#on the basis of 'its literally a CIVIL war' it is an internal thing

[nejackdaw]

morthal and markarth for the skyrim asks!

Ty for the ask! 💞

Morthal - Do you enjoy exploring dungeons and ruins? Why or why not?

Kinda depends tbh. Dungeons with multiple rooms absolutely FULL of enemies encourage a more stealthy approach, and while I'm a capable stealth archer, it's not my preferred play style, so it can be a bit unfun. The alternative, however, is the ENTIRE DUNGEON hearing me engage in melee and swarming me at once, which. Also isn't fun. Ultimately I guess the answer comes down to "depends on the number of guys in there" and "how likely is Marked For Death to solve the entire issue?" Skyrim is basically the only game where, when given a choice, I'll choose martial over caster or archer, but this can be a problem in packed dungeons. I like single or few guy brutal slugfests where we just beat the shit out of each other. Also then I can just take a break to throw up my shield and watch Celann materialize to OHKO them, which fills me with glee literally every time

Markarth - If you could rewrite one questline in Skyrim, which would it be? (This answer is sooooo long btw)

Hmm... I'm actually not too interested in a lot of them, but when it comes to being disappointed in one, it's the Civil War questline. The entire thing amounts to "use your main character powers about 5 times in a dungeon or something and then go fight the oppositional leader." You can't even fix Whiterun, a place you specifically took for its geographical, strategic, and mercantile advantage. You just leave it in ruins???

There are two quests in the entire line that aren't just "awkwardly storm this place with a couple guys,' and one of them is optional. Both sides have a "steal/plant enemy orders" quest, but the "gaining intel/blackmail" quest is in both cases entirely optional. There's one non-combative "sneak and find this document/gather intel" quest, and no "root out a traitor" or "disrupt a supply line" type quests (technically this one is awkwardly tacked onto the end of the optional quest.) The Dark Brotherhood, Dawnguard, and Thieves Guilds have similar respective quests that we can compare to the 1.5 non-combative Civil War quests: finding intel on Maro's son, the radiant "vampire advisor" quests, basically the entire beginning TG questline (Honningbrew, Goldenglow hives.)

Each of these questlines involve non-typical quests, aka quests where you have to approach it a little differently than the rest of your work: the Brotherhood stealing documents and planting false evidence like thieves, the Dawnguard committing assassinations and pickpocketing orders like both the Brotherhood AND the Guild, the Guild quest where you engage not only in open combat with Mercer, but kill him, like both the Dawnguard and, well, the Brotherhood Brynjolf insists you're not.

While those questlines are largely the same sort of quests on repeat, it's because they're, well, specialized guilds. Built entirely around doing those things. That's their entire function. When it comes to a war (which is very NOT a guild,) you'd expect a bit more than just a few skirmishes, especially considering the only thing that changes when you join is, well. There's one more guy in the skirmish. But magically this turns the tide and the entire war is won through brute force when previously there seemed no end in sight. The questline lacks variety, is incredibly, oddly short for what's supposed to be a war, and generally just... lacks impact. Nothing really happens afterwards. Faction camps are still sitting around, and you still can't even clear them. Hold guards are replaced by the faction that won and Whiterun is permanently in shambles. Can't even fix Whiterun ffs there's not even quests for that.

* After leaving this in the drafts for a few weeks and thinking about it some more, I think ultimately the problem IS the brevity. "Do four battles and suddenly we win" is absolutely insane. The Dawnguard DLC and the Thieves Guild, even the one single time I played it, have spoiled me rotten with the never ending radiant quests. It prevents the Companions feeling of "I joined three days ago and now I'm in charge and everyone does what I say" that throws everyone off. Not only can you keep accepting them, the mainline quests don't get in the way of accepting them (... like the Companions only telling you to go talk to Aela.) This means you can keep accepting radiant quests that provide a feeling of integration and contribution (in)to the guild, and also avoids the Companions and Civil War feeling of "I did three quests and it's over and everyone is bowing to me" by allowing you to do guild things in-between the main quests.

Not only that, but they offer a variety the main line might not provide, especially with the Dawnguard. For example, siding with the Volkihar includes a quest where you're given Dawnguard armor and told to go cause a scene, striking down some innocent civilian in the name of "vampire hunting" to sow public distrust. This quest is cool as fuck conceptually btw, why is a Volkihar radiant cooler than the entire CW line???

Ultimately I think if I could change one thing about the Civil War line specifically it would be adding TG/DG style radiant quests that can be done between main missions and also include "milestone" type quests that really bring home the feeling of growth and contribution. I think it would make it feel considerably less jarring and I'd even maybe consider playing it again if we could fix Whiterun.

[deliciousscaloppine]

Hot Takes Galore: A brief overview of fandom backlashes that influenced fanfiction writing traditions as I have personally experienced them:

In today’s segment I am going to talk about copyright infringement.

First let me preface this by saying I have only ever been in 3 fandoms, starting from 2008 and I have never been terribly active - like this blog has been the most active I’ve ever been in any fandom ever. I am not going to talk about particular fandom dramas because I am pretty clueless about that. What I am going to talk about is that friction between “reality” and online spaces that brought about changes that are still in effect today in the way fanfiction is written and perceived.

In 2008 as I was entering, nearly every piece of fanfiction had a disclaimer about the author not owning the characters, which were the property of Corporate Entity X, or Author Y, and also not profiting from the work in any shape or form. At the time getting money from writing fanfiction was a gigantic taboo, and almost no one did it, or advertised that they did. 

But as I understand through convention culture printed writing did circulate in exchange for money (zines), and at least in Japan one could sell doujinshis (self-published stories and comics, often within the framework of another work) in certain events. Although this was largely considered “illegal” under copyright laws, and artists could be persecuted or blacklisted from entering the industry if discovered. That’s also why fanartists often to this day may screen where and when their work is viewed, and move to take down reposts, or call others to protest if artworks are circulated without permission outside of the artist’s page.

Older fandom people also hated authors that moved against fanfiction, a big case being Anne Rice, the vampire lady everyone - including me - copies when writing about vampires. And now I am going to talk a little about that.

Usually, writers, just sit somewhere cosy and write, and often they have no idea, absolutely no idea, on how to manage their writing properties - usually a lawyer does that, and lawyers want A Lot Of Money (A brief brush with justice and lawyers over a civil dispute I won, cost me 1000 euros out of nowhere, in a single day, and no I couldn’t avoid it because I was the accused one, so I had to appear with some representation). 

So sometimes, quite often, it’s a lawyer that activates a writer or other artist to move against “smaller” copyright infringements, in order to make bank. And if one suffers such a case, they should make it as apparent as possible to the other party that they have no money, and the pressure will go away immediately. But even MORE OFTEN a small copyright infringement, may lead to a sequence of bigger ones, and ultimately the de facto loss of rights from one’s writing properties, and of course revenue. 

And for a lot of published authors, they just don’t know for how long they can publish things - publishing houses that have them signed can close, book sales can drop, tastes change, personal problems, and anything else may mean that they could find themselves without a source of income at any point in the future, while they are aging and becoming more and more irrelevant. 

A very famous case currently, is that of Alan Dean Foster, the writer who has done some novelizations for movies like Star Wars and Alien, and is no longer receiving revenue from that - while his wife is hospitalized and their family needs the income - because Disney absorbed the company that had signed the contract with him, and chose to not honor the previous contract. To make them pay he will have to go into a huge legal battle with a corporate giant, which he cannot afford. But they still absorb income from these novelizations.

But how does fanfiction tie into that, and Anne Rice’s case (which if memory serves right, also went through a series of personal problems, including her husband’s death during that time). 

So for a lot of writers, fanfiction may be that tiny breach that may threaten their rights in the future from tresspases of distribution networks. Meaning, people write vampire fanfiction based on Anne Rice’s work? What if another publishing house used the template of her works (historical settings, bleeding orifices, religious themes, homosexuality and sexual trauma etc) and produced a royalty free series of such works with a team of professional writers that do not own the work - who often have less rights, like not owning the characters, or the storylines, participating in a very small scale, so their payment goes down etc)

And in this way EVERYONE SUFFERS. Big Name Published Author fades into obscurity and goes into poverty and payroll writers are horrifically abused.  

A lot of hobbyists, and hobbyist writers whose sole dream is to be published in some shape or form, do not really care, and do not concern themselves with the legal aspect of creation, or the technical skill that it takes to produce writing on a consistent basis, which can only happen if you’ve got your basic needs covered. So they might see this type of backlash as inherently privileged. 

But it’s not really a privilege, there has been a global recession in basic working rights for everyone, and lovers of fiction don’t have to condone, of course, attacks against them, but they need to put that kind of backlash in perspective. Someone did write the content you enjoy, THEY ARE NOT DEAD YET, and may have opinions on how it should be managed, especially when it pertains to their livelihood. 

It’s a delicate balance that we all must keep in order to keep corporate regulations out of it.

For instance with the recent danmei explosion The Untamed brought forth, Ao3 was banned in China. Now a lot of you might know that this was caused by some real person fic involving the actor Xiao Zhan, which led to a whole other level of drama. But make no mistake this was a political act to protect the interests of the domestic publishing industry as it prepares to do an international opening that will bring in several billions from foreign markets.

Because Ao3 has been expanding as a platform globally it brings about changes, and in many cases steals readers away from traditional publishing, so it becomes unacceptable economically for a bunch of hobbyists to influence tastes, market mores, and create sensationalism around certain properties out of literally the blue. This is not a good thing for a lot of corporate thinking, they set the product and we are supposed to buy it. We are not supposed to go, it would look greater with a bunch of anal, and then put forth a million words altering the character of the intellectual property.

Why you ask? Again, because another publishing industry might choose to imitate the style of danmei fanfics and produce works that hijack readership, or lead to breach of contracts, making an unsafe environment for workers in this industry (Xiao Zhan’s case.)

Nowadays I see more and more fanfic authors coming out of their shell to ask money for writing in the form of donations, patronage and commissions, as fandom involvement is also becoming vastly monetized. The market of conventions coming into social media platforms. A strange more exists still in which while “legally wrong”, as long as money is not asked on the publishing platform (Ao3), it may not count as copyright infringement. But fanfic authors, may still be treated with hostility for this, for not “deserving” to profit from someone else’s properties, or even worse for “stealing” readership. 

For instance a recent argument I have seen from lgbtq authors, is that they remain unsupported by fandom spaces, who often proclaim themselves as lgbtq or lgbtq friendly (something that is not true), but at the same time they are not looking for published lgbtq stories, or authors, or even treat these with open hostility, or a lot of bias.

Fandom is not comprised from “readers” in the traditional sense, definitely not friends of literature, and it’s free, no one really has to pay anything to read a published fanfic.  So it’s a pretty loose demographic with no set characteristics, and no interest in investing time and money in something for long. It’s an online social activity and not a readers’ movement, highly influenced by peer pressure and branding. It’s basically a gigantic group of people who don’t really do anything for no one, and may develop a parasitic connection to intellectual properties (I am sorry peers, it’s the truth). 

And it’s perhaps the biggest counterculture scene at the moment in the developed world. To this day it treats even its own authors with tremendous suspicion, disregard and dismissal, meaning that even if someone can get some money and recognition locally through writing fanfic they are on thin fucking ice at all times for all the reasons but mostly attracting unnecessary attention to themselves and subsequently the scene.  A pattern that we will see is endemic to all forms of fandom backlashes.

So to this day in contrast with fanart, fan writers may not be compensated for their troubles, but may also be ousted from their domestic professional spaces for writing fanfic that may infringe on their intellectual property. 

The thing is, for me, that fandom culture can become incredibly supportive of corporate practices that harm actual people (writers, they are people too) but when they realize that the same corporate practices may be used against them, it’s too late to realize that it’s not a lottery of who wins by crying more, and by the time that happens, a corporation or industry who has used them to do its dark bidding, can stop catering to them  because ultimately they have become again irrelevant once a well defined demographic of  readers and viewers has been secured.

So if you are going to do counterculture, at least do it right. Be respectful of the writers/authors of the content you consume and mindful of their troubles, do not generate public strife that brings in political regulation in favor of corporate interests. Become interested in writing culture, support your fanfic authors with lasting engagement in their work, even if it escapes the narrow confines of a certain fandom. It’s simple. Eat, live, pray, fuck, or something.

[tiliamericana]

Muay Thai: 1.13

“I can’t believe you’ve done this,” said Agatha acidly as Nairi held the door to the pizza place open for her.

“I’m sorry,” said Nairi, no longer feeling particularly apologetic after a week of saying nothing but. “We’ll only be here for what, an hour? And then we can go.”

She didn’t love that she was already on edge. It was hardly the first time in her life that she was deliberately sitting down to spend a couple of hours with an unpleasant man, but it was still frustrating. She liked spending time with Agatha and Linden who were only occasionally frustrating, but they tended to get tense and catty with each other, and Nairi’s teeth were aching at the thought of dealing with that on top of Simon.

Well. They were usually catty, but when not talking about relationships they could be relied on to be friendly-catty rather than terse-catty.

Linden was sitting alone at one of the tall tables near the centre of the restaurant, and she waved at them as they approached, her smile wide. “Hey guys!” she said as Nairi sat down across from her, and if her smile was fake then she at least sounded pleased—or, well, relieved, at any rate.

“No boyfriend yet?” asked Agatha archly, sitting next to Nairi with a disapproving curve to her lips as their eyes met.

“He’s running late,” said Linden, clasping her hands together in front of her and making her bracelets jingle. “Promised he’d treat me to a nice big pie and dessert to make it up to me, though!”

“Nice of him,” said Nairi, snagging a complimentary breadstick, more out of habit than hunger.

“Very,” said Agatha, inspecting a menu without looking up.

Linden’s expression faltered. “Yeah,” she said anyway.

Nairi knocked their ankles together under the table in an attempt to reassure, and Linden flashed her a grateful look, the tension across her shoulders loosening a little. “Things are going well then?” she asked, pouring herself a glass of water and pushing the jug towards Agatha, who ignored her.

“As well as they can be,” said Linden, nodding a little too much, her bracelets jingling again. “I mean, things get bumpy occasionally, but we really haven’t known each other for long in like, the grand scheme of things. We already know we like each other, so we’re just feeling everything else out as we go.”

“Oh goodie,” muttered Agatha, pushing her glasses up her nose again before setting the menu down and joining the conversation. “Nick likes this one, then?”

Linden snorted. “Simon’s not that exceptional,” she said dismissively. “Nick thinks he’s too flaky.”

Agatha glanced at her watch conspicuously. “I wonderwhy.”

Linden gave her a sharp curve of a smile, darkly amused. “Look, that might be a dealbreaker for Nick, but he’s not the one dating him. I can handle a little flakiness, and besides, he’s working on it.”

“Is he working on anything else?”

“Yes,” said Linden, looking Agatha right in the eye. “Nick told me—I promise he won’t call you that ever again, I even slapped him around a little to make it stick.”

“Right,” said Agatha, unimpressed in the face of Linden’s humour. “Because if he does then I’m just going to leave. Why does he even talk like that in the first place?”

Linden wrinkled her nose. “It’s his masters, I swear, he spends his entire time with his nose up the ass of these old school poets, and then he like, forgets that language has changed in the last eighty years? It’s really annoying, he literally called me the ‘whore of Babylon’ the other day and then got offended when I told him to fuck off because I ‘didn’t get the compliment’.”

Nairi snorted.

“Oh! Such a catch! I suddenly understand why you’re so determined to make this relationship work,” drawled Agatha.

“It’s a better basis for a relationship than some I could name,” said Linden snidely, narrowing her eyes across the table.

Damn, Agatha’s last boyfriend must have been a real piece of work. “There’s always going to be worse relationships out there,” said Nairi diplomatically. “And I mean, people are even meeting and dating on the internet these days, everything starts somewhere.”

“Exactly,” said Linden, relaxing a little with a grin. “That’s a bad basis, we all know the internet’s for porn and arguing with strangers.”

“And LOLcats, don’t forget those,” said Agatha, nodding at her.

“How could I?” said Linden, her grin widening.

Nairi was saved from having to ask what the fuck a ‘LOLcat’ was by Simon’s arrival. “Hello ladies,” he said breezily, draping his coat over the back of the free chair with a waft of eau-de-cigarette over the table. He leaned in and kissed Linden’s cheek from behind before sitting. “Hello babe, sorry I’m late, transport was a bit of an issue.”

“You’re fine,” said Linden, smiling indulgently at him as he sat. “Just gave us time to work up an appetite.”

Thankfully, the process of deciding on pizzas and drinks, and then the conveying all of that information to the waitress meant that Nairi didn’t have to speak directly to Simon. It also meant that he didn’t try to speak with Agatha, who was coolly ignoring him from across the table with a total lack of eye contact that veered dangerously close to the border between ‘civility’ and ‘rudeness’.

Once the food actually arrived however, she was out of luck.

Pretty much every pizza on the menu that wasn’t explicitly vegetarian had some kind of bacon or ham or pork-based sausage in its toppings, so there wasn’t any quibbling or half-and-halfing on the one Nairi was sharing with Agatha. Simon, however, had ordered without asking Linden, which she’d ignored, much the same way she’d ignored Agatha’s quiet snort at him doing so. Nairi was about ninety percent certain Linden didn’t even like green peppers.

“So,” said Simon brightly, gesturing across the table with his wine glass. “How have you two been this week? Anything exciting?”

Agatha took an enormous bite of pizza and chewed loudly, glancing at Nairi. Nairi sighed internally and lowered her own slice to answer him. “Not terribly exciting. Work, mostly.”

“That’s right,” he said, chewing obnoxiously and giving Nairi a chance to start eating. Next to him, Linden was carefully tugging peppers off the surface of her pizza. “Lindy said you did some kind of fighting thing, right? MMA? Kickboxing? Sweaty punch ups in sports bras?”

“…I teach judo,” said Nairi eventually. “Early days at my dojo, I don’t have a lot of students yet, I’m afraid. Uh, Agatha’s working on a paper at the moment though, that’s a bit more interesting.”

“Really? What’s it about?” asked Simon, turning both his attention and his chewing maw towards Agatha.

“Diatomic elements,” said Agatha shortly. “It’s just about nucleics, I’m not reinventing the wheel or anything.”

Simon stared at her blankly. “Oh, of course. Uh, I’m afraid I’m not familiar, is your field—?”

“Chemistry,” supplied Agatha, turning her attention back to her dinner. “My PhD was on inorganic, but I’m still in the process of post-doc applications so I’m mostly twiddling my thumbs and writing contributions in the meanwhile.”

“Right,” said Simon, his face showing a total lack of comprehension. “Academia’s a lot like that, terribly stiff in the paperwork and appropriateness departments. The right body of work and all that—I know exactly how it feels, I was going to do my thesis on the erotic underpinnings of Virginia Woolf’s work and the reflection of her relationship with her husband, but my advisor was really very pushy about playing it safe and sticking to Eliot’s body of work in the immediate post-war era.”

“Oh yes, much safer,” said Agatha with no inflection in her tone.

Simon laughed loudly, leaning back in his chair and taking another long drink of his wine. “You know, Lindy said you had a sense of humour, and I must confess I didn’t quite believe her at first! Mistakes all around.”

He punctuated this with a conspiratorial wink across the table at her, though Nairi didn’t quite understand what was so funny about it. At a glance, neither did Agatha or Linden. Linden actually looked… embarrassed? It was only for a second, the expression gone almost as soon as Nairi noticed it, Linden covering the bottom half of her face with her glass as she took a sip.

“So how long have you two lovebirds been dating anyway?” Simon continued, not even glancing at Linden next to him with her small pile of peppers or his ignored slice of pizza on the plate in front of him.

“A few months,” said Nairi, her own dinner looking more unappetising by the second. “Since September, I think?”

“That’s about right,” said Agatha, the lines around the corners of her eyes easing as she glanced at Nairi. “Five or six months now.”

“Charming,” said Simon, polishing off his wine, smile bright and enthusiastic as he gestured. “You know I’ve always greatly enjoyed the figure of the lesbian, in real life as well as literature. Excising the men from the bed and the home—it’s always so representative of the purest form of womanhood, really illuminates the truth of femininity. And the politics of it! The ultimate commitment to the feminist ideal, the usurpation of the patriarchy from its most foundational stronghold in the home at the head of the family. Really brilliant stuff!”

Agatha’s eyebrows were somewhere around her hairline.

Linden laughed awkwardly, nudging Simon as she leaned in a little over her plate. “Well, I mean, it’s always gonna be a bit different from books, hun. People are people, real life is always more, uh—”

“Oh yes, yes, of course,” said Simon dismissively, nodding at her. “And writers have a tendency to exaggerate and eroticise that type of relationship as well.”

“And what exactly do you mean by that kind of relationship?” asked Agatha, tone sharp.

Nairi tensed as Simon opened his mouth and started bloviating again. Linden swallowed whatever she was going to say, giving up and quietly eating instead, leaning on one elbow.

Simon’s phone buzzed loudly, and he took a second to check it while Agatha sucked down on the straw in her water glass through her furious, pinched expression.

“Oh, I’m so sorry ladies,” he said, standing up as he punched a few buttons on his phone. “I have to run. I have thoroughlyenjoyed this discussion though, especially with you Miss Davids, we’ll have to do this again sometime—”

“Doctor,” corrected Agatha.

“Oh, that’s right, very good, attagirl!” said Simon breezily as he tugged his coat on, and a muscle in Agatha’s jaw visibly twitched.

“Oh, Si, really?” said Linden, frowning at him anxiously as he kissed her cheek. “But we were gonna go get ice cream af—”

“Really?” said Simon, with a piss-poor attempt at a surprised look. “I didn’t think so, babe, I had plans. There’s no need to end the night just because I’m leaving though! You should all have some fun, I’ll see you later, and I promise I’ll catch the next cheque!”

He was already walking away as he spoke, hand raised in farewell even as Linden opened her mouth in dismay. “Wait, Si, I can’t—and he’s out. Great.” She slumped in her seat as the door swung shut across the room and gave them a glum sort of smile. “Sorry guys, I kind of thought that would go better.”

“Really?” said Agatha under her breath, covering it with the movement of setting her glass down.

Nairi ignored it. “I mean, it’s not exactly your fault—” Agatha snorted “—do you want me to grab you a pizza you actually like?”

Linden gestured at Simon’s largely untouched pizza with an eyeroll. “No, I’ll live. Already gonna have to pay for this one.”

“I’ve got it,” said Nairi, tugging her wallet out. “May as well just pay for everything while I’m up. Do you want something a bit cheesier?”

Linden looked at her for a moment, expression unreadable, and then something in her relaxed and her mouth twitched into a wry smile. “Yeah. Thanks.”

Agatha turned her head as Nairi left the table, saying something she couldn’t quite hear. Her tone sounded dry rather than snappish, so Nairi didn’t think too hard about it. She got them another round of drinks while she was sorting out the extra pizza as well—it would probably go a ways to easing Agatha’s temper and cheering Linden up.

From the looks of things when she returned to the table though, they’d managed to have an argument in the few minutes she’d been gone.

“Better food and new drinks on the way,” she said, sliding into her seat and pretending she couldn’t see the angry twist in Linden’s lips, or the clenched tension in Agatha’s hands.

“Awesome,” said Linden, flashing her a sunny, fake smile as Agatha scoffed. “You know, I was just saying to Aggy that since this turned out to be such a bust that maybe we should try having a girl’s night instead, you know? Just us, maybe with Flo too.”

“Oh yeah,” said Nairi mildly, gently pressing the back of her hand against Agatha’s on the tabletop. “What did you have in mind?”

[gunnerpalace]

Hi! Same anon as the previous one. Tbh, I agree wholeheartedly with you. Y'see I do ask rhetorically,too but i could really accept and understand how and why ppl can be oblivious to IchiRuki, and somehow felt that the 'canon' should suffice, even the most excruciating of all is the fact a number found the ending even acceptable (ships aside, too). Again, I could respect that. But it's my greatest bane when ppl ask 'why' and not be clear they are asking rhetorically because I literally will

provide you an actual answer. And I get it, it’s the reason why ppl find shipping wars toxic and silly. But then again, as human, conflicts are always part of us (partly because as social psych explains so, we are gravitated to the negative for that allows us to change and survive), and the reason why “logical fallacies” are coined in the first place. Human will always debate, and argue about something; the only thing we could change is how we approach the opposing views.

Again, I dont condone any way, shape or form of abuse and harm. In some certain extent, I could perhaps understand it’s much harder for some IH to approach the actual argument being there’s either too much noise, and trapped in their own island between sea of salt. Thus becoming too acquianted w/ few IH who shared the same thought until it became their views as the only truth (see, that’s why its important to have debates! it is what keep us grounded and fair! Just like you said)

Who am I to speak though? I never ever challenged anyone anyways. And as you said, you just have to understand things in every way you could possibly think of–endless ‘whys’. Which is where I agree in your reply the most–this silly fandom wars is just the black mirror to every truth that lies beneath human psyche–the dark and the grimy. Heck, being a psych major is like staring at dark hole–at times, good, but most just plain confusing, revolting even or just heartbreaking.

Sorry it’s been long, but for the final of this ask: let me tell how glad I was with IchiRuki fandom I found in tumblr. It was the saltiest I’ve ever been (im not generally a fandom person anyways) but it’s the himalayan salt–expensive and actually nutritive it really deepened my desire to become wiser in general. And you for your wonderful essays, critiques and whatnot. I definitively would love to talk with you more not only about IchiRuki but the wonders and nightmare that us humans! Kudos!

I have sitting in my drafts a post spelling out my thoughts on “canon” (and thus, the people who cling to it) in that as a concept it privileges:

officiality over quality when it comes to validity (thus violating Sturgeon’s law)

corporations (intellectual property rights holders) over fans, and thus capitalists over proletarians

hierarchical dominance over mutualist networking within fandom

curative fandom over transformative fandom

genre over literary content

plot over characters

events over emotions

It is notable that (1) generally degrades art as a whole, (2) generally advances the capitalist agenda, and (3–7) generally advances the dominance of men over women (as the genders tend to be instructed by society to view these as A. dichotomies rather than spectrums, and B. to ascribe gender to them and make them polarities). These form the sides of a mutually reinforcing power structure (in the typical “Iron Triangle” fashion) designed to preserve and maintain the status quo.

Who really benefits from say, the policing of what is or is not “canon” in Star Wars? Disney, first and foremost. And then whomever (almost certainly male) decides to dedicate their time to memorizing the minutiae of whatever that corporation has decided is “legitimate.”

One can imagine a universe in which fan fic is recognized by companies for what it is: free advertising. (Much like fan art already is.) Instead, it is specifically targeted by demonetization efforts in a way that fan art isn’t. Why? Because it demonstrates that corporate control and “official” sanction has no bearing on quality, and it is thus viewed as undermining the official products.

In the same way, by demonstrating that most “canonical” works are frankly shit, it undermines the investiture of fans in focusing on details that are ultimately errata (the events, the plot, the genre), which is the core function of curative fandom and the reason for its hierarchical structure. The people who “know the most” are at the top, but what they “know” is basically useless garbage. And those people so-engaged are, of course, usually male.

To “destroy” the basis of their credibility, and indeed the very purpose of their community, is naturally viewed by them as an attack.

(This is not to say that efforts to tear down internal consistency within established cultural properties are good unto themselves, or even desirable. For example, efforts to redefine properties such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, and Ghostbusters, for the sake of a identity-politics agenda have largely A. failed as art, B. failed as entertainment, C. failed to attract the supposedly intended audience, and D. failed to advance the agenda in question. Trying to repurpose extant media in the name of culture wars is essentially always doomed to failure unless it is done deftly and gradually.)

(At the same time, this also shows what I was talking about last time, with regard to people seeing whatever they want to see. You will see people complain that Star Trek and Doctor Who didn’t “used to be so political,” which is obviously nonsense. These shows were always political. What changed was how their politics were presented. For example, Star Trek has, since TNG, always shown a nominally socialist or outright communist future, but was beloved by plenty of conservatives because they could [somehow] ignore that aspect of it.)

Of course, almost no one is seriously suggesting that one side of the spectrums outlined above be destroyed, rather merely that a new balance be struck upon the spectrum. But, as we have seen time and again in society, any threat to the status quo, whether that be 20% of Hugo Awards going to non-white male authors or the top income tax rate in America being increased by a measly 5.3% (from 28.7% to 34%… when the all-time high was 94% and for over 50 years it was above 50%) is a threat. This is why, for example, Republicans are out there branding AOC as a “socialist” when her policies are really no different at all from a 1960 Democrat who believed in FDR’s New Deal. (Which they, of course, have also demonized as “socialism.”)

(As an aside, all this ignores the fact that most of the “literary canon” of Western civilization, or at least English literature… is Biblical or historical fan fic.)

And this is when I finally get to my point.

Those people out there who denigrate and mock shippers and shipping, the people who hurl “it reads like fan fiction” as an insult, and so on, are the people who benefit from and enjoy the extant power structure. You will see the same thing with self-identified “gamers” complaining about “fake girl gamers.” Admitting that the hobby has a lot of women in it, and a lot of “casuals,” and is indeed increasingly dominated by “non-traditional demographics” is an affront to the constructed identity of being a “gamer.” They are “losing control.” And they don’t like it.

This exact same sort of population is what the “fanbase” of Bleach has been largely reduced down to through a slow boiling off of any actual quality. Of course they’re dismissive of people who are looking for anything of substance: their identity, their “personal relationship” with the franchise, is founded on a superficial appreciation of it: things happening, flashy attacks, eye-catching character designs, fights, etc.

(What this really boils down to, at heart, is that society at large has generally told men that emotions are bad, romance and relationships of all kinds are gross, and that thinking and reflecting on things is stupid. So of course they not only don’t care about such things, but actively sneer at them as “girly” or “feminine,” which is again defined by society at large as strictly inferior. And this gender divide and misogyny is of course promulgated and reinforced by the powers that be, the capitalists, to facilitate class divisions just like say racism generally is.)

(The latest trick of these corporate overlords has been the weaponization of “woke” culture to continue to play the people off one another all the time. “If you don’t like this [poorly written, dimensionless Mary Sue] Strong Female Character, then you are a racist misogynist!” They are always only ever playing both sides for profit, not advancing an actual ideological position. It is worth noting that there was a push by IH some years ago to define IR as “anti-feminist” for critiquing Orihime for essentially the exact same reasons [admittedly, not for profit, but still as critical cover].)

Which makes it very curious, therefore, that the most ardent IH supporters tend to be women. (Though there are more than a few men, they seem to tend to support it because it is “canon” and to attack it is to attack “canon” and thus trigger all of the above, rather than out of any real investment.) I think there are a number of reasons for this (which I have detailed before) and at any rate it is not particularly surprising; 53% of white women voted for Trump, after all.

What we are really seeing in fandom, are again the exact same dynamics that we see at larger and larger scales, for the exact same reasons. The stakes are smaller, but the perception of the power struggle is exactly the same.

Of course, the people who are involved in these things rarely think to interrogate themselves as to the true dimensions and root causes of their motivations. People rarely do that in general.

Putting all that aside, I’m glad that you have found a place you enjoy and feel comfortable, and thank you for the kind words, although I am not of the opinion that there is anything poignant about the non-fiction I write. It is, as I keep trying to emphasize, all there to be seen. One just has to open their eyes. So, it’s hard for me to accept appreciation of it.

Anyway, don’t feel shy about coming off of anon rather than continuing to send asks. We don’t really bite.

[dailycharacteroption]

Conversion Corner: Mass Effect Races part 1

Asari and Volus

 By popular request, we’re going to tackle the major races of the Mass Effect series today. Despite controversy about the technical and narrative decisions about the series, it remains an iconic part of science fiction RPG history, so we’ll take a look at homebrewing the races from the game into the setting.

Note that while ME does have it’s own form of “magic” in the form of biotics, it is entirely science and tech-based in nature, revolving around a living body’s ability to adapt to the presence of “Element Zero” in their body’s system, allowing them to use their nervous systems to, with the help of amplifiers, generate the titular “mass effect” that forms the basis of many technologies in the universe, resulting in telekinesis, energy blasts, and so on.

I could go on about how tired the trope of one “perfect discovery” making everything in a sci-fi setting possible is, but instead I’ll simply just substitute actual magic in these write-ups, since its analogous enough.

 Asari

One of the founding members of the Citadel council, the Asari race is known for its elegance, diplomatic wisdom, and aptitude for mystic power.

Literally created to fulfil the “beautiful space woman” trope, the asari are acutally a monogendered race that reproduce by parthenogenesis. They are, however, capable of engaging in intimate encounters, but their true method of reproduction involves synchronizing their nervous system with that of another, even other species. In this way, one asari can use another sapient being as a “father template”, randomizing the genes of one set of their genetic material before using it to fertilize the other.

Beyond this, asari don’t have the same concept of gender roles and identity as other races, though they do tend to personally favor feminine, masculine, or gender-neutral pronouns on an individual basis. As an alternative, they tend to favor pronouns based on status, occupation, or their current life cycle status (being maiden, matron, and matriarch).

Asari physiology gives them a humanoid appearance that is mostly human-analogous, save for their blue-heavy skin tones which range from purple to the odd teal, and their somewhat flexible cartilage ridges and rests on their scalp. As mentioned previously, they are capable of synchronizing their nervous system with others, and while this is used as a means of reproduction, it can also be used to share information and memories between participants, making for clear communication across language barriers or helping to process complex information, though the process can be quite intense. Additionally, their eyes are adapted to see into the low end of the ultraviolet spectrum.

Asari society takes a very long view thanks to their long lifespans, and are content to let minor setbacks happen knowing that they can still influence things in the long run. Typically, their decisions are made with general consensus, with the words of older and wiser members of the species having the greatest weight, and tend to value a stance of centrism, for better or worse.

They are also very aware that many species see attractive aspects in them, and utilize this. However, it would be foolish to impose ideas of meekness onto the asari, as even an exotic dancer is a force to be reckoned with, their dances often being a martial art in disguise, akin to human capoeira.

Interestingly, asari consider it a minor social taboo for asari to use each other as the “father” in reproduction, both due to it being considered wasteful to not add something new into the species culturally, but also due to a rare genetic defect present only in a fraction of asari purebloods causing all telepathic joining with them to be lethal to their partners, overwhelming their minds and causing blood vessels to burst in the brain. Given how addictive and even rejuvenating this seems to be to the individual with this defect, we can probably infer that prior to the development of space travel, such individuals were mortal analogues to succubi, literal sexual predators that kill their mates. (The fact that the creators of the franchise named the defect: Ardat-Yakshi, after two figures in human mythology associated with such things really hits the nail on the head)

Regardless of whether they are warriors or scholars, or both considering their long lifespans and tendency to become leader figures with age, the asari remain the ever-patient crux of galactic civilization in the franchise’s universe.

 +2 Wis, +2 Cha, -2 Con

Hp 4

Size and Type: Asari are Medium humanoids of the asari subtype

Racial Traits:

Asari Senses: Asari have darkvision 60 ft.

Magical Aptitude: Asari take to magic like a fish to water. As a swift action, an asari can increase their effective caster level by 1 for one turn, bolstering a spell they cast that turn. They can do this a number of times per day equal to their Wisdom bonus.

Melding: As a full-round action, an asari can establish a telepathic link to an adjacent willing creature. This link functions similarly to telepathic bond, but lasts for as long as both participants keep concentrating on the bond and adjacent.

Social Acumen: Asari gain a +2 to Bluff, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive

 At the opposite end of intimate relations with other races, we have the Volus.

Hailing from a world with a high-pressure atmosphere heavy in ammonia, the volus people find the oxygen and nitrogen-rich worlds populated by many other races to be toxic and dangerously low-pressure. As such, outside of their homeworld and specialized atmosphere chambers, the volus must wear thick atmospheric suits at all times.

Devoted to economic pursuits, volus may seem overly pacifistic to most other races, since they are not especially agile or strong, and don’t share the romantic view of war that other races have. Nevertheless, while they may rely on their alliance with the turians to do most of their fighting, they can still contribute, boasting powerful mages and powerful weapons of war, including powered armor capable of more than making up for their lack of aptitude. Regardless, if they have the options, they’d rather duke it out with foes in the social arena, and conflicts between a volus and anyone else eventually evolve into bargains and deals, at least if the volus has anything to say about it.

Unlike a certain other disappointing reveal in Mass Effect, we have yet to see what the volus look like outside of their protective gear, but we can infer that they are a short and stout race with two eyes. It is difficult to guess their physiology beyond that, as a certain percentage of their suit’s volume must be devoted to maintaining the proper internal atmosphere and pressure, not to mention dealing with food intake and waste processing.

Volus culture revolves primarily around trade and business, but it is not callous in those pursuits. According to their beliefs, one cannot own a person, and they so strongly believe this that while Volus do have two names, they do not have family names, since in their eyes, such things are tantamount to a parent or even ancestors laying claim to their children and decendants. Furthermore, their sacred relic, the Book of Plenix, teaches that in times of war or great strife, charity and the forgiving of debts are the key to survival.

+2 Wis,+2 Cha -4 Dex

Hp 2

Size and Type: Volus are small humanoids of the volus subtype

Racial Traits:

Business Acumen: Volus gain a +2 to Culture, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive when those skills are used as part of trade and business.

Environmental Needs: Volus require an ammonia-heavy atmosphere to survive, and treat standard oxygen-rich atmosphere as highly toxic (DC 20 Fortitude save every round, progresses along Con poison track. Cure 1 save after returning to the proper atmosphere, at which point progression stops, but the progression does not disappear and must be recovered from normally).

Heavy: Volus gain a +2 to KAC against bull rush and reposition attempts

Sluggish: Volus have a land speed of 20 ft

[buzzdixonwriter]

America: Not The New Jerusalem, Merely Another Rome

”When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” -- Paul the Apostle (1 Corinthians 13:11 KJV)

”And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” -- Jesus Christ of Nazareth (John 8:34 KJV)

Ronald Reagan, tending the garden of thorns Dick Nixon had sown, referred to America as “a city on a hill”, thus appropriating Jesus’ words via John Winthrop through John F. Kennedy.

It’s interesting to chart the progression.  Let’s do so in reverse.

Reagan: ”I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.”

Kennedy: ”I have been guided by the standard John Winthrop set before…’We must always consider…that we shall be as a city upon a hill—the eyes of all people are upon us’. Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us—and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill—constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities…History will not judge our endeavors—and a government cannot be selected—merely on the basis of color or creed or even party affiliation. Neither will competence and loyalty and stature, while essential to the utmost, suffice in times such as these. For of those to whom much is given, much is required…”

Winthrop: ”Now the only way to…provide for our posterity is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God, for this end, we must be knit together in this work as one man, we must entertain each other in brotherly affection, we must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities, we must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality, we must delight in each other, make others’ conditions our own, rejoice together, mourn together, labor, and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, our community as members of the same body, so shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace… for we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us; so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world, we shall open the mouths of enemies to speak…curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whether we are going”

Jesus: ”Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.” (Matthew 5:14 KJV) 

Go back and read Reagan’s statement.

While I’ve trimmed Kennedy and Winthrop’s quotes and edited the latter for clarity (God bless Noah Webster for standardized spelling!), there’s a striking difference between what they saw as a city on a hill and what Reagan saw.

Reagan operates under the presumption that of course we’re the best, of course everyone else will look up to us, of course we are the New Jerusalem referenced in the Bible.

We are God’s anointed, His new chosen people.  America is God’s Promised Land, a nation to which all other nations can merely hope to aspire to be.

Our shitte truly stinketh notte.

Reality?   We have fucked up and we have fucked up badly.

Compare Reagan’s self-congratulatory, ignorant nostalgia with the dire warnings of Kenney and Winthrop.

Yes, there is great promise.

Yes, there is great potential.

Yes, we are a city on a hill.

But Kennedy and Winthrop both cautioned that history and the world would not be kind if we failed to live up to our own grandiose promises.

 (And, yeah, there’s irony in that, considering how both failed to make good on those promises, ///but at least they knew the danger was there///.)

Look at Matthew 5:13, the verse immediately preceding Jesus’ original “city on a hill” reference: ”Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.”

America is no New Jerusalem, no Holy Israel of the New World, no Promised Land.

Rather, we are the New Rome, an empire built on greed and ruthlessness and blood and genocide.

And slavery.  Let us never omit that original sin, or its bastard step-sibling, white supremacy.

As long as the history of this nation was written by the Parson Weems of the world, be they well meaning hagiographers or unprincipled propagandists, it was the history of white Christianist* men of property succeeding because God and / or providence had deemed them the masters of the universe, the unquestioned rulers of the earth.

(Oh, there might be a mean one once in a while, maybe an occasional bad one, but it was a white man with money’s world, and if non-whites and non-males wanted to enjoy even the slightest taste, the first thing they had to doo was make sure white Christianist male supremacy reigned supreme.)

Our nation has been at war virtually its entire existence.

It has slaughter and subjugated literally millions of people around the world.

Don’t give me that bullshit about the American Revolution being a good and just war -- Canada stayed under British rule and did just fine, thank you, and although they have their own problems, a far less bloody history than the United States.**

Don’t give me that bullshit about the Civil War being a good and just war -- there shouldn’t have been any need for a civil war if the first shipload of African slaves to arrive in North America had simply been seized and freed.

Don’t give me that bullshit on World War Two being a good and just war -- if Hitler hadn’t declared war on us, we would have never gotten involved in Europe.***

America has waged incessant war against other nations and native peoples in order to make a few wealthy people even wealthier.

Can we justify the War of 1812?  No.

Can we Justify the Mexican War?  No.

Can we justify the Spanish-American War or the too numerous to recount Latin American bush wars?  No.

Can we justify the Philippines, or Korea, or Vietnam?

Don’t even pretend we can justify what we’ve done in the Middle East.

And as terrible as those are, those are the crimes we’ve committed against others.

Look at how terribly we treat one another.

After centuries of enslavement, African-Americans then needed to endure the humiliation of segregation.

Hispanic Americans who can trace their ancestry in this land much further back than any Anglo found themselves aliens in their own country.

Women and non-Christians and anybody outside of toxic white male heterosexual norms declared unfit and excluded from the public sphere.

And we allowed the tiny greedy few at the very top to rob us and pick our pockets and let our families and children suffer because they promised us if we did so, they’d let us feel that we were the best simply because we were white Christianist males.

We are long overdue for our moment of clarity, our agonizing reappraisal, out “come to Jesus” moment when we recognize our sins and shortcomings.

We gotta stop eating our own bullshit and recognize ourselves for the villains we are.

Only by identify the source of the contagion and draining the virulent infection can we hope to cure it.

”Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

”And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.” -- Jesus Christ of Nazareth (John 8:44-45 KJV) 

 © Buzz Dixon

 *  “Christianist” is a term coined by the political commentator Andrew Sullivan to refer to those people who are culturally Christian, who may even think of themselves as Christian, but in reality are as far from the teachings of Christ as is possible and just use their so-called Christian identity as an excuse to do whatever the fuck they feel like doing because “God loves us and forgives us and wants us to be in charge”.

**  The taxation in “no taxation without representation” referred to England trying to get the colonies to take at least partial responsibility for triggering the bloody Seven Years War (in the U.S., the French & Indian War) that virtually drained England’s treasury and wrecked a couple of European empires in the process.  One may argue the crown made a fatal misstep in not allowing token colonial participation in parliament, but you can’t say they were unfair in wanting the colonials to help pay for a war ///we started/// in direct violation of international treaties.

***  Not only were many prominent Americans against getting involved in European affairs, but a large number were pro-Nazi to boot, and they went to ground only when Hitler made it impossible to defend him any longer. And while we’re at it, let’s dispel with the myth that Hitler and the Axis would have won if the U.S. hadn’t stepped into the fray; Hitler lost WWII on June 22, 1941 when he invaded Russia. Contrary to the popular culture of the US and western Europe, it was Russia that took on the brunt of the German war machine, and Russia that painstakingly ground them down at great cost. To put it simply, Russia would have still beaten Germany without the help of the Allies; the Allies might not have beaten Germany without the help of the Russians.  And while Japan was reeling from saturation bombings and the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Russia declaring war on them was the moment they realized there was no hope left.

[patriotsnet]

What Is Republicanism And What Does It Value

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-is-republicanism-and-what-does-it-value/

What Is Republicanism And What Does It Value

What Is A Republican

What does it mean to be Republican under Trump? 2017 American Values Survey findings – Part 2

As you can see, the dictionary definition of a Republican is very brief. And since a Republican is simply defined as a member of the Republican party of the U.S. it is important to understand what the Republican Party stands for. To understand what a Republican is you have to understand the Republican Party. And that is what the rest of this article examines.

The Essentials Of Republicanism

The political theory of republicanism holds that the best government involves citizens, rather than subjects, where citizens share in directing their own affairs. It was first developed and expounded in ancient Greece, most completely by Aristotle in his work, the Politics. Niccolò Machiavelli , who criticized and selfconsciously broke with the old republican tradition, founded a new, modern republicanism. This new republicanism, modified and made more receptive to individual freedom by Machiavelli’s successors, found enduring expression in the Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton , John Jay , and James Madison wrote this collection of essays in 17871788 to defend the proposed Constitution of the United States. Modern republicanism has pervaded the United States and Western Europe, and is influential worldwide. While ancient, or classical, and modern, or liberal, republicanism differ in most respects, they share the conviction of selfgovernment as the only worthwhile political arrangement.

Energy Issues And The Environment

There have always been clashes between the parties on the issues of energy and the environment. Democrats believe in restricting drilling for oil or other avenues of fossil fuels to protect the environment while Republicans favor expanded drilling to produce more energy at a lower cost to consumers. Democrats will push and support with tax dollars alternative energy solutions while the Republicans favor allowing the market to decide which forms of energy are practical.

Recommended Reading: What Is Trump’s Approval Rating Among Republicans

Pass Laws Against Those Who Desecrate The Flag

In meetingswith veterans I argued that almost no one desecrates the flag. To the contrary, September 11 had inspired millions of Americans to start flying the flag for the 1st time in their lives. Republicans were whipping up veterans over a nonissue for short-termpolitical gain in November.

I had not seen an American protester burn an American flag in 30 years. It was just plain wrong and irresponsible to use our own partisan political agenda to poison 50 statehouses with the emotional nonissues. We wouldbe sabotaging the real work our state lawmakers had to accomplish.

The House passed the amendment and Pres. Bush was delighted to announce that he would sign the legislation if the Senate followed suit .

A Distinctly American Internationalism For The 21st Century

Few nations in history have been granted such a singular opportunity to shape the future.Even after World War II the United States had to reckon with a divided world and terrible dangers. Now America can help mold international ideals and institutions for decades to come. Handed the torch by generations that won great battles, our generationof Americans with its allies and friends can build a different and better world, promoting U.S. interests and principles, avoiding the economic convulsions and perilous conflicts that so scarred the century just past. Through a distinctlyAmerican internationalism, a new Republican president will build public support for a new strategy that can lead the United States of America toward a more peaceful and prosperous world for us, our children, and future generations.

Also Check: What Cities Are Run By Republicans

Oped: Gop Has Proven Tone

And yet Republicans have proven themselves remarkably tone-deaf when it comes tocourting Hispanic voters–to the extent that they court them at all. Attracting Hispanic votes does not require abandoning conservative principles–quite the contrary. Rather, it means seeing Hispanic voters as individuals, most of whom ferventlycherish our nation’s ideals.

To win Hispanic votes–and those of immigrants generally–Republicans should play to their strengths while avoiding alienating rhetoric that makes them appear anti-immigrant.

In Favour Of A Constitutional Monarchy

Not inherently undemocratic: Opponents of the republican movement argue that the current system is still democratic as the Government and MPs of Parliament are elected by universal suffrage and as the Crown acts only on the advice of the Parliament, the people still hold power. Monarchy only refers to how the head of state is chosen and not how the Government is chosen. It is only undemocratic if the monarchy holds meaningful power, which it currently does not as government rests with Parliament.

Safeguards the constitutional rights of the individual: The British constitutional system sets limits on Parliament and separates the executive from direct control over the police and courts. Constitutionalists argue that this is because contracts with the monarch such as the Magna Carta, the , the Act of Settlement and the Acts of Union place obligations on the state and confirm its citizens as sovereign beings. These obligations are re-affirmed at every monarch’s coronation. These obligations, whilst at the same time placing limits on the power of the judiciary and the police, also confirm those rights which are intrinsically part of British and especially English culture. Examples are Common Law, the particular status of ancient practices, jury trials, legal precedent, protection against non-judicial seizure and the right to protest.

You May Like: Do Republicans Support Same Sex Marriage

S: Gained Southern Whites Plus Southern Evangelicals

The one thing they all have in common: they always know that no matter how weak theRepublican candidate is on any of their particular issues, the Democrat can only be worse. Bubba knows that a modern Florida Democrat, even a moderate Democrat, will owe his election to blacks and liberals. The evangelicals know that a Democrat will beunlikely to put biblical creationism back in the public schools.

These 3 groups in total account for 40% to 45% of the electorate. The difference was, by the late 1980s, all 3 were voting, for the first time, in lockstep with the Republicans.

The Basis Of Republicanism

What Do Republicans Believe?

Classical republicanism insisted that civic virtuethe capacity to place the good of the commonwealth above one’s own interestbecame the key element of constitutional stability and liberty-seeking order. Only men who had a stake in society, preferably freeholder status of some magnitude, who were literate and familiar with major classical and Enlightenment thinkers, could lead society. Other people, including women, younger men, and the enslaved, had to depend on the elite’s virtue to protect them against tyranny, conquest, and natural disasters. Americans understood that their newly arising state was part of history and thereby needed careful surveillance against the corruptions of time and excessive liberty. Ultimately, the American republican vision rested on four interlocking concepts. First, the ultimate goal of any political society should be the preservation of the public good or commonwealth; second, the citizens of a republic had to be capable of virtue, or the subordination of one’s private interests in service of public needs; third, to be virtuous, citizens had to be independent of the political will of other men; fourth, citizens had to be active in the exercise of their citizenship.

Also Check: What Percent Of Republicans Approve Of Trump

Government Is Not The Solution To Domestic Social Problems

This is pretty universal among Republicans. Government should not be providing solutions to problems that confront people . Those problems should be solved by the people themselves. A Republican would say that relying on the government to solve problems is a crutch that makes people lazy and feel entitled to receive things without working for them.

Social Conservatism Is Central Reason Politics Is Polarized

Such tension would not be possible in any other affluent democracy, because in those democracies nothing remotely resembling social conservatism exists. Its absence is the main reason the politics ofWestern Europe and Japan have not become polarized, and the continued presence and strength of social conservatism is the central reason politics is polarized here. Understanding why this is so, and why it islikely to continue well into the future, goes a long way toward explaining why American politics has such a different feel from the politics of other affluent democracies, as well as where our very different politics may lead.

You May Like: How Many Republicans And Democrats Are In The House

Civil War And Reconstruction

Historian Frank Lawrence Owsley depicted antebellum Southern society as a broad class of yeoman farmers who stood and worked between the slaves and poor whites at one end and the large planters at the opposite end of the economic spectrum, Owsley asserted that the real South was liberal, American, and Jeffersonian, not radical or reactionary. It reflected the best of republican principles Agrarianism in the 20th century was a response to the industrialism and modernism that had infiltrated the South. According to Owsley, the position of the South vis-Ã;-vis the North was created not by slavery, cotton, or states’ rights, but by the two regions’ misunderstanding of each other. J. Mills Thornton argues that in the antebellum South the drive to preserve republican values was the most powerful force, and led Southerners to interpret Northern policies as a threat to their republican values.

In reaction to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, antislavery forces in the North formed a new party. The party officially designated itself “Republican” because the name resonated with the struggle of 1776. “In view of the necessity of battling for the first principles of republican government,” resolved the Michigan state convention, “and against the schemes of aristocracy the most revolting and oppressive with which the earth was ever cursed, or man debased, we will co-operate and be known as Republicans.”

What Does Classical Republicanism Mean

4.6/5Classical republicanismrepublicanismrepublicanismclassicalclassicalis here

For them, “republicanism represented more than a particular form of government. It was a way of life, a core ideology, an uncompromising commitment to liberty, and a total rejection of aristocracy.” Republicanism shaped what the Founders thought and did during the American Revolution, and after.

Similarly, what is classical republicanism and how did it develop in the colonies? Republican virtuesCountry party philosophy relied heavily on the classical republicanism of Roman heritage; it celebrated the ideals of duty and virtuous citizenship in a republic. This approach produced a political ideology Americans called “republicanism“, which was widespread in colonial America by 1775.

Herein, what is the main idea of Republicanism?

Republicanism is a representative form of government organization. It is a political ideology centered on citizenship in a state organized as a republic. Historically, it ranges from the rule of a representative minority or oligarchy to popular sovereignty.

What is the meaning of republican government?

A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or property of the rulers. As such it has become the opposing form of government to a monarchy and has therefore no monarch as head of state.

Recommended Reading: Is Economy Better Under Democrats Or Republicans

America Should Deport Illegal Immigrants

Republicans believe that illegal immigrants, no matter the reason they are in this country, should be forcibly removed from the U.S. Although illegal immigrants are often motivated to come to the U.S. by companies who hire them, Republicans generally believe that the focus of the law should be on the illegal immigrants and not on the corporations that hire them.

Political Liberty Positive And Negative

It is notorious that there are several competing conceptions ofpolitical liberty. The now standard account was laid down mostinfluentially by Isaiah Berlin in his famous lecture on TwoConcepts of Liberty . According to the first,negative conception of liberty, people are free simply tothe extent that their choices are not interfered with. There are manyvariations on this conception, depending on how exactly one wants todefine interference, but they all have in common thebasic intuition that to be free is, more or less, to be left alone todo whatever one chooses. This idea of negative liberty Berlinassociates especially with the classic English political philosophersHobbes, Bentham, and J. S. Mill, and it is today probably the dominantconception of liberty, particularly among contemporary Anglo-Americanphilosophers. In Mills well-known words, the only freedomwhich deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our ownway, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs.

The troubling implications of the positive conception of liberty arewell-known, and need not be rehearsed at length here. For the most part, thesestem from the problem that freedom in the positive sense would seem tolicense fairly extensive coercion on behalf of individualsallegedly real interestsfor example, coercivelyforcing the gambler to quit on the presumption that this is, in fact,what he really wants to do . Regardingthis danger, Berlin writes:

Read Also: What Is The Lapel Pin The Republicans Are Wearing

Opiniondemocrats Challenged Electoral College Votes First And Set The Precedent For This Mess

There is no way to justify continuing the false designation of radical rightists as “conservatives” and people willing to end the republic as “Republicans.” The dozen-plus elected members of the Republican Party in the Senate and the more than a hundred in the House who announced that they would vote to overturn various states’ electoral slates Wednesday should not, despite their nominal party membership, be referred to as “conservatives” or “Republicans.”

All who fail to condemn President Donald Trump’s phone call threatening and pressuring state officials in Georgia and who do not forcefully disassociate themselves from his reported musings about declaring martial law to remain in power show themselves to be opposed to conserving our republic.

Today’s Republicans plainly are not deserving of the inheritance of Lincoln’s party or its name.

The unconscionable effort to keep Trump in office despite the stated will of the people is tantamount to throwing democracy and the American republic into the dustbin of history. Republicans do not wish to end the republic in which they serve or else they are Republicans in Name Only. Conservatives who do not wish to conserve the very foundation of the American experiment our democratic republic is no kind of conservative their intellectual predecessors would recognize.

In What Ways Does The Declaration Of Independence Reflect Principles Of Classical Republicanism

What does it mean to be Republican under Trump? 2017 American Values Survey findings – Part 1

In what ways does it reflect principles of classical republicanism? The Declaration of Independence reflects John Locke’s social contract by withdrawing their obligation to obey the monarchy, by grouping colonists to change leadership because they believed the monarchy failed to protect their rights.

Recommended Reading: Are Republicans More Racist Than Democrats

What Is A Republican Republican Definition

April 11, 2014 By RepublicanViews.org

This article fully answers what a Republican is and gives the definition of a Republican in a fair, unbiased, and well-researched way. To start the article we list out the definition of a Republican, then we cover the Republican Partys core beliefs, then we list out the Republican Partys beliefs on all the major issues.

The Definition of a Republican:;a member of the Republican party of the U.S.

Source Merriam-Webster Dictionary

History Of The Republican Party

The Republican Party came into existence just prior to the Civil War due to their long-time stance in favor of abolition of slavery. They were a small third-party who nominated John C. Freemont for President in 1856. In 1860 they became an established political party when their nominee Abraham Lincoln was elected as President of the United States. Lincolns Presidency throughout the war, including his policies to end slavery for good helped solidify the Republican Party as a major force in American politics. The elephant was chosen as their symbol in 1874 based on a cartoon in Harpers Weekly that depicted the new party as an elephant.

Recommended Reading: How Many Democrats Have Been President Vs Republicans

New Nation: The Constitution

The Founding Fathers wanted republicanism that would guarantee liberty, and most were afraid that a “democracy” would allow a majority of voters at any time to trample rights and liberties; the most formidable of these potential majorities being that of the poor against the rich. That is, they saw democracy as mob rule that could be shaped on the spot by a demagogue. Therefore they devised a written Constitution which could only be amended by a supermajority, preserved competing sovereignties in the constituent states, gave the control of the upper house to the states, and created an Electoral College comprising a small number of elites to select the president. They set up a House of Representative to represent the people. In practice the electoral college soon gave way to control by political parties. Not expected by the founders was the emergence of the Supreme Court under John Marshall as the final arbiter of the Constitution and indeed of all political rules. In 1776 most states required property ownership to vote, but most citizens owned farms in the 90% rural nation, so it was not a severe restriction, and was dropped state by state in the early 19th century.

What Does The Republican Party Stand For

The Republican Party was initially created to advocate for a free-market economy that countered the Democratic Partys agrarian leanings and support of slave labour. In recent history, the Republicans have been affiliated with reducing taxes to stimulate the economy, deregulation, and conservative social values.

Recommended Reading: What News Channel Do Republicans Watch

What Counts As Arbitrary Power

A second major difficulty in developing the republican idea offreedom lies in giving precise meaning to the notion of arbitrariness.According to what criteria are we to consider power arbitrary? Notsimply when its exercise is random or unpredictable. This view wouldundermine the whole point of the republican conception of politicalliberty. As discussed above, with long experience a slave is betterable to predict his masters behavior, and so it appears lessrandom to him, but the slave doesnot enjoy greater freedom by that fact alone. Just because one isbetter able to cope with arbitrary power, it does not follow thatones domination is any less.

Discretionary is much closer to the relevant meaningof arbitrary, but it is not quite right either. Discretionary powermight be delegated to a public agency with a view to advancing certainpolicy goals or endsas for example Congress has delegateddiscretionary authority to the Federal Reservebut we would notwant to say that this reduces our freedom . For reasons explained inthe fourth section of this entry, contemporary civic republicans mustbe able to offer an account of non-arbitrary, yet discretionaryauthority.

[statetalks]

What Is Republicanism And What Does It Value

What Is A Republican

What does it mean to be Republican under Trump? 2017 American Values Survey findings – Part 2

As you can see, the dictionary definition of a Republican is very brief. And since a Republican is simply defined as a member of the Republican party of the U.S. it is important to understand what the Republican Party stands for. To understand what a Republican is you have to understand the Republican Party. And that is what the rest of this article examines.

The Essentials Of Republicanism

The political theory of republicanism holds that the best government involves citizens, rather than subjects, where citizens share in directing their own affairs. It was first developed and expounded in ancient Greece, most completely by Aristotle in his work, the Politics. Niccolò Machiavelli , who criticized and selfconsciously broke with the old republican tradition, founded a new, modern republicanism. This new republicanism, modified and made more receptive to individual freedom by Machiavelli’s successors, found enduring expression in the Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton , John Jay , and James Madison wrote this collection of essays in 17871788 to defend the proposed Constitution of the United States. Modern republicanism has pervaded the United States and Western Europe, and is influential worldwide. While ancient, or classical, and modern, or liberal, republicanism differ in most respects, they share the conviction of selfgovernment as the only worthwhile political arrangement.

Energy Issues And The Environment

There have always been clashes between the parties on the issues of energy and the environment. Democrats believe in restricting drilling for oil or other avenues of fossil fuels to protect the environment while Republicans favor expanded drilling to produce more energy at a lower cost to consumers. Democrats will push and support with tax dollars alternative energy solutions while the Republicans favor allowing the market to decide which forms of energy are practical.

Recommended Reading: What Is Trump’s Approval Rating Among Republicans

Pass Laws Against Those Who Desecrate The Flag

In meetingswith veterans I argued that almost no one desecrates the flag. To the contrary, September 11 had inspired millions of Americans to start flying the flag for the 1st time in their lives. Republicans were whipping up veterans over a nonissue for short-termpolitical gain in November.

I had not seen an American protester burn an American flag in 30 years. It was just plain wrong and irresponsible to use our own partisan political agenda to poison 50 statehouses with the emotional nonissues. We wouldbe sabotaging the real work our state lawmakers had to accomplish.

The House passed the amendment and Pres. Bush was delighted to announce that he would sign the legislation if the Senate followed suit .

A Distinctly American Internationalism For The 21st Century

Few nations in history have been granted such a singular opportunity to shape the future.Even after World War II the United States had to reckon with a divided world and terrible dangers. Now America can help mold international ideals and institutions for decades to come. Handed the torch by generations that won great battles, our generationof Americans with its allies and friends can build a different and better world, promoting U.S. interests and principles, avoiding the economic convulsions and perilous conflicts that so scarred the century just past. Through a distinctlyAmerican internationalism, a new Republican president will build public support for a new strategy that can lead the United States of America toward a more peaceful and prosperous world for us, our children, and future generations.

Also Check: What Cities Are Run By Republicans

Oped: Gop Has Proven Tone

And yet Republicans have proven themselves remarkably tone-deaf when it comes tocourting Hispanic voters–to the extent that they court them at all. Attracting Hispanic votes does not require abandoning conservative principles–quite the contrary. Rather, it means seeing Hispanic voters as individuals, most of whom ferventlycherish our nation’s ideals.

To win Hispanic votes–and those of immigrants generally–Republicans should play to their strengths while avoiding alienating rhetoric that makes them appear anti-immigrant.

In Favour Of A Constitutional Monarchy

Not inherently undemocratic: Opponents of the republican movement argue that the current system is still democratic as the Government and MPs of Parliament are elected by universal suffrage and as the Crown acts only on the advice of the Parliament, the people still hold power. Monarchy only refers to how the head of state is chosen and not how the Government is chosen. It is only undemocratic if the monarchy holds meaningful power, which it currently does not as government rests with Parliament.

Safeguards the constitutional rights of the individual: The British constitutional system sets limits on Parliament and separates the executive from direct control over the police and courts. Constitutionalists argue that this is because contracts with the monarch such as the Magna Carta, the , the Act of Settlement and the Acts of Union place obligations on the state and confirm its citizens as sovereign beings. These obligations are re-affirmed at every monarch’s coronation. These obligations, whilst at the same time placing limits on the power of the judiciary and the police, also confirm those rights which are intrinsically part of British and especially English culture. Examples are Common Law, the particular status of ancient practices, jury trials, legal precedent, protection against non-judicial seizure and the right to protest.

You May Like: Do Republicans Support Same Sex Marriage

S: Gained Southern Whites Plus Southern Evangelicals

The one thing they all have in common: they always know that no matter how weak theRepublican candidate is on any of their particular issues, the Democrat can only be worse. Bubba knows that a modern Florida Democrat, even a moderate Democrat, will owe his election to blacks and liberals. The evangelicals know that a Democrat will beunlikely to put biblical creationism back in the public schools.

These 3 groups in total account for 40% to 45% of the electorate. The difference was, by the late 1980s, all 3 were voting, for the first time, in lockstep with the Republicans.

The Basis Of Republicanism

What Do Republicans Believe?

Classical republicanism insisted that civic virtuethe capacity to place the good of the commonwealth above one’s own interestbecame the key element of constitutional stability and liberty-seeking order. Only men who had a stake in society, preferably freeholder status of some magnitude, who were literate and familiar with major classical and Enlightenment thinkers, could lead society. Other people, including women, younger men, and the enslaved, had to depend on the elite’s virtue to protect them against tyranny, conquest, and natural disasters. Americans understood that their newly arising state was part of history and thereby needed careful surveillance against the corruptions of time and excessive liberty. Ultimately, the American republican vision rested on four interlocking concepts. First, the ultimate goal of any political society should be the preservation of the public good or commonwealth; second, the citizens of a republic had to be capable of virtue, or the subordination of one’s private interests in service of public needs; third, to be virtuous, citizens had to be independent of the political will of other men; fourth, citizens had to be active in the exercise of their citizenship.

Also Check: What Percent Of Republicans Approve Of Trump

Government Is Not The Solution To Domestic Social Problems

This is pretty universal among Republicans. Government should not be providing solutions to problems that confront people . Those problems should be solved by the people themselves. A Republican would say that relying on the government to solve problems is a crutch that makes people lazy and feel entitled to receive things without working for them.

Social Conservatism Is Central Reason Politics Is Polarized

Such tension would not be possible in any other affluent democracy, because in those democracies nothing remotely resembling social conservatism exists. Its absence is the main reason the politics ofWestern Europe and Japan have not become polarized, and the continued presence and strength of social conservatism is the central reason politics is polarized here. Understanding why this is so, and why it islikely to continue well into the future, goes a long way toward explaining why American politics has such a different feel from the politics of other affluent democracies, as well as where our very different politics may lead.

You May Like: How Many Republicans And Democrats Are In The House

Civil War And Reconstruction

Historian Frank Lawrence Owsley depicted antebellum Southern society as a broad class of yeoman farmers who stood and worked between the slaves and poor whites at one end and the large planters at the opposite end of the economic spectrum, Owsley asserted that the real South was liberal, American, and Jeffersonian, not radical or reactionary. It reflected the best of republican principles Agrarianism in the 20th century was a response to the industrialism and modernism that had infiltrated the South. According to Owsley, the position of the South vis-Ã;-vis the North was created not by slavery, cotton, or states’ rights, but by the two regions’ misunderstanding of each other. J. Mills Thornton argues that in the antebellum South the drive to preserve republican values was the most powerful force, and led Southerners to interpret Northern policies as a threat to their republican values.

In reaction to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, antislavery forces in the North formed a new party. The party officially designated itself “Republican” because the name resonated with the struggle of 1776. “In view of the necessity of battling for the first principles of republican government,” resolved the Michigan state convention, “and against the schemes of aristocracy the most revolting and oppressive with which the earth was ever cursed, or man debased, we will co-operate and be known as Republicans.”

What Does Classical Republicanism Mean

4.6/5Classical republicanismrepublicanismrepublicanismclassicalclassicalis here

For them, “republicanism represented more than a particular form of government. It was a way of life, a core ideology, an uncompromising commitment to liberty, and a total rejection of aristocracy.” Republicanism shaped what the Founders thought and did during the American Revolution, and after.

Similarly, what is classical republicanism and how did it develop in the colonies? Republican virtuesCountry party philosophy relied heavily on the classical republicanism of Roman heritage; it celebrated the ideals of duty and virtuous citizenship in a republic. This approach produced a political ideology Americans called “republicanism“, which was widespread in colonial America by 1775.

Herein, what is the main idea of Republicanism?

Republicanism is a representative form of government organization. It is a political ideology centered on citizenship in a state organized as a republic. Historically, it ranges from the rule of a representative minority or oligarchy to popular sovereignty.

What is the meaning of republican government?

A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or property of the rulers. As such it has become the opposing form of government to a monarchy and has therefore no monarch as head of state.

Recommended Reading: Is Economy Better Under Democrats Or Republicans

America Should Deport Illegal Immigrants

Republicans believe that illegal immigrants, no matter the reason they are in this country, should be forcibly removed from the U.S. Although illegal immigrants are often motivated to come to the U.S. by companies who hire them, Republicans generally believe that the focus of the law should be on the illegal immigrants and not on the corporations that hire them.

Political Liberty Positive And Negative

It is notorious that there are several competing conceptions ofpolitical liberty. The now standard account was laid down mostinfluentially by Isaiah Berlin in his famous lecture on TwoConcepts of Liberty . According to the first,negative conception of liberty, people are free simply tothe extent that their choices are not interfered with. There are manyvariations on this conception, depending on how exactly one wants todefine interference, but they all have in common thebasic intuition that to be free is, more or less, to be left alone todo whatever one chooses. This idea of negative liberty Berlinassociates especially with the classic English political philosophersHobbes, Bentham, and J. S. Mill, and it is today probably the dominantconception of liberty, particularly among contemporary Anglo-Americanphilosophers. In Mills well-known words, the only freedomwhich deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our ownway, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs.

The troubling implications of the positive conception of liberty arewell-known, and need not be rehearsed at length here. For the most part, thesestem from the problem that freedom in the positive sense would seem tolicense fairly extensive coercion on behalf of individualsallegedly real interestsfor example, coercivelyforcing the gambler to quit on the presumption that this is, in fact,what he really wants to do . Regardingthis danger, Berlin writes:

Read Also: What Is The Lapel Pin The Republicans Are Wearing

Opiniondemocrats Challenged Electoral College Votes First And Set The Precedent For This Mess

There is no way to justify continuing the false designation of radical rightists as “conservatives” and people willing to end the republic as “Republicans.” The dozen-plus elected members of the Republican Party in the Senate and the more than a hundred in the House who announced that they would vote to overturn various states’ electoral slates Wednesday should not, despite their nominal party membership, be referred to as “conservatives” or “Republicans.”

All who fail to condemn President Donald Trump’s phone call threatening and pressuring state officials in Georgia and who do not forcefully disassociate themselves from his reported musings about declaring martial law to remain in power show themselves to be opposed to conserving our republic.

Today’s Republicans plainly are not deserving of the inheritance of Lincoln’s party or its name.

The unconscionable effort to keep Trump in office despite the stated will of the people is tantamount to throwing democracy and the American republic into the dustbin of history. Republicans do not wish to end the republic in which they serve or else they are Republicans in Name Only. Conservatives who do not wish to conserve the very foundation of the American experiment our democratic republic is no kind of conservative their intellectual predecessors would recognize.

In What Ways Does The Declaration Of Independence Reflect Principles Of Classical Republicanism

What does it mean to be Republican under Trump? 2017 American Values Survey findings – Part 1

In what ways does it reflect principles of classical republicanism? The Declaration of Independence reflects John Locke’s social contract by withdrawing their obligation to obey the monarchy, by grouping colonists to change leadership because they believed the monarchy failed to protect their rights.

Recommended Reading: Are Republicans More Racist Than Democrats

What Is A Republican Republican Definition

April 11, 2014 By RepublicanViews.org

This article fully answers what a Republican is and gives the definition of a Republican in a fair, unbiased, and well-researched way. To start the article we list out the definition of a Republican, then we cover the Republican Partys core beliefs, then we list out the Republican Partys beliefs on all the major issues.

The Definition of a Republican:;a member of the Republican party of the U.S.

Source Merriam-Webster Dictionary

History Of The Republican Party

The Republican Party came into existence just prior to the Civil War due to their long-time stance in favor of abolition of slavery. They were a small third-party who nominated John C. Freemont for President in 1856. In 1860 they became an established political party when their nominee Abraham Lincoln was elected as President of the United States. Lincolns Presidency throughout the war, including his policies to end slavery for good helped solidify the Republican Party as a major force in American politics. The elephant was chosen as their symbol in 1874 based on a cartoon in Harpers Weekly that depicted the new party as an elephant.

Recommended Reading: How Many Democrats Have Been President Vs Republicans

New Nation: The Constitution

The Founding Fathers wanted republicanism that would guarantee liberty, and most were afraid that a “democracy” would allow a majority of voters at any time to trample rights and liberties; the most formidable of these potential majorities being that of the poor against the rich. That is, they saw democracy as mob rule that could be shaped on the spot by a demagogue. Therefore they devised a written Constitution which could only be amended by a supermajority, preserved competing sovereignties in the constituent states, gave the control of the upper house to the states, and created an Electoral College comprising a small number of elites to select the president. They set up a House of Representative to represent the people. In practice the electoral college soon gave way to control by political parties. Not expected by the founders was the emergence of the Supreme Court under John Marshall as the final arbiter of the Constitution and indeed of all political rules. In 1776 most states required property ownership to vote, but most citizens owned farms in the 90% rural nation, so it was not a severe restriction, and was dropped state by state in the early 19th century.

What Does The Republican Party Stand For

The Republican Party was initially created to advocate for a free-market economy that countered the Democratic Partys agrarian leanings and support of slave labour. In recent history, the Republicans have been affiliated with reducing taxes to stimulate the economy, deregulation, and conservative social values.

Recommended Reading: What News Channel Do Republicans Watch

What Counts As Arbitrary Power

A second major difficulty in developing the republican idea offreedom lies in giving precise meaning to the notion of arbitrariness.According to what criteria are we to consider power arbitrary? Notsimply when its exercise is random or unpredictable. This view wouldundermine the whole point of the republican conception of politicalliberty. As discussed above, with long experience a slave is betterable to predict his masters behavior, and so it appears lessrandom to him, but the slave doesnot enjoy greater freedom by that fact alone. Just because one isbetter able to cope with arbitrary power, it does not follow thatones domination is any less.

Discretionary is much closer to the relevant meaningof arbitrary, but it is not quite right either. Discretionary powermight be delegated to a public agency with a view to advancing certainpolicy goals or endsas for example Congress has delegateddiscretionary authority to the Federal Reservebut we would notwant to say that this reduces our freedom . For reasons explained inthe fourth section of this entry, contemporary civic republicans mustbe able to offer an account of non-arbitrary, yet discretionaryauthority.

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-is-republicanism-and-what-does-it-value/

[rauthschild]

The Money Situation – Part 1

People are constantly contacting me asking what to do with their money and/or investments.  The first thing to understand about money is that unless it is rendered in a form that has an actual market value in and of itself, for example, as gold and silver coins -- it doesn't actually exist. It's just a representation of money known as a commercial script.

The second thing you need to know about money is that it is a commodity just like rice and soybeans.

It is a commodity that is supposed to be produced by sober and responsible fiduciary deputies acting for the Public Good, and when it is properly produced and the amount of it is regulated, it functions like manure on a corn crop.  

If, however, the power to literally "make money" is abused, one of two things invariably happens: too much money is produced, resulting in inflation, or, too little money is produced, resulting in deflation.

The original purpose of the Federal Reserve was to remove the responsibility of controlling money production from our remaining Federal Subcontractors, who inherited the job from our lawful Fiduciary Deputies following the Civil War.  They had proven to be derelict and it was felt that placing this function in the hands of professionals would benefit all concerned.

Best made plans of mice and men....

The Federal Reserve was then corrupted, too.  

It seems that the corrosive power of money knows no bounds, and the power to gin up money out of thin air--- the commodity production end of it ---  is even more corrosive.

One of the safeguards put in place was that the Federal Reserve could not mess with our actual money, the American Silver Dollar.

They could only issue military script based on assets belonging to the British Territorial United States and to members of the military and their dependents, whose assets were entered into trust and managed during their tours of duty.  

FDR bulked this asset base up by illegally confiscating 6,000 tons of privately held American gold under the color of law and armed force.

The Federal Reserve issued "Silver Certificates-" from 1913 to 1971, and then everything flipped over to the Petrodollar and oil became the commodity basis for international trade purposes.  

Many people have believed that the oil was principally the product of the Middle East and that we were selling out to the devil.  This impression was bolstered by endless discussion and repetition of the idea that "the US" was energy-dependent on OPEC.

In fact, our American oil resources dwarf the Middle Eastern reserves and we had all the refinery capacity, so while we were the world's Number One importer of crude oil, we were at the same time the world's Number One exporter of refined oil products.  Go figure.

We are now still second or third on the list of top oil-exporting countries.

So that is a brief history of our actual commodity-backed money, the American Gold Eagles, the American Silver Dollars, and the Petrodollar.

But what of the commercial script, which is and always was a military script, the so-called "USD", a form of Promissory Note issued by the Federal Reserve?  From 1913 to the present, it has been ruthlessly manipulated and inflated, then deflated, then inflated, then deflated, just as Thomas Jefferson predicted, and the people and institutions responsible for it became despicably corrupt.

What to do?  At this point, I'd invest in you.  Invest in your health.  Your happiness.  Your family. Fix up your house, stock your larder, take good care of your car. Go to the dentist. Take care of veterinary needs. Renew and sustain your relationship with the True God.  

I would  do my paperwork and record my actual political status and join my State Assembly, and spread the word to everyone else so that we all know what is going on and are on the same page.

The United States of North America has been cheated by its purported WWII Allies, and now, these same parties---who owe their continued existence to USNA---- are trying to hire Red China to come against USNA as mercenaries.

It has apparently not occurred to the Chinese that these same people have axes to grind with them about over-population and about their environmental destruction and that this is one way the Pontiff and the Brits can get rid of half a billion Chinese --- and sit there, innocent as the flowers in May, sanctimoniously blaming the Chinese and USNA for it.  

And it hasn't occurred to our military that they've been sold out and have only their much-abused employers to fall back on and a lot of housecleaning to do.

Anyway, folks, there is no safe haven in gold or silver, and certainly none in the stock market.  When the puppet shows collapses, and it will, it will go down in a mighty "Kerplumpf!"  --- and all the bankers who have manipulated and gouged and cheated and imagined that they were so very much smarter than everyone else, will live to see their products on the shelf and themselves in jail.

Stay tuned for Part 2 of The Money Situation.

[newstfionline]

Luther’s legacy: How people use the Bible today, 500 years after a monk sparked the Protestant Reformation

G. Jeffrey Macdonald, CS Monitor, October 29, 2017

CHATTANOOGA, TENN.--Students at Ooltewah High School in suburban Chattanooga are still yawning at their desks at 7:20 on a recent morning when teacher Daniel Ziegenmier says something designed to awaken their consciences.

“OK,” he announces, “time to put away your phones. Everyone come forward and get a Bible.”

Soon their minds are back in Old Testament times with help from a six-minute video summarizing Genesis.

For sophomore Jackson Clark, the material isn’t new. He’s already learned it in church. But he says he appreciates engaging with the Bible in a neutral setting, one with no religious agenda and no expectations about what to believe or how to interpret it. And he’s glad private donors give money ($1.3 million this year) to fund elective courses in Bible history for more than 3,700 of his fellow Hamilton County public school students.

“Even if you don’t have access to a church, it’s good to know about [the Bible] and be able to ... enjoy it,” Jackson says. “By taking this at school, they still get all the basic knowledge that you’d get out of church, all the stories and lessons that you get from reading the book.”

Bible courses are relatively rare in American public schools, where boards, including Hamilton County’s, try to avoid any whiff of religious endorsement or breach of the church-state divide. But here in the buckle of the Bible Belt, their growth is an example of efforts to foster reading the Bible--a practice that is a central legacy of the Protestant Reformation that was launched 500 years ago this month.

From Chattanooga to Johannesburg, in churches, schools, and living rooms, the reform movement fomented by an iconoclastic monk named Martin Luther has shaped how millions of people around the world seek God. Now, in the age of the internet, shifting cultural mores, and falling church attendance, the role of the Bible is evolving again.

In some Western countries, Bible use is in decline. In other regions, it is on the rise--and the internet promises to expand its reach even more. But how people actually interact with the Bible--whether they consider it the supreme authority on questions of faith, as Luther decreed it should be--is changing, too.

Perhaps nowhere are Luther’s legacy and the various ways the book is affecting everyday life more evident than here in Chattanooga, Tenn., the Appalachian city where public monuments quote Scripture and honor devout churchmen who helped make it the unofficial Bible capital of the world.

The man who rocked Christendom 500 years ago and made Bible reading a spiritual staple was among the least likely of revolutionaries. A miner’s son who harbored early ambitions to practice law, Luther turned to monastic life in a moment of panic: He promised during a violent thunderstorm to become a monk should God mercifully spare his life.

Luther fulfilled his vow, but Augustinian monkhood for him would soon involve much more than the usual prayer and fasting. His study of ancient biblical languages would open the floodgates of Protestantism.

At age 33, Luther hammered a fateful nail into the Roman Catholic Church--figuratively, and, according to popular legend, literally--when he posted his 95 Theses on the church door at Wittenberg Castle in Germany on Oct. 31, 1517. The pope’s selling of indulgences to those hoping to get deceased relatives out of purgatory had no biblical basis, Luther argued. He dismissed the practice of paying money to be absolved of sin as a corrupt, human invention rather than divine truth, even if the pope sanctioned it.

Luther’s core ideas--that humans reach salvation by grace through God-given faith, not their deeds, and that the Bible is the central religious authority--had been embraced by prior reformers. But the contentious, moon-faced monk crystallized them at a time when excesses and corruption made the Catholic Church susceptible to change.

As a result, the Protestant Reformation eventually swept the West, aided by new technology. The new printing press with movable type made publishing exponentially more efficient, starting with the Gutenberg Bible in the mid-15th century. Luther and others translated the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into local vernaculars.

“When the people could read the Bible for themselves ... in a language that they could understand, that’s what really caused the spiritual explosion of the Reformation,” says Jim Thompson, vice president of Bible League International, a Bible distribution organization based in Crete, Ill.

Since then, Protestants have been defined by the principle of sola scriptura, which holds that while other sources might deliver insights, the Bible is the supreme guide on questions of faith. And every human being should engage directly in what it has to say.

“At the end of the day, sola scriptura was the trump card,” says Thomas “Tal” Howard, professor of humanities at Valparaiso University in Indiana and co-editor of the book “Protestantism After 500 Years.”

“Christians reading the Bible on a daily basis--that didn’t really go on before the Reformation, or only to a limited extent,” notes Kathleen Crowther, a Reformation historian at the University of Oklahoma in Norman.

Today Protestants still embrace sola scriptura as an ideal. Forty-six percent of Protestants in the United States say the Bible provides all the religious guidance they need, according to a 2017 Pew Research Center survey. Another 52 percent say they also need guidance from church teachings and traditions, which is consistent with the early Reformers’ view as long as the Bible has the final say, says Mr. Howard.

But in practice, Americans are spending less time with the Bible and ascribing less authority to it than they used to. The percentage saying they read it at least weekly dropped from 46 percent in 2009 to 37 percent in 2017, according to the Barna Group, a Christian polling firm in Ventura, Calif.

“We have a growing biblical literacy problem in the US,” Mr. Thompson says.

Perceptions of biblical authority have been waning, too. Led by Millennials, 19 percent of Americans now view the Bible as “just another book” rather than an inspired text, up from 10 percent in 2011. The internet accounts for at least some of the Bible’s lost stature.

“What’s increased, especially with Millennials, is this questioning of authority in all places,” not just the Bible, says Roxanne Stone, Barna’s editor in chief. “It can be hard to have this sense of the Bible being an authority when you have a universe of knowledge at your fingertips.”

Overseas, proponents of direct Bible engagement face distinct challenges. In Europe, where the Reformation began, only 28 percent of the literate population owns a print version of at least one book of the Bible, according to data from the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Hamilton, Mass. Bible access ranks the highest in North America, at 95 percent, but it stands at only 16 percent in Asia and 29 percent worldwide.

One place where there isn’t a dearth of Bibles is Chattanooga. Here, in a city nestled between forested hills and a sweeping bend in the Tennessee River, 50 percent of the population reads the Bible at least weekly and strongly regards it as accurate in its principles, according to a 2017 Barna survey. As a result, the polling firm anointed Chattanooga America’s “most Bible-minded city,” which, given the book’s prevalence in North America, means it is probably the No. 1 city in the world for the holy book.

How that happened is a function of history and culture. Chattanooga is more traditional and pragmatic than it is flashy or trendy. Crafts are handed down to younger generations at places such as the Chattanooga Woodworking Academy. A manufacturing culture remains deeply embedded here: Workers on assembly lines bottle Coca-Cola, make cardboard food trays, and build Volkswagens, though the city also has an emerging high-tech scene. Signs point visitors to local history at every turn: Civil War battle markers, the infamous Trail of Tears, and the Chattanooga Choo Choo, a depot-turned-hotel and exhibit.

Faith and family run deep in this tradition-heavy culture. The area is home to dozens of churches, as well as many other major religious institutions, including five Christian colleges, Precept Ministries International, and the world headquarters of The Church of God (in nearby Cleveland, Tenn.).

But even here, sustaining Luther’s vision of sola scriptura requires new creativity. This is evident on a Sunday morning at Chattanooga’s Trinity Lutheran Church. The first thing you see--after a cheery mural depicting Luther and his wife, Katharina--is a smorgasbord of Bible study groups.

In the church’s library, retired religion scholar Herb Burhenn unpacks John 16 verse by verse as a dozen seniors seated around a long table listen and nod deferentially. Down the hall, Mike Brandt leads a second group of adults in a more casual format. In a dining area, kids and adults cluster around small tables, where each offers an interpretation of Jesus’ teaching on reconciliation in Matthew 18.

Trinity offers multiple approaches to Bible study, according to the Rev. Stan Combs, because the path to experiencing the Bible’s authority varies so much in 2017 from one person to the next. That’s especially true in this era when countless experts and potential authorities--whether in religion, politics, or science--are always as close as the click of a mouse.

For some teens at Trinity, the Bible’s decrees are to be embraced no matter how much they go against popular culture. Fourteen-year-old Sam Sosebee, for one, believes his denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, needs to hew more closely to Scripture. “The Lutheran church lets gays be pastors, but that’s one thing I’m conflicted about because the Bible says you shouldn’t,” he says.

His 16-year-old sister, Abby, welcomes how the Bible challenges her group of friends to lead holy lives, such as by shunning the gossip that typically marks teenage social life. This fall, they’ve made the Bible their hardcore trainer for a spiritual fitness regimen that involves reading all 66 books in 90 days.

“It’s always been present in my life, but going and reading it myself has made it so much more real,” says Abby, still wearing her white vestments after reading the day’s Scriptures in worship. “It’s made me so much more passionate to just get it out there for other people to know about.”

Beyond Tennessee, the quest to encourage direct Bible engagement stretches across the globe as the Reformation enters its sixth century. It remains a hallmark of global Protestantism, which counts 800 million adherents after a surge of overseas mission activity in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Today, Protestantism’s center of gravity has shifted from Europe and North America to the Southern Hemisphere. A plurality of the Protestant faithful (295 million) lives in sub-Saharan Africa.

But those following in the Reformers’ footsteps abroad face distinct challenges to the sola scriptura method. Lack of access to the Bible remains a significant problem. Some 160 million people don’t have even one book of the Bible available in their language, according to Bob Creson, president of Wycliffe Bible Translators, a nonprofit based in Orlando, Fla. Technology, as in the 16th century, is helping. Translation software has cut the average time for translating the New Testament into a new language from 25 years to seven. By 2033, every person will be able to find at least one biblical book in his or her language, according to Mr. Creson.

Distribution remains a problem, too. Bibles often pile up in churches, never reaching people in remote locations. But believers are making inroads by using the Bible primarily as a tool for evangelism in countries such as Mexico, Ghana, Kenya, and the Philippines, according to Thompson of Bible League International.

Disseminating print versions remains important even in the Digital Age. That’s in part because more than half the world’s population still lacks internet access. Even where web usage is the norm, Bible readers prefer print versions by a large margin: 81 percent in the US opt for print over digital for Bible reading, according to Barna’s 2016 “The Bible in America” report.

Nevertheless, Bible distributors hope the web will soon usher in the highest level of Bible engagement in history. “Some people are calling digital the second Gutenberg,” says Thompson. “I think it one day will be.”

In Chattanooga, some view the Bible as a way to help improve morality among young people. The Bible in the Schools program is founded on the premise that Bible study “diminishes dishonesty, lying, profanity, and bullying” and otherwise improves moral character. (It avoids legal challenges over church-state separation by not promoting any religion, doctrine, or interpretation.)

Still, studying the Bible has been no moral panacea for Chattanooga schools. In two reports on bullying over the past year, the Office of District Attorney General Neal Pinkston identified 122 incidents, called out a hazing culture on sports teams, and flagged “widespread, systemic problems going unaddressed at every level within Hamilton County’s public schools.”

But proponents of direct encounters with the Bible believe it can still have an edifying effect, even with all the countervailing forces in modern society. Some are convinced that the best way forward--for young and old alike--is to rely on traditional methods that worked in generations past.

“I still have the faith of a child,” says Eleonore Williams, a lifelong Chattanooga resident and member of Trinity Lutheran, who is 94. “A child is open to believe and accept.”

A retired accountant and avid hiker of the Great Smoky Mountains, Ms. Williams reads the Bible for 30 minutes daily after breakfast. In encouraging others to trust the holy book, she’s helped at least three people who were suicidal to find hope in God’s promises. “They have to read the Scriptures and believe them, not read them and be tearing them apart,” Williams says.

Even though busy lifestyles and numerous daily distractions keep many people from reading the Bible today, there are signs of growing interest in the Scriptures. A new Museum of the Bible will open in November in Washington, D.C. A children’s Bible museum, Trek Thru Truth, which will use interactive exhibits to tell 52 Bible stories, is planned for Cleveland, Tenn.

On this year’s 16th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, about 300 people gathered at another site in Cleveland, the Peerless Road Church. Prayers focused on spiritually uplifting the mass media industry, which 33 percent of Americans blame for the nation’s moral decline. For 2-1/2 hours, singers, dancers, artists, and writers called for a national return to God--and the Bible.

“Take me to the place where a miracle is needed,” cried LaEsha Williams, a fiction writer from Rossville, Ga., before the arm-waving crowd. “Take me to the place of deepest darkness. Let me give light that was given to me.”

Luther, no doubt, would say, “Amen.”

[wondrousworldbuilding]

Creating belief systems and religions in your fiction

Perhaps you need to flesh out an elaborate, convoluted system of religions and philosophies. Perhaps you just need a facade, with a few bits of detail to give it the feel of depth. The kind of belief system you write into your novel--or the presence of one at all--will rely heavily upon the scope of your book and the world it’s set in. So take these questions, prompts, thoughts, etc. and use them as you see fit. You might only want a handful of things, or you might find it beneficial to go through the whole list. It’s all about what you and your story need. :)

The First Big Questions

What are the belief bullet-points of your religion? Those bullet-points might answer these questions:

Why do we exist (in this dimension/plane/world/time)?

How did the world begin, who/what was responsible for its creation?

What are the primary ethical standards?

Are there deities? How many?

What rituals are of great importance or are very common?

What level of commitment or service is expected of adherents?

Are its basic facts and stories true?  Literally? Symbolic or metaphorically? Partially? Not true at all? How much doubt is there among believers? Skeptics? If its based mostly on unsubstantiated folklore, how has it survived (see next point)?

How long has the religion survived? How adaptable is it to change? If it has persisted through generations, especially primitive ones, then it will likely appeal to people’s basic needs, while also drawing from some sense of inherent “goodness.”

Do the fundamentals of the belief system fit into a variety of cultures? As technology changes, as the people expand and grow, what elements of the religion’s core give it the ability to survive?

Does it reinforce or justify any social system or hierarchy? 

How does it encourage or even dictate health and safety among its adherents? If a great deal of time has passed, how have these guidelines morphed, if at all?

What kind of promise does it offer to its people to ensure its own survival? Power? Immortality? Knowledge? Enlightenment? Acceptance? Provision of needs? Wealth?

Deities 

Are there gods at all? If not, is there some cosmic, ultimately powerful force that has a hand in the universe, events, histories? If not, what is the religion formed around instead?

How many gods are there? Is there a hierarchy among them, or are they all equal?

Are they immortal? Do they reincarnate? Hand over the title? 

Are they as important as they think they are?

Do they live in this realm or elsewhere?

Have they interacted with people on a personal level? How often?

What do they do to maintain their authority?

Are there any rivalries or relationships between the gods? How does this affect their areas of rule or the politics of their followers?

Are they mystic and distant, or do they have much more relatable, casual personalities?

Are there cosmic enemies of the deities? Demons? Angels? Spirits? Where do these enemies live and how do they relate to the people of the world?

How strict are they about the behavior of their followers? If there are multiple gods, do their rules of adherence vary?

Do the various deities rule over particular groups, activities, elements, or ideas? Why? How is this implemented? 

Try to think of the box a little here. Consider your culture and what kinds of division among the ruling deities would make sense in their setting.

Do some deities share responsibilities? How does that affect their relationship? The stability of that idea/activity/group/element?

In what light do the gods view their constituents? 

Do the gods have varying morality, or are they all strictly good and evil?

Followers/Believers/Adherents 

How are new believers converted?

Can people from all classes/sects/families be followers? Or is it reserved for specific people?

When a religion has vast groups of followers, there will inevitably be differences and disagreements among them. What philosophical or practical differences do people tend to have?

Letter of the law vs. Spirit of the law

Tradition vs. Adaptation to the times

Interpretation of stories, metaphors, lessons, poetry

Reasons behind following, good for me vs. good for the world

Casual believer vs. Devote believer

Disagreement of number of deities, importance of minor deities

Reverence of prophets, priests, apostles, etc.

What is the cost for followers? 

Sanderson’s Second Law of magic can apply here, too. The costs for following the religion can be far more interesting than the benefits...especially for us readers who aren’t actually living it.

What benefits, if any, do the adherents receive on a day-to-day basis? 

Is there are level of mortals (or adherents, in general) who, by some act or interaction, have been elevated to a plane above other people? How revered are these select among other believers? Do others believe them at all?

Other Elements to Consider

Prevalent Folklore, Parables, Myths, Stories

There will likely be stories that permeate the culture. They’re told to children to illustrate lessons, used to pass on histories, illustrate complicated ideas...and if these are important to the world or to your characters, elements of them will seep into everyday conversation.

Write out or outline a handful of stories that are the most important to your religion. 

Consider what characters of these old stories would stick out (especially to children) as the heroes. Their names, if not their legacies, will be easily recognized and possibly referenced in conversation or pop culture. 

Organization of Religion

Is there a very organized church? Maintained rituals, buildings, or monuments? Many religions have a “leader” and a hierarchy system beneath, but others are a body of people with no one more important than the other. Still others are quite independent and rely on one’s internal devoutness or thought, utterly regardless of others who practice the religion.

Literature, Art, and Music

How integrated with contemporary art is the core of the belief? Or the stories? Can it be seen on murals or heard in street songs?

On the other side of that coin, is there a canon work of art, literature, poetry, or something else that contains the heart of the belief system? Like the Torah, Bible, Qu’ran, or Book of Mormon? How important is it to the average follower? How is it seen by society in general?

Belief is incredibly powerful

There are countless books about this subject (The End of Mr. Y by Scarlett Thomas is my fave, btw), and it will apply to the development of your own religion. Especially if it falls into the partially true or false categories. Religion is resilient and people can have opposition thrown in their face all day long, but at the end of it, something (often) keeps them faithful to their beliefs.

What is that something for your characters or your religion’s followers in general?

A few last questions:

What is the generally accepted or believed cosmology? Does it count as one of the “big” stories of the religion? Why or why not?

How is this religion viewed by those on the outside?

How do adherents view non-believers? Magic/Non-Magic? Other species?

Do priests/shamans/pastors/whatevers work for the church or organization full time? Do they have other jobs?

Are priests etc. allowed to have families? How much freedom do they have in general?

Does the duality of good and evil have a role? If so, is there disagreement among the believers as to what constitutes good and evil?

Do spirits or ghosts walk the earth, or are they believed to?

Happy brainstormin’, y’all!

Check out the rest of the Brainstorming Series! Magic Systems, Part One Magic Systems, Part Two New Species New Worlds New Cultures New Civilizations Politics and Government  Map Making Guilds, Factions, & Groups War & Conflict Science & Technology History & Lore

[lokgifsandmusings]

the ATLA comic gets worse and worse the longer I think about it

Look. North and South was bad. Really, really bad. Like, even if we ignore unfortunate implications, the character arcs were incoherent messes that didn’t fit those involved, and there was no resolution to the “plot”, which also served to counter canon.

I was critical in my review of Part 2, not seeing a way this could work, and really critical in Part 3, when everything came crashing down on its head.

But today was the digital release, and as I went back through it, there were two panels I missed, which relate something I need to talk about. In length. Because the worst part about North and South is that it was kind of accidentally (at least I’d assume) pro-imperialism. Pro-imperialism.

So yeah. Below the cut is going to be some yelling.

I mentioned this in my reviews, but for some reason, Gene saw fit to make the primary antagonist a guy from the South who was very, very, very against foreign intervention.

Yes, this makes little sense taking canon into consideration, since the South was already fighting the war and seeing the world, while the isolationist North was hiding behind a wall for 99.9% of it. As a bridge to the LoK Water Tribe dynamics, none of this works. But let’s just ignore that and focus instead on what this argument does.

Yes, globalization and international cooperation has a lot of benefits. And it totally makes sense that after the Gaang’s experience, they’d be more on this side. However, consider the Southern Water Tribe’s role in the war, which literally just ended: next to the Air Nation, they suffered the most. The Southern Raiders ravaged their villages, nearly everyone was dragged off to war, and Southern children grew up with a visceral fear of ash falling from the sky.

Add to this how the South is more egalitarian, and far less patriarchal and power-concerned than literally any other nation (save for the exterminated airbenders). This is the case in ATLA and in LoK; there are chieftains, plural, who operate together as a kind of Council of Elders. Unalaq disbands them and that’s a huge fucking deal. Of course after the civil war they get Chief in the South Tonraq, which was a little odd, tonally. Though in fairness, he was dicked out of his hereditary position as chief of both tribes, and it was the Southern Council of Elders that made this decision.

I digress.

The point is, Gilak (the leader of the anti-foreign-intervention Southerners) has very reasonable concerns. Everyone in the South has very reasonable concerns about what adopting foreign laws and being forced into a certain mold of development could mean.

In Part 1, we learn Hakoda was made Head Chieftain and is having a palace constructed for himself. That’s kind of a big deal, and for some reason, this never goes challenged and the comic ends with this still being the case.

Despite how the South has literally been fighting a war against colonizers for 100 years to the point of being economically devastated and needing help of their sister tribe to rebuild, and despite how we learn in part 2 that even the North views their intervention as a way to exploit them--no seriously...their plan was to STEAL THEIR OIL because the South was "too backwards to handle it”--Gene goes above and beyond to paint anyone in the South that is against this foreign involvement as backwards xenophobes throughout the entire comic.

And like, I’m not exaggerating in the slightest. These people shouting “foreigners out”...THIS is what they heard like, a couple of weeks beforehand:

Guys, this is an act of war. The Northern developers were literally owning up to a plan to steal their oil.

And then Zuko, the leader of the fucking nation they fought against for a century arrives in a giant airship that has to be just a touch bit threatening in their eyes, no?

So no, Zuko, you shouldn’t be there. And I still have no clue why Hakoda even invited him and the Earth King down to propose to them his plan for economic growth. He apparently needed resources to build...something...but a) that’s why the North is there, b) wouldn’t the Fire Nation have already definitely been paying reparations?, and c) optics, dude. People were already a wee bit sensitive to this exact thing because of the developers YOU brought in being goddamn colonists.

And like, I’m not trying to make an argument that Hakoda is a vichy tribesman or anything, because again, there is a case to be made for globalization helping to lift the South out of the economic despair they’re in. A strong case, even. But this needed to be something discussed and decided BY the South. The fact is, Hakoda being Head Chieftain is a problem, and this is certainly not an issue where you can claim one side is “right” and the other side are backwards xenophobes.

We live in the age of Trump. The age of brexit. We live at a time where there are calls for mass deportations and travel bans on the basis of race and religion. And we CERTAINLY live at a time where we hear people screaming “foreigners out,” and yeah, we can’t for a single second allow that shit to stand.

But the power dynamics in the avatar-verse are completely different. The cultural history is completely different. The Southerners, they’re people screaming just for a right to exist with their own laws and control of their own resources. This could totally be rhetoric they would realistically use, but it’s rhetoric that has a specific meaning to us, the readers. And by putting it in their mouths, we are instantly primed to demonize them. By making Gilak the antagonist who wants to murder Hakoda, we demonize them.

The intersection of murder and cultural subjugation is not simplistic, it’s really not. This would still be bad to read if Clinton had won. But to be reading it in an age where that intersection is somewhere we’re actually standing at? Or at least the intersection of violence (#puncheverynazi) and oppression? It’s irresponsible. It’s tone deaf.

Frankly, it’s dangerous.

The thing that got me the most upset today and that I had missed before was this:

Yeah, his joy at Zuko’s pain is not exactly a healing mindset. But here’s how Gene resolved it:

Again, media is not created or consumed in a cultural vacuum. We know what the word “slur” connotes. It’s bad, and this man is a racist. Boom, morality.

Except, this is not a slur. It’s fucking not. It’s maybe the equivalent of someone calling a German a “nazi” a couple of years after WWII ended, which was...ya know, an actual thing. The Fire Nation, in this case were the perpetrators of violence and GENOCIDE. “Ash-maker” is an on-the-nose label for these oppressors, considering they burned people alive, very literally (like Katara’s mother???), and also made ash fall from the sky before attacking this man’s people over and over and over.

Yes, a broad-brush mentality is not constructive. But to call out this as an impolite slur and inherently make the case that this man is driven by blind prejudice is absurd. To put that case in the mouth of Aang, the SOLE SURVIVOR OF THE GENOCIDE, is nothing short of horrifying.

And you know what the fucking best part of this is? Gilak was right in the end. The South was taken over by foreign influence. (This is even ignoring LoK canon, because Gene sure as hell did.) Hakoda remains the Head Chieftain, literally shacking up with one of the Northerners who came to colonize, and then this moment:

Comes full circle to this:

Uh wait, isn’t there one dish missing? Like idk, one from the SOUTH? Seriously, this is the celebratory feast they throw after getting rid of that asshole Gilak who was fighting to preserve his culture or something.

Yes, it’s that bad.

[tauers-go-dutch]

Road trip through the Balkans

The Balkans are a destination that I never really thought of going to before moving to Europe. However, more and more people have been talking about this region, and it really is a gem.  I would have said hidden gem, but Croatia in particular is becoming a more and more popular destination.  This was a longer trip for us, where we spent seven days road-tripping from Dubrovnik (Croatia) to Kotor (Montenegro) to Mostar (Bosnia and Herzegovina) to Split (Croatia).  This was a more adventurous trip where we explored cities, ruins, beaches, and national parks.  It was great fun, and I highly recommend the Balkans as a destination for your next trip to Europe.  

Our hotel in Dubrovnik was located a bit outside the old city.  To get there, we had to navigate several narrow alleys and streets.  After looping around several times, we did eventually find it.  The hotel was a really nice surprise- we had the most fantastic view of the sea and the old city.  We enjoyed the view for an hour or so then went out to do our first activity- an escape room.

An escape room is a room where you are locked inside with a series of puzzles that you need to solve to ultimately escape the room within a set time limit.  These rooms have various themes.  Being in Dubrovnik, the obvious theme of this room was Game of Thrones, specifically set in the Battle of Blackwater Bay.  While the room was fun, Mariah and I needed a lot of hints in order to solve the room. We’d both like to do more, but we definitely need some practice.  Luckily Amsterdam has a few for us to try.  Afterwards we had dinner and drinks, and went back to the hotel. Randomly, a boat outside our hotel started launching fireworks.  We still don’t know what the occasion was that Thursday evening, but it was really cool.

Surprise views from our apartment rental

The photo sent to us by the escape room owners!

I am a big fan of this tradition. Best table wine I’ve had! 

Surprise fireworks in the bay beneath our apartment 

Friday we spent the morning exploring the old city.  As alluded earlier, the old city of Dubrovnik is the setting of King’s Landing in Game of Thrones.  When you look at pictures from above, it is easy to see the resemblance.  Mariah and I hiked around the city walls, which provided fantastic views, but we were drenched from the humidity (higher than Amsterdam) and the 28 degree heat (yes, I’ve converted to Celsius- it’s about 82 F).  While the raw heat isn’t bad, our acclimation to Amsterdam (it’s always in the low 20s) and the dense humidity was a killer.  This was a theme throughout the vacation.  Once we saw the city, we ate at an amazing vegan, yes vegan, restaurant called Nishta.  I had faux-enchiladas, and believe me, this was one of the best meals I had. Seriously.

Game of Thrones Battle of Blackwater Bay 

The Red Keep!

After lunch we had a kayaking tour.  It was really nice going around the city and the nearby island.  Interestingly, the island is said to be cursed ever since Austria-Hungarian powers took over.  They kicked out the local monks and used the island as a private resort.  The monks cursed the island so that the owner would meet an early demise.  Our guide traced the tragic deaths of all of the various rulers right up to Franz Ferdinand. Since Franz, the island has been made a public park open for all, thus breaking the curse (ie, no one person is using the island for personal pleasure or gain).  It was a fun legend with neat connections.  Unfortunately, we were not able to visit the island.  We would really like to go back and explore it, and visit the actual Iron Throne ;).  Back to Kayaking, we also saw an abandoned hotel on the sea, which is the basis for the rendering of the Red Keep (more GoT).  Also interestingly, this hotel was the most popular hotel in Europe up until the collapse of the USSR (and subsequently the independence war of the various Balkan countries from the former Yugoslavia).  The sights were breathtaking.  

After the kayaking trip, we had a bit of dinner.  We went to a place that specializes in raising roosters specifically for meat. While it was good, if you talk up chicken that much, you better blow my mind.  It really just made me look forward to visiting The Post Brewing and getting some fried chicken when I visit home.  After dinner we visited a wine bar.  Croatian wine is legit.  The biggest grape used is a near relative of Zinfandel, which is a big jammy and peppery grape that is popular in Californian wines.  We wish we could have taken some wine home (we didn’t have checked baggage). Look out for Croatian wines, it just might be the next popular wine region.

The next morning, we started driving to Montenegro.  The border crossing went smoothly enough.  We pulled up at 9:00 am and had to wait for 30 minutes or so as four cars were in front of us, but we had about 20 cars line up behind us as we waited. Good timing on us!  The Montenegro bay is gorgeous- extremely picturesque. Kotor is the main destination for the old city, and the hike up to St. John’s Fort.  The hike was ridiculous, and, with GoT still fresh on my mind, reminded me of the path up the Veil.  The hike was enjoyable, but again we were drenched!  We went back down and explored the old town for a bit.  While Kotor is beautiful, we did feel like we ran out of things to do after a while.  The city is very small, and very touristy.  It is a popular spot for cruise ships, which is appropriate as I really think it is a stretch to spend a full day there.  We ended up walking around to the newer part of town, and found a really nice restaurant where we ordered a meat platter for two, but came with enough for four.  Well after the hike, we wolfed the entire thing down!  With that platter and two drinks, we paid about 17 euro- amazing! That night was the Champions League final (soccer), and it is a big deal in Europe.  We sat on the patio of a bar that set up a large projection screen and enjoyed the game (well, at least until Real Madrid pulled away- 4 to 1 final score).

Views from the hike to St. John’s Fort

The next morning we trekked to Bosnia.  This experience was very different from the drive from Croatia.  Croatia was admitted to the EU a few years ago, and clearly has better infrastructure than Montenegro.  Most of the ‘highways’ were worse than unmaintained rural country back roads.  Potholes, crumbling asphalt, unpaved gravel (again, for a supposed highway) made the drive interesting.  However, once we were in Bosnia (which is currently bidding to join the EU), we noticed the better infrastructure.  Those gripes aside, the drive had nice views.  It reminded us of driving through California.  Plus we saw quite a bit of wildlife, including a turtle that crossed a back road (it was pretty cool and we stopped for some pics with our new friend).

The Bay of Kotor 

Turtle friend! 

We made our way to Mostar, but first stopped at a Dervish abbey called Blagaj Tekke.  The cave and the house are stunning, and worth an hour if you are in the area.  Once in Mostar, we had an adventure finding our hotel- we had to drive down a pretty steep and narrow road which was more footpath than road.  But the hotel was luxurious, by far the best we’ve stayed, in Europe, and run by the sweetest couple.  Once settled in, we explored the city and the famous bridge.  The bridge was built during the rule of the Ottomans, but was destroyed during the civil wars of the 90s.  We visited a museum which showed how the bridge was painstakingly reconstructed using the same specifications (literally down to millimeters), materials, and techniques of the original.  Just be careful when crossing, it’s slippery!  Locals will also jump off the bridge once they collect enough funds from the crowd.  In fact, the bridge divers are so famous that Red Bull is hosting its official 2017 diving competition in Mostar.  

A cool observation of Mostar is that it is a city of dualities.  For example, nowadays, the bridge literally connects the Christian and Muslim sides of the city (specifically the old city).  The Muslim side was pretty cool- we explored the bazaar (and bought some neat jewelry) and a mosque with a fantastic view of the bridge and city as a whole.  After exploring the old city, we made our way to the new city (the second duality). The new city had its own charm, and is overall less touristy.   The new city has a nice park (with a wicked Bruce Lee statue), international schools and universities, bars and churches. But the final duality is the proximity of new, up-kept, and maintained buildings with abandoned and war-torn projects clearly reminiscent of the past Eastern European regime.  These abandoned buildings play host to some fantastic street art- easily one of my favorite parts of exploring Mostar.  Later, we made our way back to our hotel in the old city, and ate at one of the best restaurant I have ever been to.  Some of the other expats swore by Tima-Irma, and I have to agree that this place is amazing.  Just like the place in Montenegro, the place specializes in meat platters that are enough to feed a small army.  But the chicken, the cheese, the pork, the grilled veggies, the everything was amazing!  Plus, the owner, Irma, was hilarious.  And she gave us a free beer.  Again, with tip (which shows how much I loved this place as I have grown accustomed to the European way of not tipping), I spent less than 20 euro.  We loved everything about Mostar, and we highly recommend a visit.

The mosque from the bridge

The bridge from the mosque

The next day, we made our way back to Croatia, but stopped over to a Bosnian park called Kravica. The waterfalls were stunning. However, once you see the waterfalls, there isn’t much else to do.  Even still, we hiked around a bit, and we actually saw a badger!  It was pretty cool, because it sat in a tree about five feet away from us.  Luckily, it scampered away after few moments and didn’t cause us any trouble, but I also was unable to get a picture.  Regardless, it was very cool.  Afterwards, we continued on to Split.  Split also has an old town (sensing the theme of the places we visited?), but it also has a much more sprawling city surrounding the touristic old town.  The old town is actually the remnants of the original Diocletian’s Palace. Driving into Split, we immediately went down to a beach just outside of town.  We caught some rays and enjoyed the water for the afternoon.  Afterwards, we went to another wine bar for dinner and more fantastic Croatian wine.  

Kravice Falls

The port of Split

Diocletian’s Palace -- Diocletian, A Roman, was buried in the tomb on the left. The Christians then turned it into a church and added the bell tower. 

The next day, we visited Krka, a Croatian national park famous for its waterfalls.  Unlike Kravica, the park is huge!  We visited several areas of the park, and had to drive around to get to each place.  The waterfalls we also absolutely stunning, and I really enjoyed hiking around the park. This place is absolutely worth a day trip.  Afterwards, we went back to Split, and enjoyed some burgers (which were ok, but this place really had fantastic onion rings!), homemade ice cream, and Croatian craft beers (most are surprisingly good).  

Krka National Park

We brought our suits but decided not to take a dip! 

The next morning we had another great meal (breakfast crepes), walked the beach (with some more street art), and headed to the airport (more difficult to find than it should be).  While we didn’t get to do everything we wanted in Croatia (like visiting Hvar, Plitvice, and Zagreb), this region definitely has enough charm to warrant coming back at some point in the future!

Tot Ziens!

[patriotsnet]

What Is Republicanism And What Does It Value

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-is-republicanism-and-what-does-it-value/

What Is Republicanism And What Does It Value

What Is A Republican

What does it mean to be Republican under Trump? 2017 American Values Survey findings – Part 2

As you can see, the dictionary definition of a Republican is very brief. And since a Republican is simply defined as a member of the Republican party of the U.S. it is important to understand what the Republican Party stands for. To understand what a Republican is you have to understand the Republican Party. And that is what the rest of this article examines.

The Essentials Of Republicanism

The political theory of republicanism holds that the best government involves citizens, rather than subjects, where citizens share in directing their own affairs. It was first developed and expounded in ancient Greece, most completely by Aristotle in his work, the Politics. Niccolò Machiavelli , who criticized and selfconsciously broke with the old republican tradition, founded a new, modern republicanism. This new republicanism, modified and made more receptive to individual freedom by Machiavelli’s successors, found enduring expression in the Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton , John Jay , and James Madison wrote this collection of essays in 17871788 to defend the proposed Constitution of the United States. Modern republicanism has pervaded the United States and Western Europe, and is influential worldwide. While ancient, or classical, and modern, or liberal, republicanism differ in most respects, they share the conviction of selfgovernment as the only worthwhile political arrangement.

Energy Issues And The Environment

There have always been clashes between the parties on the issues of energy and the environment. Democrats believe in restricting drilling for oil or other avenues of fossil fuels to protect the environment while Republicans favor expanded drilling to produce more energy at a lower cost to consumers. Democrats will push and support with tax dollars alternative energy solutions while the Republicans favor allowing the market to decide which forms of energy are practical.

Recommended Reading: What Is Trump’s Approval Rating Among Republicans

Pass Laws Against Those Who Desecrate The Flag

In meetingswith veterans I argued that almost no one desecrates the flag. To the contrary, September 11 had inspired millions of Americans to start flying the flag for the 1st time in their lives. Republicans were whipping up veterans over a nonissue for short-termpolitical gain in November.

I had not seen an American protester burn an American flag in 30 years. It was just plain wrong and irresponsible to use our own partisan political agenda to poison 50 statehouses with the emotional nonissues. We wouldbe sabotaging the real work our state lawmakers had to accomplish.

The House passed the amendment and Pres. Bush was delighted to announce that he would sign the legislation if the Senate followed suit .

A Distinctly American Internationalism For The 21st Century

Few nations in history have been granted such a singular opportunity to shape the future.Even after World War II the United States had to reckon with a divided world and terrible dangers. Now America can help mold international ideals and institutions for decades to come. Handed the torch by generations that won great battles, our generationof Americans with its allies and friends can build a different and better world, promoting U.S. interests and principles, avoiding the economic convulsions and perilous conflicts that so scarred the century just past. Through a distinctlyAmerican internationalism, a new Republican president will build public support for a new strategy that can lead the United States of America toward a more peaceful and prosperous world for us, our children, and future generations.

Also Check: What Cities Are Run By Republicans

Oped: Gop Has Proven Tone

And yet Republicans have proven themselves remarkably tone-deaf when it comes tocourting Hispanic voters–to the extent that they court them at all. Attracting Hispanic votes does not require abandoning conservative principles–quite the contrary. Rather, it means seeing Hispanic voters as individuals, most of whom ferventlycherish our nation’s ideals.

To win Hispanic votes–and those of immigrants generally–Republicans should play to their strengths while avoiding alienating rhetoric that makes them appear anti-immigrant.

In Favour Of A Constitutional Monarchy

Not inherently undemocratic: Opponents of the republican movement argue that the current system is still democratic as the Government and MPs of Parliament are elected by universal suffrage and as the Crown acts only on the advice of the Parliament, the people still hold power. Monarchy only refers to how the head of state is chosen and not how the Government is chosen. It is only undemocratic if the monarchy holds meaningful power, which it currently does not as government rests with Parliament.

Safeguards the constitutional rights of the individual: The British constitutional system sets limits on Parliament and separates the executive from direct control over the police and courts. Constitutionalists argue that this is because contracts with the monarch such as the Magna Carta, the , the Act of Settlement and the Acts of Union place obligations on the state and confirm its citizens as sovereign beings. These obligations are re-affirmed at every monarch’s coronation. These obligations, whilst at the same time placing limits on the power of the judiciary and the police, also confirm those rights which are intrinsically part of British and especially English culture. Examples are Common Law, the particular status of ancient practices, jury trials, legal precedent, protection against non-judicial seizure and the right to protest.

You May Like: Do Republicans Support Same Sex Marriage

S: Gained Southern Whites Plus Southern Evangelicals

The one thing they all have in common: they always know that no matter how weak theRepublican candidate is on any of their particular issues, the Democrat can only be worse. Bubba knows that a modern Florida Democrat, even a moderate Democrat, will owe his election to blacks and liberals. The evangelicals know that a Democrat will beunlikely to put biblical creationism back in the public schools.

These 3 groups in total account for 40% to 45% of the electorate. The difference was, by the late 1980s, all 3 were voting, for the first time, in lockstep with the Republicans.

The Basis Of Republicanism

What Do Republicans Believe?

Classical republicanism insisted that civic virtuethe capacity to place the good of the commonwealth above one’s own interestbecame the key element of constitutional stability and liberty-seeking order. Only men who had a stake in society, preferably freeholder status of some magnitude, who were literate and familiar with major classical and Enlightenment thinkers, could lead society. Other people, including women, younger men, and the enslaved, had to depend on the elite’s virtue to protect them against tyranny, conquest, and natural disasters. Americans understood that their newly arising state was part of history and thereby needed careful surveillance against the corruptions of time and excessive liberty. Ultimately, the American republican vision rested on four interlocking concepts. First, the ultimate goal of any political society should be the preservation of the public good or commonwealth; second, the citizens of a republic had to be capable of virtue, or the subordination of one’s private interests in service of public needs; third, to be virtuous, citizens had to be independent of the political will of other men; fourth, citizens had to be active in the exercise of their citizenship.

Also Check: What Percent Of Republicans Approve Of Trump

Government Is Not The Solution To Domestic Social Problems

This is pretty universal among Republicans. Government should not be providing solutions to problems that confront people . Those problems should be solved by the people themselves. A Republican would say that relying on the government to solve problems is a crutch that makes people lazy and feel entitled to receive things without working for them.

Social Conservatism Is Central Reason Politics Is Polarized

Such tension would not be possible in any other affluent democracy, because in those democracies nothing remotely resembling social conservatism exists. Its absence is the main reason the politics ofWestern Europe and Japan have not become polarized, and the continued presence and strength of social conservatism is the central reason politics is polarized here. Understanding why this is so, and why it islikely to continue well into the future, goes a long way toward explaining why American politics has such a different feel from the politics of other affluent democracies, as well as where our very different politics may lead.

You May Like: How Many Republicans And Democrats Are In The House

Civil War And Reconstruction

Historian Frank Lawrence Owsley depicted antebellum Southern society as a broad class of yeoman farmers who stood and worked between the slaves and poor whites at one end and the large planters at the opposite end of the economic spectrum, Owsley asserted that the real South was liberal, American, and Jeffersonian, not radical or reactionary. It reflected the best of republican principles Agrarianism in the 20th century was a response to the industrialism and modernism that had infiltrated the South. According to Owsley, the position of the South vis-Ã;-vis the North was created not by slavery, cotton, or states’ rights, but by the two regions’ misunderstanding of each other. J. Mills Thornton argues that in the antebellum South the drive to preserve republican values was the most powerful force, and led Southerners to interpret Northern policies as a threat to their republican values.

In reaction to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, antislavery forces in the North formed a new party. The party officially designated itself “Republican” because the name resonated with the struggle of 1776. “In view of the necessity of battling for the first principles of republican government,” resolved the Michigan state convention, “and against the schemes of aristocracy the most revolting and oppressive with which the earth was ever cursed, or man debased, we will co-operate and be known as Republicans.”

What Does Classical Republicanism Mean

4.6/5Classical republicanismrepublicanismrepublicanismclassicalclassicalis here

For them, “republicanism represented more than a particular form of government. It was a way of life, a core ideology, an uncompromising commitment to liberty, and a total rejection of aristocracy.” Republicanism shaped what the Founders thought and did during the American Revolution, and after.

Similarly, what is classical republicanism and how did it develop in the colonies? Republican virtuesCountry party philosophy relied heavily on the classical republicanism of Roman heritage; it celebrated the ideals of duty and virtuous citizenship in a republic. This approach produced a political ideology Americans called “republicanism“, which was widespread in colonial America by 1775.

Herein, what is the main idea of Republicanism?

Republicanism is a representative form of government organization. It is a political ideology centered on citizenship in a state organized as a republic. Historically, it ranges from the rule of a representative minority or oligarchy to popular sovereignty.

What is the meaning of republican government?

A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or property of the rulers. As such it has become the opposing form of government to a monarchy and has therefore no monarch as head of state.

Recommended Reading: Is Economy Better Under Democrats Or Republicans

America Should Deport Illegal Immigrants

Republicans believe that illegal immigrants, no matter the reason they are in this country, should be forcibly removed from the U.S. Although illegal immigrants are often motivated to come to the U.S. by companies who hire them, Republicans generally believe that the focus of the law should be on the illegal immigrants and not on the corporations that hire them.

Political Liberty Positive And Negative

It is notorious that there are several competing conceptions ofpolitical liberty. The now standard account was laid down mostinfluentially by Isaiah Berlin in his famous lecture on TwoConcepts of Liberty . According to the first,negative conception of liberty, people are free simply tothe extent that their choices are not interfered with. There are manyvariations on this conception, depending on how exactly one wants todefine interference, but they all have in common thebasic intuition that to be free is, more or less, to be left alone todo whatever one chooses. This idea of negative liberty Berlinassociates especially with the classic English political philosophersHobbes, Bentham, and J. S. Mill, and it is today probably the dominantconception of liberty, particularly among contemporary Anglo-Americanphilosophers. In Mills well-known words, the only freedomwhich deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our ownway, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs.

The troubling implications of the positive conception of liberty arewell-known, and need not be rehearsed at length here. For the most part, thesestem from the problem that freedom in the positive sense would seem tolicense fairly extensive coercion on behalf of individualsallegedly real interestsfor example, coercivelyforcing the gambler to quit on the presumption that this is, in fact,what he really wants to do . Regardingthis danger, Berlin writes:

Read Also: What Is The Lapel Pin The Republicans Are Wearing

Opiniondemocrats Challenged Electoral College Votes First And Set The Precedent For This Mess

There is no way to justify continuing the false designation of radical rightists as “conservatives” and people willing to end the republic as “Republicans.” The dozen-plus elected members of the Republican Party in the Senate and the more than a hundred in the House who announced that they would vote to overturn various states’ electoral slates Wednesday should not, despite their nominal party membership, be referred to as “conservatives” or “Republicans.”

All who fail to condemn President Donald Trump’s phone call threatening and pressuring state officials in Georgia and who do not forcefully disassociate themselves from his reported musings about declaring martial law to remain in power show themselves to be opposed to conserving our republic.

Today’s Republicans plainly are not deserving of the inheritance of Lincoln’s party or its name.

The unconscionable effort to keep Trump in office despite the stated will of the people is tantamount to throwing democracy and the American republic into the dustbin of history. Republicans do not wish to end the republic in which they serve or else they are Republicans in Name Only. Conservatives who do not wish to conserve the very foundation of the American experiment our democratic republic is no kind of conservative their intellectual predecessors would recognize.

In What Ways Does The Declaration Of Independence Reflect Principles Of Classical Republicanism

What does it mean to be Republican under Trump? 2017 American Values Survey findings – Part 1

In what ways does it reflect principles of classical republicanism? The Declaration of Independence reflects John Locke’s social contract by withdrawing their obligation to obey the monarchy, by grouping colonists to change leadership because they believed the monarchy failed to protect their rights.

Recommended Reading: Are Republicans More Racist Than Democrats

What Is A Republican Republican Definition

April 11, 2014 By RepublicanViews.org

This article fully answers what a Republican is and gives the definition of a Republican in a fair, unbiased, and well-researched way. To start the article we list out the definition of a Republican, then we cover the Republican Partys core beliefs, then we list out the Republican Partys beliefs on all the major issues.

The Definition of a Republican:;a member of the Republican party of the U.S.

Source Merriam-Webster Dictionary

History Of The Republican Party

The Republican Party came into existence just prior to the Civil War due to their long-time stance in favor of abolition of slavery. They were a small third-party who nominated John C. Freemont for President in 1856. In 1860 they became an established political party when their nominee Abraham Lincoln was elected as President of the United States. Lincolns Presidency throughout the war, including his policies to end slavery for good helped solidify the Republican Party as a major force in American politics. The elephant was chosen as their symbol in 1874 based on a cartoon in Harpers Weekly that depicted the new party as an elephant.

Recommended Reading: How Many Democrats Have Been President Vs Republicans

New Nation: The Constitution

The Founding Fathers wanted republicanism that would guarantee liberty, and most were afraid that a “democracy” would allow a majority of voters at any time to trample rights and liberties; the most formidable of these potential majorities being that of the poor against the rich. That is, they saw democracy as mob rule that could be shaped on the spot by a demagogue. Therefore they devised a written Constitution which could only be amended by a supermajority, preserved competing sovereignties in the constituent states, gave the control of the upper house to the states, and created an Electoral College comprising a small number of elites to select the president. They set up a House of Representative to represent the people. In practice the electoral college soon gave way to control by political parties. Not expected by the founders was the emergence of the Supreme Court under John Marshall as the final arbiter of the Constitution and indeed of all political rules. In 1776 most states required property ownership to vote, but most citizens owned farms in the 90% rural nation, so it was not a severe restriction, and was dropped state by state in the early 19th century.

What Does The Republican Party Stand For

The Republican Party was initially created to advocate for a free-market economy that countered the Democratic Partys agrarian leanings and support of slave labour. In recent history, the Republicans have been affiliated with reducing taxes to stimulate the economy, deregulation, and conservative social values.

Recommended Reading: What News Channel Do Republicans Watch

What Counts As Arbitrary Power

A second major difficulty in developing the republican idea offreedom lies in giving precise meaning to the notion of arbitrariness.According to what criteria are we to consider power arbitrary? Notsimply when its exercise is random or unpredictable. This view wouldundermine the whole point of the republican conception of politicalliberty. As discussed above, with long experience a slave is betterable to predict his masters behavior, and so it appears lessrandom to him, but the slave doesnot enjoy greater freedom by that fact alone. Just because one isbetter able to cope with arbitrary power, it does not follow thatones domination is any less.

Discretionary is much closer to the relevant meaningof arbitrary, but it is not quite right either. Discretionary powermight be delegated to a public agency with a view to advancing certainpolicy goals or endsas for example Congress has delegateddiscretionary authority to the Federal Reservebut we would notwant to say that this reduces our freedom . For reasons explained inthe fourth section of this entry, contemporary civic republicans mustbe able to offer an account of non-arbitrary, yet discretionaryauthority.

[fapangel]

The constitutional question regarding the immigration ban is actually far more complicated than just "The President has the power to make temporary stays on immigration". There are 5th amendment Due Process issues (did the feds jump through enough procedural hoops when they temporarily banned Middle Easterners from entering the US?) and Equal Protection issues (is the government discriminating against them on an impermissible basis?), each of which apply to the President as much as Congress.

[To continue: the Constitution may be a short document, but there are REAMS of additional law that spring out from it by virtue of the fact that the Supreme Court has been interpreting it (and thus defining and expanding it) for centuries.]

Naturally, naturally. Fortunately the Justice Department has a literal army of government lawyers to argue the fine points of all that shit, and even if lower Federal courts shoot it down, they can appeal directly to SCOTUS, which is soon going to have a new Trump appointee on it, giving it a 5-4 Republican majority again. 

Now it’s entirely true that Law is, for the most part, a series of never-ending knife fights over definitions, and the entire point of using precedent is so we never have to have the same knife fight twice (hopefully.) This is why they pay lawyers big bucks to memorize the most famous knife fights of all that affect current-standing interpretations. That said, I think reading the actual damn document can still be pretty illuminating. 

For starters, the first article of Amendment 14 with both the due process and equal protection clauses say thus: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.“ 

Due Process then applies to citizens, i.e. not anyone affected by the immigration moratorium by definition, and equal protection requires the affected to be within their jurisdiction, and when you’re still standing on the other side of an international border (like a port - including an airport,) you’re pretty definitely on the other side of the border. More importantly, application of the Equal Protection clause in the US often rides heavily on the concept of protected classes. The shirtless and shoeless are not “protected classes” and may be refused service, but black people are - which causes problems when turning away a shirtless black man. It’s rather sweeping and arbitrary to single out some classes as protected while others aren’t, the kind of thing good law tries to avoid - but when you recall that the Equal Protection clause itself was drafted to prevent the widespread and systematic oppression of former slaves in the newly-defeated southern states, you can understand why it was the best option going. (Recall also that selective incorporation - a judicial powergrab that let the SCOTUS selectively decide that certain Amendments applied their limitations to state governments, not just the Federal government, was born at this time too. It was also arbitrary, and nobody was thrilled with that - but it was the only way to make the 13th [ban of slavery] and 14th [ban on de-facto slavery + fuck you, Johnny Reb,] actually stick.) That the Equal Protection clause was implemented specifically to protect a certain class, long decades before any classes were formally defined in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, illustrates how endemic to the clause the concept is. 

Since Due Process is right out (nobody’s going to win a claim of being denied life, liberty, or property on the basis of being detained 18 hours, considering how many thousands the TSA has likewise treated in the past decade) the “unconstitutional” claim rides entirely on defining Trump’s immigration moratorium as discriminating against a protected class. The 1964 Civil Rights Act (which both defines protected classes, and what constitutes discrimination against them) can be read here: 

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?page=transcript&doc=97&title=Transcript+of+Civil+Rights+Act+%281964%29

Title VI specifically address Federal programs and activities, which apparently means welfare assistance, job training and other such and sundry; not the actual discharge of a Federal Department's statutory duties: 

https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/needy-families/civil-rights-requirements/index.html

Note there’s examples there specifically addressing immigrants being discriminated against based on race and/or nationality, but it applies to their applications for benefits - not the decision to grant them a green card in the first place. It protects immigrants once they are in the country; it doesn’t affect the decision to admit them in the first place. The rest of the Act is a wash; none of it (equal voting rights, equality in public spaces and accommodations, equality in state-owned public facilities, desegregation of schools, and employment equality) have nothing do do with immigration. 

So there’s nothing in the Civil Rights Act which forbids Trump’s moratorium in black and white. But since the concept of protected class is rather endemic to the EP clause anyway, it might still run afoul of the EP itself. Well, that’s easy enough - the nation-specific moratorium should run afoul of “national origin,” right? 

Except the moratorium doesn’t halt visas for foreign nationals of the specifically prohibited countries from immigrating - it suspends visas for aliens from said countries: 

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/512439121/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-annotated

So anyone who is 1. not a US Citizen and 2. trying to fly in from the listed countries will be refused a visa for the next three months. Their national origin does not (and should not) have anything to do with it - lots of people from outside the Middle East have made a pilgrimage there to fight for ISIS (and others, to fight against them:) 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/29/iraq-and-syria-how-many-foreign-fighters-are-fighting-for-isil/

Note this Telegraph article’s note down at “12:12PM”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/30/british-dual-citizens-will-now-allowed-travel-us-boris-johnson/

“British citizens with dual nationality will be exempt from Donald Trump's immigration ban British citizens with dual nationality will be exempt from Donald Trump's immigration ban if they are flying from the UK to the US, Government sources have said.” The focus is clearly on where they are physically coming from, not their national origin. You can be neon-white and waving an Irish passport, but if you’re stepping off a plane from Syria, ICE is going to place a call to Ireland to ask if Paddy Poindexter is on any law enforcement radars for posting pro-ISIS messages on Facebook before taking a sudden and unscheduled vacation to an active war zone. Is that discrimination? Sure. Is it discrimination based on color or national origin? No. 

This is precisely why the media says “Muslim-majority countries” every time they mention the nations with the moratorium on them - because portraying Trump’s executive order as racist is the only real chance they have (and it’s what they all believe of him personally, anyway.) They also demonstrate a charmingly moronic grasp of what an international border means. You can see both at work in this Politico article:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/why-trumps-immigration-rules-are-unconstitutional-214722

“This means that all foreign travelers on U.S. soil—those waiting at U.S. airports, for example—are protected.”

This is so wrong there’s a damned Wikipedia article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_zone#International_airports

And then they full retard: 

“More than that, I’d argue that even Muslims not on U.S. soil are protected. Recent case law suggests that no act by a government official—no matter to whom it applies—can be based on disapproval of a race, ethnicity or religion. In other words, when it comes to Equal Protection, it’s the motive of the government and its agents that matters.”

Which directly contravenes the actual text of the Equal Protection clause itself, i.e. “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It’s absolutely moronic to claim that the EP mandates the United States extend the equal protection of all its laws to people who are neither citizens nor physically here - literally every single SOB on Planet Earth.  I’ll be there with a kazoo and pop corn to enjoy the hysterical screeching when SCOTUS winds up and bats that “case law” clean over the fence. 

The Equal Protection clause has been egregiously abused almost as often as the interstate commerce clause, and some truly wild claims have been based upon it - and this one ranks up there with the best. The executive order might run afoul of Federal law yet - there’s eleven trillion of the things, and then the stack of knife-fight precedent built on each - but to run around screeching about how the Act is unconstitutional in breathless tones of horror does little more than to demonstrate how damn stupid most journalists really are.  

[olaluwe]

Sunday Akin Dare, Nigeria's current minister of youths and sports Leading to the 2015 presidential election, the change agenda of president Muhammadu Buhari's campaign encompassed security, economy and employment. And you can say it again that the thematic tripod was more than apt because where there is no security there can be economic development not to talk of employment. However, how much of it was achieved at the end of four years is still an ongoing debate (perhaps it has ended because we've had another election) of which it would be difficult if not impossible to draw a conclusion. But if you ask me, the signs out there have been that of job losses that job gains, especially in the formal sector, which in fairness to the government is not exclusive to it. The trend has been incrementally noticeable from close to a decade and half if not more prior to the ascension to power of the Buhari's administration. Which is why in 2019, not surprisingly, the focus of the president's campaign is still very much about security, economy and employment with a next-level spice. This is equally on point, after all, the war on insurgency has not been completely won. The economy is still ailing and there are not enough jobs to go round the employable mass of the people who are mostly youths. Going with the next level agenda, the president has charged the ministers during their inauguration to do everything within their powers to lift 100 million Nigerians out of poverty in the next four years. Though, that for me is like attempting to soar above mount Everest on an Daedalus and Icarus's flying contraption; but with a total commitment to re-purposing the system for such an ambitious mission, impossible is nothing. It must be emphasized again that at the heart of job creation are the teeming youths whose passion encompasses fundamentally sports and entertainment; and lately SMSE's and leadership which makes setting a developmental agenda for the ministry of youths and sports under Mr Sunday Akin Dare very paramount. And I'm speaking strictly in terms of exploring the potentials in sports to drive national economic growth towards significantly impacting on the 100 million Nigerians the president is eyeing for a glorious leap above poverty. It is, however, not in dispute today that sports in Nigeria has tragically been narrowed to the level of just a handful of them namely football, and may be basketball and athletics. The rest are just making up the number. Sports generally; and especially football, have also been reduced to a pawn in the political chessboard of political actors. And successive ministers of sports have defiantly and myopically acted like they were ministers of football. It must be admitted that Nigerians love football but it should not be at the detriment of other sports that are yearning for the same attention for the catalytic roles they could play in helping to reduce unemployment and poverty in the country. Whereas sports are not just tools for social cohesion, outlets for easing of tension and the laundering of floundering political image of countries and political actors from example of what is obtained in both the western and eastern societies. Sports are a billion if not trillion dollars business through which stable employment is provided for the citizens of those countries where it has been gotten right. They are also routes to fame and unimaginable fortune for the participants. Therefore, I think if there is a ministry of the government that is in dire need of unbundling, it is the youths and sports ministry. Its unbundling is necessary because clearly there is a problem of poor funding which I don't think is about to disappear any time soon because the country is currently facing cash crunch as result of over-dependence on oil for revenue generation. For this reason, many of the sports associations have not been active. You can say they are dead literally. As a proof, I'm aware that the nation's male basketball team, D'tigers who are currently in Beijing, China for the world basketball championship took loan to facilitate their participation. What other proof do we need that things are no longer at ease with our sports. But if the way to go is that of Nigeria Basketball Association (NBA), why not the country through an act the national assembly makes the various sports associations semi-autonomous for optimal performance. That's if the governments at all levels still want to have a say in the administration of sports in the country. And no one can begrudge them that right. It is both legit and moral. If not, then, they should let go. And they should only concern themselves with international representations of any of the national sports teams. I'm not saying the sports associations should be handed over to the incompetent indigenous capitalist hawks who have always managed to masquerade as foreign investors, bought over some of our unprofitably run national assets only to prove incapable of delivering when it matters the most. To achieve the unbundling, a retreat for stakeholders should be conveyed where modalities are exhaustively discussed. If this is not done and urgently too, the private sector which drives the visibly stunning outputs of Europe and America which we all are obsessed with week in weed out on the digital TV channels would forever be reluctant to come in and commit their hard-earned funds. To them, accountability is a general rule just like profitability. The non-adherence to this is what was responsible for the disbandment of privately owned football clubs like Abiola Babes, Leventis United, and Nwuayanwu Nationale of those days. The owners of the above named teams, which include the late business mogul and politician Chief MKO Abiola did reminded the then Nigeria Football Association (NFA) that the game is neither charity nor an outlet for discharging the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of their various business interests to the society; but a business from which returns must be declare annually. And that's exactly what it is overseas. The way it is, for example in football where over eighty percent of the teams participating in the nation's top flight league belong to the governments at different levels is an unacceptable aberration. Because of their sheer numbers, to compromise the process is quite easy. And this they do by interfering in the processes and procedures of electing who becomes what at the management level nationally. It also makes it difficult if not impossible to mete out commensurate punishments to officials, supporters, and players when they erred. Even when this is done, it hardly serves as sufficient deterrent because before long the same anomalies still rear their ugly heads. It is a common knowledge that some states in the country bankroll the financial outlays of the engagements of the national football team, the Super Eagles. This is because the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) has proven times and again that it is financially incapacitated to discharged its mandate. Yet the swan song in the political circles, even as we speak, is that "government has no business being in business." In the worst case scenarios, public-private partnership is the thing. And it is not as if we're short of models within the Geo-political expression called Nigeria. Lagos is sure one. It has consistently being building sports infrastructures all over since 1999; whereas, it doesn't own one sport club which is in line with the vision of its fourth republic pioneering governor, Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The idea is to provide individuals as well as corporate bodies with interest in sports with standard sporting facilities on a continuous basis. Yet others have dabbled into it headlong to soothe either popular opinion or a temporary penchant to play the sports loving governor or whatever it is the elected capacity knowing fully well they are not ethically equipped to operate as required hence the repeated news of unpaid salaries and wages of players; and all manners of brinkmanship. And as such when the players protest, they're cowed and sometimes brutalized with state's instruments of forceful cohesion like the police who discharge canons of tear gas on them. It is by force for political entities to own sports club if not that they want to use them for ill-digested political purposes. Contrary to this, we all can recollect the accelerated manner the former Lagos State governor, Akinwunmi Ambode scaled up the facilities at the Agege Municipal stadium to meet CAF's standards for the use of MFM Football Club which is a privately owned club side in the CAF champions cup competition. The point I'm making with my advocacy here is that sports men and women should be allowed to earn their pay based on what they can bring to the table of the sports of their choice contractually and not the way it is currently in which sportsmen and women are treated like civil servants but without pension or gratuity. Without much ado, the minister of sport and youths development will be helping the president to achieve his vision of lifting 100 million Nigerians out of poverty if the idea of unbundling the sports industry is suggested to him. Like that, continuous nationwide sports circuits will be created and private sector funds will automatically streamed in. This will create a win-win situations for all the stakeholders along the value chain of sports industry in Nigeria. The youths will be engaged professionally in sports and that will go a long way in minimizing youths restiveness as a result of idleness. Administrators too will learn to stick to the management ethics of their respective sports. The governments on their parts will then concentrate on consolidating on existing sports infrastructures in the country where it is their duty to build and maintain them. As it is, the officials of the various sports associations are elevated above the principal actors themselves by default because at the end of the it is all about service and retiring, no more no less which ought not to be so. I've no doubt in my mind that sports can be re-purposed if we so desire and we should as catalyst for sustainable end to unemployment and poverty in Nigeria. And if that is done, definitely, the next level agenda of the Buhari's administration which prioritizes the lifting of 100 million Nigerians out of poverty would be well on course.