene we see Alejandro a few seconds away from taking pills to cope with how much he’s been bullied about his sexuality. Diego arrives and Alejandro confronts Diego about his indecent actions in concluding that he will not let others especially not Diego, take his power away from him, and kill him by bullying.) (Video Retrieved from Youtube)

After exploring the telenovelas presented, it’s evident that there is a worrisome trend that is very present within Mexican telenovelas. Telenovelas do an amazing job representing love, drama, and comedy, however they continue to misrepresent the queer community—specifically gay Latin men. Though queer representation has increased in Telenovelas, there’s still a prominent pattern of hyper feminization of these gay Latin characters that is harmful because it reinforces false depictions and negative stereotypes. Telenovelas seem to continuously hyper-feminize these characters. Telenovelas also create a sense of machismo in characters which overshadows obstacles, like coming out. Ultimately these two things marginalize and trivialize sexual and gender minorities, sending the wrong message to audiences through Mexico’s largest mainstream media platform, telenovelas.

References

Ciszek, E.L. (2017). Todo Mejora en el Ambiente. Journal of Communication Inquiry 41:4,pages 313-330. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0196859917712980

Coronado, J. D. (2015). machismo Oxford University Press.doi:10.1093/obo/9780199913701.016.0106

Dow, B.  (2001) Ellen, Television, and the Politics of Gay and Lesbian Visibility, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 18:2, 123-140, DOI:10.1080/07393180128077

Rosario "Ro" Flores. (2013, May 23). Retrieved October 15, 2018, from https://www.telemundo.com/series-y-novelas/2013/07/03/rosario-ro-flores

Roth, D. S. (2018, March 21). This is how Spanish-language TV portrays LGBTQ characters, and it's worrisome. Retrieved from https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/gay-south-florida/article206267474.html

Stokes, Z., Trasandes, M., & Quezada, J. (2016). Nearly invisible: LGBTQ representations onSpanish-language television in the United States. GLAAD. Retrieved from http://www.glaad.org/nearly-invisible-casi-invisibles.

Tate, J. (2013). Redefining Mexican masculinity in twenty-first century telenovelas. Hispanic

[reading-writing-revolution]

20 Things Gulity People Do That Trump Does Daily

As a former criminal defense attorney, I've sat in rooms candidly discussing crime with thousands of criminals. I know what "consciousness of guilt" looks like. Trump exhibits it daily.

#1 DEFLECT BLAME. Criminals seek others who may have conducted themselves poorly in order to unload or distribute blame rightly assigned to them. Trump does this with ex-aides like Manafort, Flynn, and Papadopoulos, who he presents as little known by him and/or having gone rogue.

#2 ALLEGE A CONSPIRACY. Criminals will claim a conspiracy as the cause of their problems. The most common conspiracy alleged is between witnesses or members of law enforcement. Trump repeatedly alleges that government officials and law enforcement officers conspired against him.

#3 COMPLAIN ABOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT. Criminals want to talk about the investigation itself, rather than what and who the investigation is investigating. Trump obsessively complains about aspects of the investigation against him that don't actually change the underlying evidence.

#4 TAMPER WITH WITNESSES. Criminals will often seek contact with known witnesses either to convince them not to testify, to change their story, to remain loyal to the defendant, or to intimidate them. Trump did this with Flynn, Yates, Comey, McCabe, Sessions, his son, and others.

#5 DISTRACT ATTENTION FROM THEIR ACTIONS. Criminals eagerly discuss subjects beyond their pending case when doing so distracts from their criminal liability. Trump's war on "fake news" and unhinged tweetstorms distract attention from an investigation threatening to take him down.

#6 REFUSE TO ANSWER VALID QUESTIONS. Criminals refuse to discuss, sometimes even with a lawyer, inculpatory facts, whether things they said, decisions they made, or actions they took. Trump has successfully evaded answering even the most basic questions on what he knew and when.

#7 EXHIBIT FALSE CONFIDENCE. Criminals often assure allies and defenders that there's nothing to be found against them and they'll shortly be exonerated, even when nothing in the facts supports this view. Trump's wild claims that he'll soon be exonerated fall into this category.

#8 USE "EVEN IF" ARGUMENTS. Criminals often float self-aggrandizing hypotheticals in the form of bet-hedging: "Even if I did X, it wouldn't be illegal, or I would've been justified..." Trump does this most flagrantly when discussing whether he told Flynn to negotiate with Russia.

#9 PLAY DUMB. Criminals will claim to have no knowledge of things they obviously would have known about. Trump claims to have known absolutely nothing any of his aides (even his own sons) were doing with the Russians, a claim that strains credulity well past the breaking point.

#10 EXHIBIT UNUSUAL AGITATION. Criminals exhibit anger in response to warranted criminal accusations; in my own experience, innocent people react to false accusations with signs of confusion, fear, and depression. Trump has responded to Mueller with rage and false self-assurance.

#11 LEVELING NEW ACCUSATIONS OF IDENTICAL CONDUCT. Criminals accused of, say, assault will often level new claims (even unrelated ones) that someone else is guilty of assault. Trump regularly accuses people of the lying, cover-ups, and treasonous conduct he stands accused of now.

#12 OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. Criminals will try to slow the investigation against them, including by refusing to speak or delaying speaking to investigators. Trump not only won't speak to investigators, he's tried to fire, get reassigned, or force into retirement those investigators.

#13 AVOID GIVING EVIDENCE UNDER OATH. Criminals are smart enough to know that they must never be placed under oath on the subject of their crimes. Trump, despite saying in the Rose Garden that he'd speak to Mueller under oath, has thus far refused to make good on that assurance.

#14 DENY SIMILAR PAST CONDUCT. Even though criminal defense attorneys have access to clients' criminal records, criminals often attempt to downplay or deny their criminal pasts. Trump has denied provable and known frauds, perjuries, and clandestine foreign contacts from his past.

#15 TELL UNNECESSARY, GRANDIOSE LIES. Criminals lie out of fear; they tell grandiose lies out of a false belief they can orchestrate their exoneration. Trump's lies about how he conducted himself at the Ritz Moscow in 2013 (grandiose and quickly disproven) are an example of this.

#16 DRAW OTHERS INTO THEIR COVER-UP. Criminals are so focused on their own survival that they needlessly draw innocents into their schemes for self-salvation. Trump uses others (including attorneys, spokespeople, aides, and family members) to spread lies about his Russian ties.

#17 TRUST ONLY FAMILY. Criminals, especially those who've participated in a conspiracy, necessarily operate within a small circle of trust. Trump has surrounded his business dealings with family members and attorneys to make it unlikely or impossible that anyone will rat him out.

#18 PLAY WITH LANGUAGE. Criminals know statutes are well-defined, so they get cute with language to seek out wiggle room in their criminal liability. Trump uses word games, misquotations, false definitions, and linguistic misdirection to undercut precise legal terms and concepts.

#19 SEEK DODGY ALLIES AND PARALLEL INVESTIGATIONS. Criminals recruit dodgy witnesses or pursue suspect lines of inquiry to evade probes whose just administration they know will catch them. Trump uses House allies, Fox News, and dodgy pals to build a wall of allies around himself.

#20 UNDERSCORE SUPPORTERS' AFFECTION. Criminals hope that, if they don't have the facts on their side, they can at least get others to say they're a good person. Trump pumps up supporters' adulation, praise, and encouragement at every turn to transform popularity into innocence.

(BONUS) DENY KNOWN ASSOCIATIONS. Criminals deny knowing people they believe they can credibly deny knowing, if knowing them would be inculpatory. Trump has done this with Papadopoulos, Sater, Page and many others who he definitely knows but who he fears Mueller has linked to him.

(NOTE) The above applies only to the 5% of arrested individuals who a) did exactly what they were accused of, and b) refuse to admit what they did and then seek a just punishment via plea. Trump is in the tiny minority of criminals who won't take responsibility for their actions.

(THANKS) Many thanks to the excellent David Swerdlick of The Washington Post, who encouraged me to flesh out and publish this analysis, and who saw an early draft of it. And thanks to the *many* criminal defense attorneys I spoke with over the months while preparing this summary.

[wileymarch]

George Washington_Coward or Revolutionary Pacifist?

With the current political climate, Trump's blatant violation of law and The United States Constitution, I felt it important to take a look at the past, to answer for myself the question:  Have all of our political leaders in effect been corrupt, dismissed so casually human rights and law?  Starting from the beginning, we'll take a look in the coming days at each president, from George Washington to Trump, a brief history of 45 presidents and the ways they've benefited or harmed our nation. George Washington was not initially the successful military general history would have us believe.  In fact, more often he was an overwhelming failure, defeated twice by the French, a third time his biggest success was in his ability to turn tail and run.  Washington lost almost every battle he ever fought, yet somehow, he had the charisma to hold his troops together, even when they were watching their comrades fall.  The win he achieved against the British could be seen as a fluke.  So how, you might wonder, did he become the first leader of the free world?  He wasn't. That's correct.  Technically, George Washington was not the first president of the United States.  Let that sink in a moment, your history teacher lied to you!  Okay, for many of us knowing that history is predominately lies and embellishments to make a prettier version of the truth and create a sense of indoctrinated patriotism is not surprising.  In fact, many of us have learned to take it in stride and educate ourselves instead of wholesale believing what we're told. There were actually 14 presidents before Washington, actually presidents of the Continental Congress.  We'll evaluate them in the next post.  Washington is credited with laying the foundation of our country.  In truth, it was his fourteen predecessors that built the groundwork for our country, declaring our independence from the British Crown, establishing Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government to create a checks and balances system, and prevent us from becoming a dictatorship. Washington suffered with low self-esteem and a nearly unbearable anxiety over becoming president of the United States.  I'm sure the sixty-nine members of the Electoral College saw this as a benefit to themselves and their own designs on power.  Indeed, Washington likened his election to presidency as a "death sentence". Trump is not alone in being venerated as a "savior".  Washington's own cabinet singled him out as appointed by "Divine Providence"  to be the "savior".   One might wonder how a cowardly general became the first "American Messiah" and was referred to as "Your Excellency" as opposed to Mr. President.  The answer, Propaganda, the same as today. Many of the men involved in Washington's election as president were worried that their puppet would back out, turn tail and run once again.  Even Washington's own wife Martha did not believe her husband fit for the duties of presidency. Washington was treated on his journey from his home to New York as if he were being coronated.  He was a "Federalist", later to be known as the first Republican and those who pushed him into presidency told him, "you are now king, under a different name."

Newspapers such as the Federal Gazette, owned by a leader of the Federalist Party John Fenno, touted Washington's kingly procession, labeling him the unitor of our country, "savior" of our country and a "great patriot".  Washington however, did not initially enjoy all the ceremony and pageantry, at one point even sneaking out of town ahead of his travelling party to avoid it.  It all seemed to have been a bit too arranged and over the top that as he rode over the bridge into Trenton, he was greeted with women and young girls draped in white gowns throwing flower petals at the feet of his horses as they rode through, proclaiming him the defender of women.  Shocking, seeing as how the battle at Trenton had been a very small one but history would have us all believe Washington had led his forces against insurmountable odds and a vast enemy, neither of which were true.  And many of the Hessian troops stationed at Trenton escaped Washington's attack.  

The association with Fenno is of note all throughout the early years of the United States because Alexander Hamilton and John Adams both bailed Fenno out of bankruptcy in exchange for his loyalty in printing whatever Adams and Hamilton saw fit.  Hamilton himself frequently wrote under pseudonyms to influence public opinion.  Thomas Jefferson, so enraged by the lies spread by the Federal Gazette set up his own papers the Aurora, edited by Benjamin F. Bache and the National Gazette, edited by Phillip Freneau.  

Washington, upon adoration of lovely women, finally gave in to all the pomp and pageantry bestowed in his "honor" when he arrived at his new home, Cherry Street in Manhattan, New York.  He was the first president to give an inauguration speech and spent much of it defending himself, claiming he hadn't done it to gain wealth or power.  This would immediately lead one to believe that was precisely why he'd become a puppet to these men, especially since much of his personal wealth was actually that of his wife, Martha from her first marriage.  Washington himself was bankrupt.  

James Madison attempted to keep the speech out of public circulation. Because of George Washington being a soft-spoken man, the crowd hadn't heard his actual words anyway giving Madison the opportunity to lie about what Washington had said and felt.  Madison then took it upon himself to completely rewrite Washington's speech for print so that no one would know the truth, which is the one most history books defer to.  Madison in turn wrote the response from Congress and the return response from Washington, which shows, Washington's presidency was a well-planned and well-executed means of rallying people to do the bidding of wealthy, power hungry white men by the intentional manipulation of people's perception.   The buttons on the brown suit from Washington's inauguration were engraved with eagles, establishing Washington as a down-to-earth patriot and was made by Jeremiah Wadsworth's Woolen Manufactory.  Wadsworth would later become a congressman.  

The "Holy Bible" only became a part of the inauguration proceedings at the last moment when it was decided by Congressional committee that this would indeed make Washington a "man of the average people".  Having no bible anywhere, a mad scramble resulted in a Masonic lodge providing one, which is delightfully amusing in hindsight.  The church service after the inauguration was held at St. Paul's Episcopal Church, still standing today.  

In these early years is where the extreme partisan battle between Democrats and Republicans was born.  So as you can understand, propaganda, puppeteering, money and aggrandization have all been a part of the political landscape in the United States since its inception.  

While much of this post points out George Washington's flaws, it is important to note, though many white people saw slavery as an accepted institution, Washington was not among them. Though a slave owner himself, he came to see the practice of "owning" other human beings as something reprehensible and amoral, and attempted to prevent the importation of any more slaves into the United States.  It was his full intention to free all enslaved people in the United States and he worked tirelessly toward this goal.  

In the case of his military career, Washington hated violence, he hated fighting and killing.  Yet, when his men were in the worst of circumstances, he stood by them, fed them, clothed them, cared for the sick and wounded, spending his own money and resources to take care of them.  Washington often tried to remain neutral in matters of foreign politics, wishing instead to maintain peace and economic growth.  His death by epiglottitis and hypovolemic shock (rapid blood loss) is interesting, considering he remained a very vocal opponent to slavery, and the egregious treatment of indigenous peoples after his retirement from office.  However, his spoiled and tempestuous wife's notorious temperament and pro-slavery beliefs seemed to derail Washington's attempts to perpetuate a gradual ending to the practice of enslavement and theft of native land until the day he died.  

The many men who played a part in George Washington's election were schemers, thieves and conmen.  Gathering from his initial speech, Washington was somewhat aware of this and felt trapped by it.  In coming posts, we'll take a look at how these untrustworthy, greedy men used Washington as a pawn to control the American people and unite minorities to be duped into frauds like the National Bank, established by Alexander Hamilton, who was the direct cause of America's first financial crisis and the beginning of national debt.

Washington was a soft-spoken, kind and humble man who truly cared for the troops and the people he led, often willingly suffering immense hardships right alongside them.  George Washington was "chosen" by malicious and ambitious men because people trusted his simple nature.  He was honest, and in many respects, he was the "every man" of the time.  They knew people would unite behind him and this would further their own agendas.  His own wife had feared when he left to take the oath of presidency that she might never see him alive again.  He lived two years after he left office only to be killed at the hands of his physician.  As George Washington was an incredibly healthy and vibrant man, even for the time given his age, a conspiracy theorist might wonder if his death was indeed a cleverly disguised assassination or a case of medical malpractice as our high school history books suggested. Sources:  Smithsonian        National Park Service        Mount Vernon                History.com

[cafezimmermann]

Between the Lines

Among the things that I brought back with me to Europe from my last trip to the States was a recording of Mozart's Requiem, performed by the Academy of Ancient Music under the direction of Christopher Hogwood. Back in 1983, Hogwood decided to abandon the standard practice of using Franz Xaver Süssmayr's attempt to complete the unfinished score, turning instead to C.R.F. Maunder, a British mathematician and musicologist, to approach the task anew. My father probably didn't notice, or even knew that there was a difference; he was merely interested in Hogwood's use of period instruments ("the whinnies," as he called them). My dad liked the recording so much that he bought a cassette for the car, which was standard listening whenever he drove.

Ironically, Hogwood's version came out at the same time Miloš Forman's film adaptation of the Peter Scaffer’s play Amadeus was released. Back then, as a young violinist who was starting to devour classical music right and left, I was less interested in the historical accuracy of the film than by the fact that, musically, there was something "oddly different" in the scene where Mozart's body is carted off to a pauper's grave. The music didn't match what my inner ear expected to hear:

"That's not right," I thought to myself. But, stupid as I am, I chalked it up to Hollywood, believing that some poor schmuck had been assigned to think up of a melodramatic Salieri version that would fill up the time.

That poor schmuck, I later realized, was none other than Franz Xaver Süssmayr. And maybe it's just my upbringing, but each time I come to this point in a performance of Mozart's Requiem, I bristle within, feeling an urge to "turn left at bar eight" and start playing the Hogwood (Maunder) version:

But that would leave me quite alone on the stage, I fear. Still, I'm not all that much of a fan of Süssmayr's attempt to complete the work, and I never quite understood the standard argument that "his version simply fits the historical context." Maunder, in the booklet text to the Hogwood version, goes to great lengths to explain how fate fell into the lap of Süssmayr, who, by chance, happened to visit Mozart a few days before the composer died. In general, Mozart didn't think very highly of his pupil's compositional talent, as is expressed by Constanze several decades later:

"I can still hear Mozart saying, as he often did to Süssmayr, "There you stand like a duck in a thunderstorm again – aren't you ever going to understand?" (Constanze to Stadler, 31 May 1827)

And yet, when Süssmayr visited Mozart at his deathbed, it seems that:

"When he foresaw his death, he spoke to Mr. Süssmayr, and told him that if he were really to die without finishing it, he should repeat the first fugue for the final movement." (Constanze to Breitkopf and Härtel, 27 March 1799)

But after Mozart died, Constanze didn't turn to Süssmayr to complete the unfinished manuscript. Instead, she asked Joseph Eybler, of whom Mozart thought highly. A year earlier, Mozart had written the following testimonial for Eybler:

"I have found Mr. Joseph Eybler to be a worthy pupil of his famous master Albrechtsberger. He has a thorough knowledge of composition, is equally skilled in both the church and chamber styles, is fully experienced in the art of singeing, and is also a finished organist and pianist. In short, he is a young musician of whom it is to be regretted that so few are his equal." (30 May 1790)

It's a pity that Eybler abandoned his attempts; I would have been interested in hearing what the musician might have come up with. (Didn't he realize that there was a Hollywood film in the making?)

Constanze then turned to other composers before finally handing the task over to Süssmayr. The rest is history. Crucify me for my opinion, if you will, but I find Süssmayr's Lacrimosa dies illa self-pitying, self-aggrandizing, and downright clumsy at times. Which is pretty much how I find all of his efforts, unfortunately; it merely detracts from the beauty of the work. And yet, because we have grown so used to it, we don't know anymore what is original and what is not. It's similar to what Pinin Brambilla realized when she was assigned the task of restoring Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper in Milano – hidden underneath the retouching and repainting of other restorers lies a masterpiece that is entirely different from what we know:

"Six restorers had worked on the painting, and each one had changed the physiognomy, characteristics, and expressions of the apostles. The face of Christ was not that different. He had lost some of his humanity and beauty."

Maunder, when he set himself the task of restoring the Requiem, stripped the text bare of all the subsequent additions and adhered to the original as soberly as possible. Whether or not his solution for the Lacrimosa is brilliant is subjective, of course, but at least the addition doesn't get in the way of the opening eight bars and manages to land the music safely, which gets cut off right at the point it reaches cruising altitude. Maunder then picks up the missing Amen fragment and composes a wholly satisfactory solution (here, you can tell that the man is a mathematician –musically, it has qualities of Bach). He foregoes the Sanctus, Osanna and the Benedictus - some might find that annoying, but Maunder justifies this decision by explaining that "no adequate substitutes exist, so, like the C minor Mass K427, the work must remain a torso."

Regardless of how one feels to the one version or the other, one question that has always been nagging my mind is: "Just what did Mozart write, and what would it sound like if the Requiem were played 'raw'? Would it be possible to gain insight into what Mozart might have wanted?

I think so, and fortunately, there is a video of what it sounds like, performed by Peter Dijkstra, the choir of the Bavarian Symphony Radio Choir, and the Deutsche Kammerphilharmonie Bremen. It's worth listening to. I'll post it at the end of this essay, so first a few thoughts. This 'skeleton' version is quite revealing; you see that Mozart had a clear idea of what the music should sound like and made every attempt to write down all that is relevant – particularly the moments where it becomes brilliant (for example 24:48 in the video below). Strangely enough, there are times in the video that, if it weren't for the fact that one sees how the musicians are just sitting there, rather than playing, you would hardly notice that something is missing, apart from the fact that the music somehow sounds 'thin'. And at other times the inner ear seems to kick in and play the missing music. Obviously, Eybler, Süssmayr, and other composers who tried to complete the Requiem didn't have this luxury, but the unfinished version is compositionally so stable that deviating away from Mozart's original intent seems almost impossible, that is, if one is smart enough to "read between the lines."

[nyxstarr69-blog]

Death

Statue of Death, personified as a human skeleton dressed in a shroud and clutching a scythe, from the Cathedral of Trier in Trier, Germany

Death – particularly the death of humans – has commonly been considered a sad or unpleasant occasion.

Due to the affection for the being that has died and the termination of social and familial bonds with the deceased.

Other concerns include fear of death, necrophobia, anxiety, sorrow, grief, emotional pain, depression, sympathy, compassion, solitude, or saudade. Many cultures and religions have the idea of an afterlife, and also hold the idea of rewardor judgement and punishment for past sin.

Death anxiety is anxiety caused by thoughts of death. One source defines death anxiety as a "feeling of dread, apprehension or solicitude (anxiety) when one thinks of the process of dying, or ceasing to 'be'".[1] Also referred to as thanatophobia (fear of death), death anxiety is distinguished from necrophobia, which is a specific fear of dead or dying people and/or things (i.e., fear of others who are dead or dying, not of one's own death or dying).[2]

Additionally, there is anxiety caused by death-recent thought-content,[3] which might be classified within a clinical setting by a psychiatrist as morbid and/or abnormal, which for classification pre-necessitates a degree of anxiety which is persistent and interferes with everyday functioning.[4][5] Lower ego integrity, more physical problems and more psychological problems are predictive of higher levels of death anxiety in elderly people perceiving themselves close to death.

Death anxiety can cause extreme timidness with a person's attitude towards discussing organ donation and anything to do with death.[6]

Predatory death anxiety arises from the fear of being harmed.

Predatory death anxiety mobilizes an individual's adaptive resources and leads to a fight-or-flight response: active efforts to combat the danger or attempts to escape the threatening situation.[11]

Predation or predator death anxiety is a form that arises when an individual harms another, physically and/or mentally.

This form of death anxiety is often accompanied by unconscious guilt.

Existential death anxiety stems from the basic knowledge that human life must end.

Denial is effected through a wide range of mental mechanisms and physical actions, many of which go unrecognized.[15]

While denial can be adaptive in limited use, excessive use is more common and is emotionally costly.

Denial is the root of such diverse actions as breaking rules, violating frames and boundaries, manic celebrations, directing violence against others, attempting to gain extraordinary wealth and power—and more.

These pursuits are often activated by a death-related trauma, and while they may lead to constructive actions, more often than not, they lead to actions that are damaging to self and others.

Sigmund Freud hypothesized that people express a fear of death, called thanatophobia.

Also referred to as thanatophobia (fear of death), death anxiety is distinguished from necrophobia, which is a specific fear of dead or dying people and/or things (i.e., fear of others who are dead or dying, not of one's own death or dying).

He said he saw this as a disguise for a deeper source of concern.

Furthermore, that which one does fear cannot be death itself, because one has never died.

People who express death-related fears, actually are trying to deal with unresolved childhood conflicts that they cannot come to terms with or express emotion towards.

The name Thanatophobia is made from the Greek figure of death known as Thanatos.

In Greek mythology, Thanatos (/ˈθænətɒs/;[1]Greek: Θάνατος, pronounced in Ancient Greek: [tʰánatos] "Death",[2] from θνῄσκω thnēskō "to die, be dying"[3][4]) was the personification of death. He was a minor figure in Greek mythology, often referred to but rarely appearing in person.

Winged youth with a sword, probably Thanatos, personification of death. Detail of a sculptured marble column drum from the Temple of Artemis at Ephesos, ca. 325-300 BC. Found at the south-west corner of the temple.

His name is transliterated in Latin as Thanatus, but his equivalent in Roman mythology is Mors or Letum. Mors is sometimes erroneously identified with Orcus, whose Greek equivalent was Horkos, God of the Oath.

"Then (Apollon) gave him [Sarpedon] into the charge of swift messengers to carry him, of Hypnos and Thanatos, who are twin brothers, and these two presently laid him down within the rich countryside of broad Lycia." [6]

And there the children of dark Night have their dwellings, Sleep and Death, awful gods. The glowing Sun never looks upon them with his beams, neither as he goes up into heaven, nor as he comes down from heaven. And the former of them roams peacefully over the earth and the sea's broad back and is kindly to men; but the other has a heart of iron, and his spirit within him is pitiless as bronze: whomsoever of men he has once seized he holds fast: and he is hateful even to the deathless gods.[7]

But the other has a heart of iron

After his conviction, Richard Ramirez gained quite a fan club. In response to ... If I Were President, I'd: rule w/an iron heart and a rock hard dick.

Thanatos was thus regarded as merciless and indiscriminate, hated by – and hateful towards — mortals and gods alike.

Thanatos could occasionally be outwitted, a feat that the sly King Sisyphus of Korinth twice accomplished.

Sisyphus cheated death by tricking Thanatos into his own shackles, thereby prohibiting the demise of any mortal while Thanatos was so enchained.

In Greek mythology Sisyphus or Sisyphos (/ˈsɪsɪfəs/; Ancient Greek: Σίσυφος Sísuphos) was the king of Ephyra (now known as Corinth). 

10 Shocking Things That Were Allegedly Happening Inside Osho’s Infamous ‘Sex Cult’ In The 80′s

He used drugs, particularly valium and nitrous oxide, on a regular basis, to deal with the pain of various health issues. And as shown in Wild Wild Country, Sheela had accused his doctors of providing him drugs much against her wishes.

Thanks to the guru's 'open' views of human sexuality, he had already earned the tag of 'sex guru' back in India. And as shown in Wild Wild Country, Sheela had back then spoken about Rajneesh's sexual relations with many women in the commune as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_bin_Salman

Headed by Ma Anand Sheela, a group of Rajneeshis allegedly contaminated 10 salad bars in and around Antelope with Salmonella, poisoning over 750 people.

This was done as part of a ploy to unfairly win elections against the local government by ensuring that a majority of voters wouldn't be able to turn up to vote.

He was punished for his self-aggrandizing craftiness and deceitfulness by being forced to roll an immense boulder up a hill only for it to roll down when it nears the top, repeating this action for eternity. Through the classical influence on modern culture, tasks that are both laborious and futile are therefore described as Sisyphean (/ˌsɪsɪˈfiːən/).[2]

The root of the word sophos (σοφός, "wise").

Zeus then ordered Death (in Greek, Thanatos) to chain King Sisyphus down below in Tartarus.

https://dimples69.wordpress.com/2019/01/10/smithfalls-ontario-canada/

The word “tar” at the end of all of these words is a Persian word that means “string”.[6]

In Greek mythology, Tartarus (/ˈtɑːrtərəs/; Ancient Greek: Τάρταρος, Tartaros)[1] is the deep abyss that is used as a dungeon of torment and suffering for the wicked and as the prison for the Titans. Tartarus is the place where, according to Plato's Gorgias (c. 400 BC), souls are judged after death and where the wicked received divine punishment. Like other primal entities (such as the Earth, Night and Time), Tartarus is also considered to be a primordial force or deity.

“First came the Chasm; and then broad-breasted Earth, secure seat forever of all the immortals who occupy the peak of snowy Olympus; the misty Tartara (the plural of ‘Tartarus’) in a remote recess of the broad-pathed earth;”

Allegorical portrait of Elizabeth I with Old Father Time at her right in the background and Death at her left (~1610)

Father Time is usually depicted as an elderly bearded man with wings, dressed in a robe and carrying a scythe and an hourglass or other timekeeping device (which represents time's constant one-way movement, and more generally and abstractly, entropy). This image derives from several sources, including the Grim Reaper and the misattribution of Cronus (not Chronos) as the Greek Titan of human time, reaping and calendars, or the Lord of Time.

Father Time as the personification of the previous year (or "the Old Year") who typically "hands over" the duties of time to the equally allegorical Baby New Year

Time (in his allegorical form) is often depicted revealing or unveiling the allegorical Truth, sometimes at the expense of a personification of Falsehood, Fraud, or Envy. This theme is related to the idea of veritas filia temporis (Time is the father of Truth).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Truth, holding a mirror and a serpent (1896). Olin Levi Warner, Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C.

Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard.[1] Truth is also sometimes defined in modern contexts as an idea of "truth to self", or authenticity.

An angel carrying the banner of "Truth", Roslin, Midlothian

The English word truth is derived from Old English tríewþ, tréowþ, trýwþ, Middle English trewþe, cognate to Old High German triuwida, Old Norse tryggð. Like troth, it is a -th nominalisation of the adjective true (Old English tréowe).

La Vérité "Truth" by Jules Joseph Lefebvre

Aztec Obsidian Mirror.

Turquoise mask representing the god Tezcatlipoca, from the British Museum.

Tlaloc (Classical Nahuatl: Tlāloc [ˈtɬaːlok])[1] is a member of the pantheon of gods in Aztec religion. As supreme god of the rain, Tlaloc is also a god of earthly fertility and of water.[2] He was widely worshiped as a beneficent giver of life and sustenance. However, he was also feared for his ability to send hail, thunder, and lightning, and for being the lord of the powerful element of water.

'He looked like a highlighter pen': Night Stalker serial killer who terrorized California with a spree of satanic murders turns bright green as he dies after 24 years on death row

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337867/Night-Stalker-Richard-Ramirez-He-looked-like-highlighter-pen-Serial-killer-terrorized-California-spree-satanic-murders-turns-bright-green-dies-24-years-death-row.html

The cult of Tlaloc is one of the oldest and most universal in ancient Mexico. Although the name Tlaloc is specifically Aztec, worship of a storm god like Tlaloc, associated with mountaintop shrines and with life-giving rain, is as at least as old as Teotihuacan and likely was adopted from the Maya god Chaac or vice versa, or perhaps he was ultimately derived from an earlier Olmec precursor. An underground Tlaloc shrine has been found at Teotihuacan.[4]

Chaac (also spelled Chac or, in Classic Mayan, Chaahk [t͡ʃaːhk]) is the name of the Maya rain deity. With his lightning axe, Chaac strikes the clouds and produces thunder and rain. Chaac corresponds to Tlaloc among the Aztecs.

Like other Maya gods, Chaac is both one and manifold. Four Chaacs are based in the cardinal directions and wear the directional colors. In 16th-century Yucatán, the directional Chaac of the east was called Chac Xib Chaac 'Red Man Chaac', only the colors being varied for the three other ones.[1]

Tlaloc, Collection E. Eug. Goupil, 17th century

Tlaloc was also associated with the world of the dead and with the earth. His name is thought to be derived from the Nahuatl word tlālli "earth", and its meaning has been interpreted as "path beneath the earth," "long cave," or "he who is made of earth."[17] J. Richard Andrews interprets it as "one that lies on the land," identifying Tlaloc as a cloud resting on the mountaintops.[18] Other names of Tlaloc were Tlamacazqui ("Giver")[19] and Xoxouhqui ("Green One");[20] and (among the contemporary Nahua of Veracruz), Chaneco.[21]

[thundersayshello-blog]

Same old Trump, Same old Lies

 People being impressed that Trump didn't literally shit himself during that address need to calm the fuck down. He might have done it in complete, mostly coherent sentences but that doesn't mean he didn't spew hatred and lies just like he always does.

He still demonized immigrants by overstating incidences of immigrant crime, used a grieving widow to deflect criticism about a military operation that he's already actively blaming the military for, claimed to care about clean air and water while planning to gut the EPA and forcing through the DAPL on Native American land (with others to come) and launched into a totally self-aggrandizing speech about the so-called movement that 'propelled,' him into office.

Don't forget that he LOST the popular vote (LOSER)---so he's not serving under a mandate from the majority of the American people. He wants you to think that so he can feel legitimate and, so he can pretend that his overwhelmingly huge base of support was only undercut by illegal immigrant voter fraud.

And he's pushing that storyline so that he can try to enact and push through increasingly restrictive and discriminatory voter laws.

Also don't forget that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a much lower incidence than native-born Americans and therefore, there's really no need for an additional organization like VOICE to exist, except as a political statement or as an attempt to fool people into thinking that illegal immigrant crime is a large and overwhelming problem (it isn't) so that he can justify his malignant bullying of immigrants.

Also don't forget that anytime he doesn't like a news story, he calls it FAKE NEWS and claims that the free mainstream press is the enemy of the American people. A statement which, is eerily similar to the characterization of the press by Hitler, who called them the 'lying press.' P.S. there's a whole segment of Trump supporters who call the press this too because they're Nazis.

Also don't forget that while he's calling the mainstream press FAKE and illegitimate, he's sitting around getting HIS news from lunatics like Alex Jones of InfoWars or far-right nationalist shit sites like Breitbart.

While you're remembering things, maybe also remember that Steve Bannon, Trump's chief advisor, used to be the head of that shit site, Breitbart.

You should also probably remember that Trump still hasn't shown us his tax returns and that 229 Republicans voted against forcing Trump to reveal those tax returns.

Now maybe you should think about why they would do that.

Is it because they know there's damning information in there and they'd rather cover it up than deal with the consequences?

Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know.

But I'll tell you this if there wasn't anything incriminating in those tax returns, do you think they'd go through the trouble of making sure they remain secret?

Probably not!

Also don't forget that Trump's new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, just had the Department of Justice drop its case against a voter registration law that was deemed intentionally discriminatory and likely to prevent many people (who might vote Democrat) from getting to cast their vote, by the same DOJ only weeks ago.

Maybe also try to remember Trump's not at all subtle words about how we're gonna get all cozy with Russia and why we shouldn't worry about that at all because wouldn't it be fun to make new friends? The answer, of course, is yes---it is fun to make new friends. But not with an authoritarian ex-KGB man whose enemies sure seem to die a lot and has seemingly re-instituted a plethora of KGB/Stasi tactics. People like THAT are very not fun to make friends with.

Also, illegal immigration isn't why people aren't getting jobs. First of all, unemployment dropped pretty steadily under the Obama administration. Second, Americans aren't losing jobs because of illegal immigrants, they're losing jobs because rich business owners are outsourcing to other countries with even more permissive labor laws so that they can get their labor at the cheapest prices possible. And one of those people is Trump, whose shitty clothes are made in China!!

And by the way, we don't live in a country of lawless chaos. But Trump is going to pretend we do so that people will be so terrified that they'll allow him to enact laws and policies that are more and more stringent, and, probably invasive and unconstitutional---like stop and frisk which was, by the way, deemed unconstitutional for disproportionally targeting minorities esp. Latinx and African Americans.

Also, just because he FINALLY said something about the anti-Semitic attacks and the Kansas shooting don't forget that there are reports that he's actually questioned who is responsible for these attacks in a way that seems to imply that they're being perpetrated by either Jewish people or others who just want to make their opponents (Trump supporters) look bad.

And this is pretty fucking crazy because it sounds a lot like the kind of shit that Holocaust deniers spout.

And that's a very unfunny coincidence because Steve Bannon (Trump's chief advisor) used to be the head of Breitbart and that place has said some pretty vile shit about Jewish people, and Trump still sees fit to make him his chief advisor, so don't go patting Donny on the back just yet okay?

Not to mention the fact that those words of condemnation came pretty fucking after the fact and for a dude that talks/tweets all the fucking time that's disconcerting because he doesn't seem to ever hesitate to say what's on his mind unless his staff actually hide his fucking phone.

So if these attacks were really so upsetting to him, why'd it take so long for him to condemn them?

Nordstrom pulled his kid's shitty clothing line and BAM! he was johnny on the spot with condemning the shit outta them. But an asshole with a gun shoots two men, whilst screaming 'get out of my country,' because he thought they were Middle Eastern, and he's mum on it?

Or there's an appreciable escalation in threats against Jewish Community Centers and at least two Jewish cemeteries are desecrated and he's got nothing?

Really? That doesn't compute, y'all.

My point is, just because he showed a scrap of respect for the office that he undeservedly holds or used complete and mostly coherent sentences, does not IN ANY WAY mitigate the many, many problems in his administration.

He is NOT a normal president and no one should be trying to legitimize or normalize this. Everyone needs to stay vigilant and on their guard.

Do NOT lower your expectations for what a leader and president should be! Do not simply be okay with this disgrace of a president! Do not be complacent!

Demand better!

Demand honesty!

Demand integrity!

Demand Justice!

Demand Equality!!!

[courtneytincher]

America’s Problem of Empire

America is an empire and President Donald Trump is an emperor, at least that is how both behave. Why shouldn’t Washington swallow up the self-governing territory of Greenland with nary a nod to its people? Why shouldn’t the president cancel a trip because a foreign leader dared refer to his idea as “absurd”?It is as if King George III still ruled. Indeed, anti-Federalists could claim vindication. It seems America eventually did end up with a monarchy. Although a term-limited, elected king, he is no less imperious than his British forebears. The latest, almost comedic example was Trump’s public desire to buy a land not for sale and whiny decision to cancel his planned state visit when the Danes said no. Although his behavior was undiplomatic, some of his supporters were even more imperious, failing to even notice that there were some fifty-six thousand residents of Greenland who largely govern themselves.Those commentators who considered the Greenlanders assumed that they could be bought off with promises of more investment, subsidies, and tourism, as well as membership in America’s “national family.” Yet a similar offer made by another government to residents of, say, Alaska or Hawaii, would be viewed as highly insulting by most Americans.Moreover, why would Greenlanders want to submit themselves to the U.S. imperium? Today the island is governed rather like America’s states once were: by locals with only a light national touch. Joining today’s “national family” would mean submitting to the rules and regulations of Washington, DC. That would mean suffering through a painfully dysfunctional political system. One can love America while acknowledging its faults.Moreover, being absorbed by the United States would result in micromanagement of much of life that should be left to individuals, families and communities. Ironically, though Denmark and its Scandinavian brethren are often derided by Americans for being “socialist,” these countries typically balance more extensive economic redistribution with more efficient, market-friendly regulation. Lightly populated Greenland might not like direct rule by Washington, DC.Perhaps even worse, when it comes to international affairs these days America’s “national family” is a highly aggressive, brutal, sometimes almost Manson-like. As the president’s contretemps with Copenhagen demonstrates, Uncle Sam does not like to be told no. Canceling a trip is a minor sanction, however. More seriously, Washington routinely initiates economic war against other governments which resist its dictates—currently Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela, most dramatically. These governments are malign, but no more so than many regimes backed by the United States. Moreover, average folks in these countries suffer the most from American sanctions. Washington even targets its allies to force them to adhere to Washington’s policies, such as against Tehran.War is a blunter and more catastrophically counterproductive policy. Denmark once was a military power, but those unfortunate days are well behind it. Not so for America. Unfortunately, it took only a few decades after its founding for military power to become a dangerous temptation for Washington. The attack on Mexico and seizure of half that nation; the unjustified war against Spain and then the Filipino people, beginning an era of so-called salt water imperialism. The unconscionably stupid decision to enter World War I in an attempt by the arrogantly sanctimonious President Woodrow Wilson to reorder the globe. (In contrast, in 1914 the Danes had the good sense to stay out of the looming imperial slugfest, which killed as many as twenty million people, destroyed four kingdoms, and nearly bankrupted many of its other participants.) America’s involvement led to an unbalanced peace agreement which helped trigger another, even greater war barely a generation later.More recently, the United States spent years, many lives, and enormous wealth unsuccessfully attempting to impose weak, incompetent, and corrupt governments on the peoples of Afghanistan and Vietnam. At horrendous cost to others, Washington pursued regime change in Iraq and Libya. To rebalance power in the Middle East American policymakers spent decades aiding if not formally endorsing the al-Saud family’s misrule over the people of Saudi Arabia, Israeli oppression of Palestinians, successive brutal military dictatorships in Egypt, and even Saddam Hussein’s bloody aggression against Iran. Perhaps madder still were interventions in horrid civil wars of little direct consequence to America: Lebanon, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. There is no good answer to the question, why are American lives and resources being wasted and the country’s reputation being soiled in such conflicts?Also dangerous are tripwires with which Washington has littered the globe. World War II has been over for 74 years and democratic European states have raced past Russia in economic strength and population. Yet Americans remain the preferred sentinels for NATO members, especially the newest members. Exactly what Montenegro and Macedonia have to do with U.S. security is not obvious. Georgia and Ukraine would bring war with Russia into the transatlantic alliance. However, America’s imperial capital is filled with advocates of making them all U.S. defense dependents.Yet the impact on Greenlanders should be the least important issue for Americans. There are bigger concerns. For example, why would those who believe in the best of the nation—that it is the “land of the free and home of the brave”—want to ever-enlarge it, incorporating peoples who may have very different visions of national life and purpose? That doesn’t mean their views are bad, wrong or evil. Rather, there is no reason to yoke ever more people together politically, especially as the resulting entity loses human scale, leaving a vast chasm between ruled and rulers.Consider the ruthless, winner-take-all nature of American politics today. The common desire is not so much to be left alone, but to impose one’s will. No doubt, the Electoral College and Senate have undemocratic impacts, yet their advocates not so unreasonably see such institutions as a last defense against mass mob rule. Rather than battling brutally, and likely futilely, over changing the rules, decentralizing power would be a better approach. And reducing, rather than aggrandizing, the mass being governed.Eloquent claims of “mystic chords of memory” are not enough to unite nearly 330 million people into a genuine “national family.” Dramatic differences divide red and blue, rural and urban, coastal and inland, and rustbelt and suburban America. Rather than dreaming about adding more, vastly different members to what increasingly acts like a disconnected empire, policymakers should focus on fixing what already is.Too many Americans imagine a country very different than the one experienced by those on the receiving end of its attention elsewhere in the world. America’s virtues are real and great, but so are its faults. If it enhanced the former and addressed the latter, it would find its influence increased and objectives advanced abroad. But that would require abandoning the imperial sanctimony and hypocrisy that has come to surround U.S. foreign policy. Instead of constantly looking for new grounds of aggrandizement, Americans should return to the earnest republicanism that characterized the nation’s original vision.Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, the author of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.Image: Reuters

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

America is an empire and President Donald Trump is an emperor, at least that is how both behave. Why shouldn’t Washington swallow up the self-governing territory of Greenland with nary a nod to its people? Why shouldn’t the president cancel a trip because a foreign leader dared refer to his idea as “absurd”?It is as if King George III still ruled. Indeed, anti-Federalists could claim vindication. It seems America eventually did end up with a monarchy. Although a term-limited, elected king, he is no less imperious than his British forebears. The latest, almost comedic example was Trump’s public desire to buy a land not for sale and whiny decision to cancel his planned state visit when the Danes said no. Although his behavior was undiplomatic, some of his supporters were even more imperious, failing to even notice that there were some fifty-six thousand residents of Greenland who largely govern themselves.Those commentators who considered the Greenlanders assumed that they could be bought off with promises of more investment, subsidies, and tourism, as well as membership in America’s “national family.” Yet a similar offer made by another government to residents of, say, Alaska or Hawaii, would be viewed as highly insulting by most Americans.Moreover, why would Greenlanders want to submit themselves to the U.S. imperium? Today the island is governed rather like America’s states once were: by locals with only a light national touch. Joining today’s “national family” would mean submitting to the rules and regulations of Washington, DC. That would mean suffering through a painfully dysfunctional political system. One can love America while acknowledging its faults.Moreover, being absorbed by the United States would result in micromanagement of much of life that should be left to individuals, families and communities. Ironically, though Denmark and its Scandinavian brethren are often derided by Americans for being “socialist,” these countries typically balance more extensive economic redistribution with more efficient, market-friendly regulation. Lightly populated Greenland might not like direct rule by Washington, DC.Perhaps even worse, when it comes to international affairs these days America’s “national family” is a highly aggressive, brutal, sometimes almost Manson-like. As the president’s contretemps with Copenhagen demonstrates, Uncle Sam does not like to be told no. Canceling a trip is a minor sanction, however. More seriously, Washington routinely initiates economic war against other governments which resist its dictates—currently Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela, most dramatically. These governments are malign, but no more so than many regimes backed by the United States. Moreover, average folks in these countries suffer the most from American sanctions. Washington even targets its allies to force them to adhere to Washington’s policies, such as against Tehran.War is a blunter and more catastrophically counterproductive policy. Denmark once was a military power, but those unfortunate days are well behind it. Not so for America. Unfortunately, it took only a few decades after its founding for military power to become a dangerous temptation for Washington. The attack on Mexico and seizure of half that nation; the unjustified war against Spain and then the Filipino people, beginning an era of so-called salt water imperialism. The unconscionably stupid decision to enter World War I in an attempt by the arrogantly sanctimonious President Woodrow Wilson to reorder the globe. (In contrast, in 1914 the Danes had the good sense to stay out of the looming imperial slugfest, which killed as many as twenty million people, destroyed four kingdoms, and nearly bankrupted many of its other participants.) America’s involvement led to an unbalanced peace agreement which helped trigger another, even greater war barely a generation later.More recently, the United States spent years, many lives, and enormous wealth unsuccessfully attempting to impose weak, incompetent, and corrupt governments on the peoples of Afghanistan and Vietnam. At horrendous cost to others, Washington pursued regime change in Iraq and Libya. To rebalance power in the Middle East American policymakers spent decades aiding if not formally endorsing the al-Saud family’s misrule over the people of Saudi Arabia, Israeli oppression of Palestinians, successive brutal military dictatorships in Egypt, and even Saddam Hussein’s bloody aggression against Iran. Perhaps madder still were interventions in horrid civil wars of little direct consequence to America: Lebanon, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. There is no good answer to the question, why are American lives and resources being wasted and the country’s reputation being soiled in such conflicts?Also dangerous are tripwires with which Washington has littered the globe. World War II has been over for 74 years and democratic European states have raced past Russia in economic strength and population. Yet Americans remain the preferred sentinels for NATO members, especially the newest members. Exactly what Montenegro and Macedonia have to do with U.S. security is not obvious. Georgia and Ukraine would bring war with Russia into the transatlantic alliance. However, America’s imperial capital is filled with advocates of making them all U.S. defense dependents.Yet the impact on Greenlanders should be the least important issue for Americans. There are bigger concerns. For example, why would those who believe in the best of the nation—that it is the “land of the free and home of the brave”—want to ever-enlarge it, incorporating peoples who may have very different visions of national life and purpose? That doesn’t mean their views are bad, wrong or evil. Rather, there is no reason to yoke ever more people together politically, especially as the resulting entity loses human scale, leaving a vast chasm between ruled and rulers.Consider the ruthless, winner-take-all nature of American politics today. The common desire is not so much to be left alone, but to impose one’s will. No doubt, the Electoral College and Senate have undemocratic impacts, yet their advocates not so unreasonably see such institutions as a last defense against mass mob rule. Rather than battling brutally, and likely futilely, over changing the rules, decentralizing power would be a better approach. And reducing, rather than aggrandizing, the mass being governed.Eloquent claims of “mystic chords of memory” are not enough to unite nearly 330 million people into a genuine “national family.” Dramatic differences divide red and blue, rural and urban, coastal and inland, and rustbelt and suburban America. Rather than dreaming about adding more, vastly different members to what increasingly acts like a disconnected empire, policymakers should focus on fixing what already is.Too many Americans imagine a country very different than the one experienced by those on the receiving end of its attention elsewhere in the world. America’s virtues are real and great, but so are its faults. If it enhanced the former and addressed the latter, it would find its influence increased and objectives advanced abroad. But that would require abandoning the imperial sanctimony and hypocrisy that has come to surround U.S. foreign policy. Instead of constantly looking for new grounds of aggrandizement, Americans should return to the earnest republicanism that characterized the nation’s original vision.Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, the author of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.Image: Reuters

August 26, 2019 at 03:18PM via IFTTT