#the day we stop believing in democracy is the day we lose it and all y'know

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Mike Luckovich

* * * *

One more time with feeling . . . Ignore the polls!

November 6, 2023

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

    We are one year out from the 2024 general election, and media outlets are busy predicting a future they cannot know. I routinely advise readers to “ignore the polls,” so whenever I write about the polls, readers tell me I should follow my own advice. Fair point. But the poll by the New York Times released over the weekend prompted dozens of readers to send panicked emails asking me to “Talk them off the ledge.” The NYTimes poll will get more coverage in the Monday news cycle, so in anticipation of hundreds of additional panicked reactions, I will once again address the issue of polling. It is a scourge that we will live with for the next year, so occasional reminders that the only poll that matters will occur on November 5, 2024, is in order.

          In short, the NYTimes poll found that Biden is trailing Trump in five of six swing states and that Democrats are losing ground among young, Hispanic, and Black voters. Many voters believe that Trump is better able to manage the economy, that Biden is “too old,” and cannot identify anything that Biden did to improve their lives. Go figure!

          Nothing I write below should be interpreted as saying that polls do not contain valuable information. They can (depending on their quality). Polls include information that helps campaign managers and candidates focus and refine their message. They are NOT predictions. Remember Nate Silver’s article in FiveThirtyEight in 2011, “Is Obama toast? Handicapping the 2012 Election.” If polls taken one year before elections were meaningfully predictive, then each of the following candidates should have quit their first campaigns: Carter, Clinton, Obama, Biden—and Trump.  

          So, why should we not panic over the polls? Indeed, is there a silver lining? (Spoiler alert: Yes.)

          Let’s start with a lesson that we must not forget: The old paradigm of “horse-race” polls no longer applies. Why? Because such polls assume that two legitimate candidates are competing for votes within the system. We have never had a candidate who seeks to overthrow the system. Or who attempted a coup. Or who plans to invoke the Insurrection Act on the first day of his next term. Or who called for the execution of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Or who will use the DOJ to persecute his perceived enemies. Or who was found liable for sexual assault. Or who will support a nationwide ban on reproductive liberty. Or who views Putin as a friend and NATO allies as adversaries and leeches.

          I have not studied the NYTimes methodology, but I am confident it simply asks some variant of, “Which candidate do you support in 2024?” Faced with that limited construct, it is easy to be seduced into making a forced choice without regard to the fact that Trump is an anti-candidate. That error is compounded because the poll does not highlight Trump’s fundamental desire to destroy the system but instead asks about Biden’s age.

          As I have written before, believing that most voters will walk into the polling booth in 2024 and vote only for “Biden vs Trump” is simplistic—and beneath the NYTimes and its expert pollsters. When WaPo/ABC published a poll that was subjected to nearly universal derision for its flaws, I wrote the following:

          The 2024 presidential election features two candidates who are surrogates for different visions of America: Democracy versus autocracy; liberty versus tyranny; dignity versus bigotry; science versus disinformation; personal autonomy versus subservience to Christian nationalism; sustainability versus ecological disaster; safety versus gun violence; global stability versus confrontational isolationism. All of that—and much more—is on the ballot in 2024. The WaPo/ABC “horse-race” poll captures none of that.

          Three more points and then I will stop paying attention to the polls (as I recommend).

          First, Dan Pfeiffer’s article in The Message Box on Substack explains why the NYTimes poll shows the path forward. See Dan Pfeiffer, How to Respond to the Very Bad NYT Poll. If you are worried about the poll and want more details, I highly recommend Dan’s article. Pertinent passages include the following about “double haters” who dislike both Biden and Trump:

Perhaps the simplest explanation of Biden’s political challenges is that he has done a lot of good, popular things, and almost no one knows about them. Navigator tested a series of messages about Biden’s various accomplishments, including allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower drug costs, the bipartisan law to rebuild roads and bridges, and efforts to create more manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Guess what? All of this stuff is super popular. Medicare negotiating drug prices is supported by 77% of Americans, including 64% of Republicans. The bipartisan infrastructure law has the support of 73% of Americans and a majority of Republicans. Every accomplishment tested in this poll had majority support. It’s hard to overstate how impressive that is in a deeply divided, highly polarized country at a time when the President’s approval ratings are in the low 40s. That’s the good news. Here’s the bad news: according to the poll, a majority of Americans heard little or nothing about the accomplishments tested. There is a yawning knowledge gap. Now for more good news (think of this as a positive sandwich); the poll shows that when people are told about what Biden has done, his approval rating goes up. The voters most likely to move are the “Double Haters.”

          My penultimate point: The 2024 presidential election matters a lot. But so do congressional elections, gubernatorial elections, state legislative elections, municipal elections, and more. If—heaven forbid—Trump wins in 2024, a second Trump term with a Democratically controlled Congress is radically different than if Republicans control Congress. And states can be bulwarks of individual liberties if Republicans are able to pass national legislation. So, let’s not put every hope and aspiration into the presidential election. We should do everything we can to win up and down the ballot.

Concluding Thoughts.

          Although I did not intend to devote the entire newsletter to the NYTimes poll, I will stop here. We will be dealing with bad polls, handwringing, and negative press for the next year, so it is worth drawing a line in the sand and saying, “Enough!” The election is not over until it is over—notwithstanding the media’s best efforts to declare defeat a year in advance. And while I am criticizing the media, shame on the media for normalizing Trump as a legitimate political candidate. He is not.

          We will prevail over the long run, no matter what happens in 2024. (To be clear, I believe Biden will win re-election.) But if we have confidence that we will ultimately prevail, we can set aside the apocalyptic fears that we wrongly ascribe to a single election in 2024. We don’t need to panic over every poll.

The NYTimes poll reminds us that we have plenty of work to do in spreading the good news of Biden’s accomplishments. So, rather than needlessly fretting a year in advance about 2024, let’s recognize that we have a year to achieve

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[the-world-annealing]

Communism, Anti-Colonialism, and Palestine

The state of Israel is deeply unjust for denying millions of people basic rights, ranging from democratic representation to energy to food and water. Violent resistance against this domination is justified insofar it helps these people throw off their shackles.

I consider the above incredibly straightforward, and it's genuinely worrying for me to see people come up with justifications for why it's best if the occupation continues indefinitely in its current form. I genuinely don't get why someone who views all human life as valuable could even believe this.

But at the same time please consider what 'there is no two-state solution, it's all Palestine' would imply if you tried to like, actually implement it. The region contains fifteen million people, who are about 50/50 split Israeli/Palestinian, clearly your solution isn't to set up a representative government and let democracy save the day, so do you just want to ship seven million people off to wherever their grandmothers were born?

"I mean, it worked for the pied-noirs..." the pied-noirs totaled less than a million, made up only 10% of Algeria's total population, and had an imperial metropole eager to take them back. Do you know what situation is actually analoguous to the pied-noirs'? Returning only those Israelis who settled across the 1967 borders.

"Dang I guess we just can't let them be full citizens then", look, if your definition of 'anti-imperialist action' is to replace one legally enshrined ethnic underclass with another then I think you've gone and replaced any concern for human wellbeing with crude geopolitics.

"Oh no those poor colonizers lmao" look, even if you think every single Israeli currently alive is complicit enough in the crime of occupation to lose fundamental rights (what's your thoughts on people complicit in more traditional crimes btw? just curious), what's your plan for all the ones born after them?

The presence of the Israelis is not inherently a problem; the problem is the gross economical and political disparity between them and the Palestinians (which really is the root cause of all the sectarian conflict; look up the timeline on the Jewish National Fund and 1936 revolt and suddenly things make a lot more sense).

(the above is also my response to any right-winger trying to suggest multiculturalism is doomed so either side should hurry up and genocide the other already - you are mistaking economical conflicts for ethnic ones as you literally always do, but this started as an economical conflict and it can be solved by economical means)

Any kind of just resolution to the conflict would involve enormous redistribution of capital, and in any moral one-state solution that state would be very unlike Israel, but guess what? Fixing wealth disparities and unjust political structures is the mandate of communism already, and if those inequalities exist along racial lines then that's a symptom but does not require an exceptional new treatment.

tldr: It would be incredibly difficult for a variety of reasons to create an Arab-only state where Israel currently exists, fortunately attaining economic and political justice does not actually require demographic change, so maybe make that clear somewhere and stop giving ammunition to the people who're accusing you of clamoring for genocide.

[gravityslingshot]

STAR WARS: ATTACK OF THE CLONES (EPISODE II) SENTENCE MEMES

patience. use the force. think.

you're the closest thing i have to a father.

why don't you listen to me?

and so, they've finally given you an assignment.

your patience has paid off.

in time, you will learn to trust your feelings. and then you will be invincible.

i see you are becoming the greatest of all jedi, even more powerful than master yoda.

he is not ready to be given this assignment on his own yet.

he still has much to learn.

his abilities have made him arrogant.

if the prophecy is true, your apprentice is the only one who can bring the force back into balance.

i do not like this idea of hiding.

sometimes we must let go of our pride, and do what is requested of us.

all mentors have a way of seeing more of our faults than we would like.

it's the only way we grow.

don't try to grow up too fast.

i should think you jedi should have more respect for the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

well, if droids could think, there'd be none of us here, wouldn't there?

if an item does not appear in our records, it does not exist.

are you allowed to love? thought that was forbidden for a jedi.

attachment is forbidden. possession is forbidden. compassion, which i would define as unconditional love, is central to a jedi's life. so you might say that we are encouraged to love.

you're exactly the way i remember you in my dreams.

you've changed so much.

you haven't changed.

the day we stop believing democracy can work is the day we lose it.

clones can think creatively. you'll find they are superior to droids.

[theculturedmarxist]

Democrats lately have been basking in good news. The fourth Trump indictment! Continued success for abortion rights (the defeat of the Ohio referendum)! Good news on “Bidenomics”  (slowing inflation and strong job creation)!

The sentiment seems to be: we got this! How could we lose to a candidate (assuming it’s Trump) who’s under a blizzard of legal scrutiny for undermining democracy and represents a party that wants to take away women’s right to choose—especially when we, the good guys, are doing such a great job with the economy?

This “how can we lose?” attitude is uncomfortably reminiscent of Democrats’ attitude in 2016. Then too they thought they couldn’t lose. And yet they did.

Perhaps it’s time to take out an insurance policy. It may be the case that a multiply-indicted Trump is now toxic to enough voters and abortion rights such a strong motivator that even a candidate with Biden’s weaknesses will beat him easily. But it might not and that’s where the insurance policy comes in.

Consider that right now the race looks very, very close. The RealClearPolitics poll average has Biden ahead of Trump by a slender four-tenths of a percentage point. If that was Biden’s national lead on election day, he’d probably lose the presidency due to electoral college bias that favors Republicans.

In the latest Quinnipiac poll, Biden has a one-point lead over Trump consistent with the running average. Among white working-class (noncollege) voters, he’s behind by 34 points, considerably worse than he did in 2020. If Trump (or another Republican) does manage to prevail in 2024, we can be fairly sure that a pro-GOP surge among these voters will have something to do with it.

States of Change simulations show that, all else equal, a strong white working class surge in 2024 would deliver the election to the GOP. Even a small one could potentially do the trick. In an all-else-equal context, I estimate just a one-point increase in Republican support among the white working class and a concomitant one-point decrease in Democratic support (for a 2-point margin swing) would deliver Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin (and the election) to the Republicans. Make it a 2-point increase in GOP support and you can throw in Pennsylvania too.

So an insurance policy to prevent such a swing is in order.

The problem: these are very unhappy voters. In the Quinnipiac poll, white working-class voters give Biden an overall 25 percent approval rating versus 70 percent disapproval and 72 percent have an unfavorable opinion of him. On handling the economy, Biden’s rating is even worse—24 percent approval and 73 percent disapproval. Just 20 percent say the economy is excellent or good, compared to 79 percent who say it is not so good or poor. By 63 to 16 percent, these voters believe the economy is getting worse not better. Evidently they haven’t yet heard the good news about Bidenomics.

The temptation among Democrats is to ascribe the stubborn resistance of these voters to Democratic appeals and openness to those of Trump and right populists to misinformation from Fox News and the like and, worse, to the fundamentally racist, reactionary nature of this voter group. The roots of this view go back to the aftermath of the 2016 election.

As analysts sifted through the wreckage of Democratic performance in 2016 trying to understand where all the Trump voting had come from, some themes began to emerge. One was geographical. Across county-level studies, it was clear that low educational levels among whites was a very robust predictor of shifts toward Trump. These studies also indicated that counties that swung toward Trump tended to be dependent on low-skill jobs, relatively poor performers on a range of economic measures and had local economies particularly vulnerable to automation and offshoring. Finally, there was strong evidence that Trump-swinging counties tended to be literally “sick” in the sense that their inhabitants had relatively poor physical health and high mortality due to alcoholism, drug abuse, and suicide.

The picture was more complicated when it came to individual level characteristics related to Trump voting, especially Obama-Trump voting. There were a number of correlates with Trump voting. They included some aspects of economic populism—opposition to cutting Social Security and Medicare, suspicion of free trade and trade agreements, taxing the rich—as well as traditional populist attitudes like anti-elitism and mistrust of experts. But the star of the show, so to speak, was a variable labelled “racial resentment” by political scientists, which many studies showed bore a strengthened relationship to Republican presidential voting in 2016.

This variable is a scale created from questions like: “Irish, Italian, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without any special favors.” The variable is widely and uncritically employed by political scientists to indicate racial animus despite the obvious problem that statements such as these correspond closely to a generic conservative view of avenues to social mobility. And indeed political scientists Riley Carney and Ryan Enos have shown that responses to questions like these change very little if you substitute “Nepalese” or “Lithuanians” for blacks. That implies the questions that make up the scale tap views that are not at all specific to blacks. Carney and Enos term these views “just world belief” which sounds quite a bit different from racial resentment.

But in the aftermath of the Trump election, researchers continued to use the same scale with the same name and the same interpretation with no caveats. The strong relationship of the scale to Trump voting was proof, they argued, that Trump support, including vote-switching from Obama to Trump, was simply a matter of activating underlying racism and xenophobia. Imagine though how these studies might have landed like if they had tied Trump support to activating just world belief, which is an eminently reasonable interpretation of their star variable, instead of racial resentment. The lack of even a hint of interest in exploring this alternative interpretation strongly suggests that the researchers’ own political beliefs were playing a strong role in how they chose to pursue and present their studies.

In short, they went looking for racism—and they found it.

Other studies played variations on this theme, adding variables around immigration and even trade to the mix, where negative views were presumed to show “status threat” or some other euphemism for racism and xenophobia. As sociologist Stephen Morgan has noted in a series of papers, this amounts to a labeling exercise where issues that have a clear economic component are stripped of that component and reduced to simple indicators of unenlightened social attitudes. Again, it seems clear that researchers’ priors and political beliefs were heavily influencing both their analytical approach and their interpretation of results.

And there is an even deeper problem with the conventional view. Start with a fact that was glossed over or ignored by most studies: trends in so-called racial resentment went in the “wrong” direction between the 2012 and 2016 election. That is, fewer whites had high levels of racial resentment in 2016 than 2012. This make racial resentment an odd candidate to explain the shift of white voters toward Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

Political scientists Justin Grimmer and William Marble investigated this conundrum intensively by looking directly at whether an indicator like racial resentment really could explain, or account for, the shift of millions of white votes toward Trump. The studies that gave pride of place to racial resentment as an explanation for Trump’s victory did no such accounting; they simply showed a stronger relationship between this variable and Republican voting in 2016 and thought they’d provided a complete explanation.

They had not. When you look at the actual population of voters and how racial resentment was distributed in 2016, as Grimmer and Marble did, it turns out that the racial resentment explanation simply does not fit what really happened in terms of voter shifts. A rigorous accounting of vote shifts toward Trump shows instead that they were primarily among whites, especially low education whites, with moderate views on race and immigration, not whites with high levels of racial resentment. In fact, Trump actually netted fewer votes among whites with high levels of racial resentment than Mitt Romney did in 2012.

Grimmer and Marble did a followup study with Cole Tanigawa-Lau that included data from the 2020 election. The study was covered in a New York Times article by Thomas Edsall. In the article, Grimmer described the significance of their findings:

Our findings provide an important correction to a popular narrative about how Trump won office. Hillary Clinton argued that Trump supporters could be placed in a “basket of deplorables.” And election-night pundits and even some academics have claimed that Trump’s victory was the result of appealing to white Americans’ racist and xenophobic attitudes. We show this conventional wisdom is (at best) incomplete. Trump’s supporters were less xenophobic than prior Republican candidates’ [supporters], less sexist, had lower animus to minority groups, and lower levels of racial resentment. Far from deplorables, Trump voters were, on average, more tolerant and understanding than voters for prior Republican candidates… [The data] point to two important and undeniable facts. First, analyses focused on vote choice alone cannot tell us where candidates receive support. We must know the size of groups and who turns out to vote. And we cannot confuse candidates’ rhetoric with the voters who support them, because voters might support the candidate despite the rhetoric, not because of it.

So much for the racial resentment explanation of Trump’s victory. Not only is racial resentment a misnamed variable that does not mean what people think it means, it literally cannot account for the actual shifts that occurred in the 2016 election. Clearly a much more complex explanation for Trump’s victory was—or should have been—in order, integrating negative views on immigration, trade and liberal elites with a sense of unfairness rooted in just world belief. That would have helped Democrats understand why voters in Trump-shifting counties, whose ways of life were being torn asunder by economic and social change, were so attracted to Trump’s appeals.

Such understanding was nowhere to be found, however, in Democratic ranks. The racism-and-xenophobia interpretation quickly became dominant, partly because it was in many ways simply a continuation of the approach Clinton had taken during her campaign and that most Democrats accepted. Indeed, it became so dominant that simply to question the interpretation reliably opened the questioner to accusations that he or she did not take the problem of racism seriously enough.

We are still living in that world. Scratch a Democrat today and you will find lurking not far beneath the surface—if beneath the surface at all—a view of white working-class voters and their populist, pro-Trump leanings as reflecting these voters’ unyielding racism and xenophobia.

This is neither substantively justified nor politically productive. Democrats desperately need that insurance policy for 2024 and getting rid of these attitudes toward 40 percent of the electorate (much more in key states!) should be part of it. Think of it as a down payment on the “de-Brahminization” of the Democratic Party. This attitude adjustment might irritate some of their activist supporters, but considering the stakes, that seems like a small price to pay for a potentially vital insurance policy.

[gffa]

One of the things I think gets overlooked from the Star Wars movies is that the Clone War is connected throughout all of these movies, it’s not just Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, but that everything starts on Naboo, with Palpatine and the Chancellorship, but also with the Trade Federation.  When the Separatists are threatening to leave, as Padme and Jamiilia and the other Naboo officials discuss it, it’s also brought up that it’s likely the Separatists will feel threatened and turn to the Trade Federation, of which Nute Gunray is still the viceroy of. And that’s the other thing that gets overlooked from The Phantom Menace, because we don’t directly see it on the screen, it’s only talked about by the characters: the Trade Federation was putting people into occupation camps and those people were starving and dying. When Obi-Wan discovers that Nute Gunray is indeed a part of the Separatists’ movement, it isn’t just about the Separatists wanting to leave, it’s about how the Trade Federation operates.  That the Jedi know they will do the exact same thing to other planets in this war that they did to Naboo. Which is 100% correct, because the chronologically earliest episodes are the ones where the Separatists are occupying Ryloth, where they’re using the Twi’leks as living shields, they’re bombing civilian villages, they’re looting treasures from the Twi’lek people. The Republic getting involved in this war isn’t just “we can’t let them leave”, it’s that when the Separatists leave, this is what they will do and all of us will be hurt, suffer, and die if we don’t stand up against it.  That’s why The Phantom Menace is so important, beyond the character stuff, because it sets the stage for the politics of the GFFA.  The Republic is far, far from perfect, they’re greedy and Senators often only care about themselves and the Republic becomes the Empire, but this war wasn’t started just for funsies, there’s a reason so many good characters are still part of it, there’s context that’s cleanly established in the movies. As Jamilia says in Attack of the Clones, “We must place our faith in the Republic. The day we stop believing in democracy is the day we lose it.”

[rockislandadultreads]

2023 Goodreads Choice Awards: Best Nonfiction

Winner: Poverty, By America by Matthew Desmond

The United States, the richest country on earth, has more poverty than any other advanced democracy. Why? Why does this land of plenty allow one in every eight of its children to go without basic necessities, permit scores of its citizens to live and die on the streets, and authorize its corporations to pay poverty wages?

In this landmark book, acclaimed sociologist Matthew Desmond draws on history, research, and original reporting to show how affluent Americans knowingly and unknowingly keep poor people poor. Those of us who are financially secure exploit the poor, driving down their wages while forcing them to overpay for housing and access to cash and credit. We prioritize the subsidization of our wealth over the alleviation of poverty, designing a welfare state that gives the most to those who need the least. And we stockpile opportunity in exclusive communities, creating zones of concentrated riches alongside those of concentrated despair. Some lives are made small so that others may grow.

Elegantly written and fiercely argued, this compassionate book gives us new ways of thinking about a morally urgent problem. It also helps us imagine solutions. Desmond builds a startlingly original and ambitious case for ending poverty. He calls on us all to become poverty abolitionists, engaged in a politics of collective belonging to usher in a new age of shared prosperity and, at last, true freedom.

Nominee: The Art Thief by Michael Finkel

For centuries, works of art have been stolen in countless ways from all over the world, but no one has been quite as successful at it as the master thief Stéphane Breitwieser. Carrying out more than two hundred heists over nearly eight years—in museums and cathedrals all over Europe—Breitwieser, along with his girlfriend who worked as his lookout, stole more than three hundred objects, until it all fell apart in spectacular fashion.

In The Art Thief, Michael Finkel brings us into Breitwieser’s strange and fascinating world. Unlike most thieves, Breitwieser never stole for money. Instead, he displayed all his treasures in a pair of secret rooms where he could admire them to his heart’s content. Possessed of a remarkable athleticism and an innate ability to circumvent practically any security system, Breitwieser managed to pull off a breathtaking number of audacious thefts. Yet these strange talents bred a growing disregard for risk and an addict’s need to score, leading Breitwieser to ignore his girlfriend’s pleas to stop—until one final act of hubris brought everything crashing down.

This is a riveting story of art, crime, love, and an insatiable hunger to possess beauty at any cost.

Nominee: 8 Rules of Love by Jay Shetty

Nobody sits us down and teaches us how to love. So we’re often thrown into relationships with nothing but romance movies and pop culture to help us muddle through. Until now.

Instead of presenting love as an ethereal concept or a collection of cliches, Jay Shetty lays out specific, actionable steps to help you develop the skills to practice and nurture love better than ever before. He shares insights on how to win or lose together, how to define love, and why you don’t break in a break-up. Inspired by Vedic wisdom and modern science, he tackles the entire relationship cycle, from first dates to moving in together to breaking up and starting over. And he shows us how to avoid falling for false promises and unfulfilling partners.

By living Jay Shetty’s eight rules, we can all love ourselves, our partner, and the world better than we ever thought possible.

Nominee: On Our Best Behavior by Elise Loehnen

Women congratulate themselves when they resist the doughnut in the office break-room. They celebrate their restraint when they hold back from sending an e-mail in anger. They feel virtuous when they wake up at dawn to get a jump on the day. They put others' needs ahead of their own and believe this makes them exemplary. In On Our Best Behavior, journalist Elise Loehnen explains that these impulses - often lauded as unselfish, distinctly feminine instincts - are actually ingrained in women by a culture that reaps the benefits, via an extraordinarily effective collection of mores known as the Seven Deadly Sins.

Since being codified by the Christian church in the fourth century, the Seven Deadly Sins - pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth - have exerted insidious power. Even today, in our largely secular, patriarchal society, they continue to circumscribe women's behavior. For example, seeing sloth as sinful leads women to deny themselves rest; a fear of gluttony drives them to ignore their appetites; and an aversion to greed prevents them from negotiating for themselves and contributes to the 55 percent gender wealth gap. Loehnen reveals how women have been programmed to obey the rules represented by these sins and how doing so qualifies them as "good."

This probing analysis of contemporary culture and thoroughly researched history explains how women have internalized the patriarchy, and how they unwittingly reinforce it. By sharing her own story and the spiritual wisdom of other traditions, Loehnen shows how women can break free and discover the integrity and wholeness they seek.

[thecleverqueer]

Random thoughts during Attack of the Clones:

*The second scene with all the Jedi in the Chancellors’ office is like a Clone Wars who’s who. Poor Barriss in the back of the room…brooding, being all angsty and gay. Her character was done hella dirty, but I have a theory on that which I may share later.

* Anakin’s attempts at flirting with women are painful. Ouch. Too bad this predates Ahsoka who could have absolutely given him pointers.

* I feel like Padme is disproportionately targeted by assassination attempts. I get she’s kind of outspoken, but holy f*^%, bounty hunters are trying to take her ass out constantly.

*I find it it creepy that Anakin was watching Padme sleep (or whatever). I would have covered the cameras if I were her as well.

* It’s pretty great that Obi-Wan catches Anakin’s lightsaber that Anakin dropped during a high-speed pursuit. Hella reflexes.

*”This weapon is your life.” -Obi-Wan when handing Anakin’s lightsaber back to him. This is a reoccurring theme, I feel. Fun Clone Wars fact: We see Jedi passing their weapons over to someone else twice in The Clone Wars series willingly: Once by Anakin who gives it to Padme. Once by Ahsoka who gives it to Barriss. Hmm.

* “Why do I get the feeling you’re going to be the death of me?”- Obi-Wan. Yikes with the foreboding.

*I appreciate the original Xbox graphics going on with that droid football game playing in the cantina. It really brings back some great memories of a time when playing games was so blocky and 32-bit.

* I like Dex. I bet the food in his diner is fire, but I bet the caf is awful. I’m also impressed that he knows about Kamino when no one else seems to at this point in the story.

* Attachments and possession is forbidden, but compassion is encouraged. I feel like attachment sort of comes with romance. Something about that chemical reaction in your brain that’s triggered… With that being said, Anakin interacting with Padmé is so, so awkward.

* “The day we stop believing democracy can work is the day we lose it.” - Queen Jamillia dropping gems of wisdom.

* Was this written by Incels? I mean, I’m really not clear how the “I don’t like sand” line somehow convinces Padmé to kiss Anakin for the first time, but maybe I need to start coming up with really, REALLY hokey lines to get girls to kiss me. I’ll let you know how it works out in the real world.

*RED FLAG ON THE FIELD. Anakin declares that he is a pro-dictatorial authoritarian fascist. She laughs it off like “he’s kidding”, and like, he legit says “I’d be much too frightened to tease a senator.” Baby girl. He’s problematic. You’re getting a sign that clearly is telling you to turn around, but you’re ignoring the signals.

*Fun Star Wars fact, those chunky tick-looking CGI animals that nearly trample Anakin in that awkward flirty scene are called Shaak (not to be confused with Shaak Ti, who is a hot, Togruta Jedi), and apparently, they’re tasty.

* Padmé seems to be very impressed by Anakin’s ability to float fruit around with the force. I can’t say I wouldn’t be turned on by someone just randomly wielding the force to impress me. Maybe.

* The scene between Anakin and Padmé where they’re discussing the kiss is a clear sign that he’s not going to be capable of letting go. The dark shadow cast across his face in this scene is kind of another foreboding moment too.

* Clones! Rex, Cody and Jesse are all down there some place preparing to go to war as Obi-Wan looks on.

* Slave One is a badass ship. That is all.

*I can’t help but wonder about Lars freeing, then marrying Shmi Skywalker. Did he do it out of the goodness of his heart? Was it a mutual thing? Or was Shmi originally purchased as his sex slave, and was she suffering from Stockholm syndrome? Why is my brain like this!?!

*Speaking of, Shmi’s death is tragic. Enter Vader.

*RED FLAG! RED FLAG!!! Holy blazes, Padme. Anakin just confessed to committing literal genocide by slaughtering an entire village of sand people. I’m pretty sure my instinct would be to roll out. That would be my cue. I mean, damn.

Anakin: I killed them. I killed them all. And not just the men, but the women and the children too. They’re like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals! I hate them!

Me: Well, would you look at the time!? Gotta go!

Not Padmé. No. She tries to reason with it. It’s human to be angry. No, not like THAT! My god, man!! Jedi have to keep that shit in check as they can literally crush people with the force. FFS. You’re in danger, girl. RUN!

*The Geonosians creep me out. Seriously. Bugs, but with brains that are capable of producing weapons of mass destruction. There is also their ceremonious way of executing prisoners (Ancient Roman style) Not to worry, I guess. This method won’t work with Jedi. They’re like force-wielding gladiators on speed. Their deadly animals will be beast-tricked and killed.

* Shaak Ti! I am such a sucker for a Togruta. Here’s my number, holo me.

* Mace Windu’s lightsaber wielding style really is bad ass. The way that he just effortlessly beheads Jango Fett is something else.

* Every time I see Kit Fisto, I’m reminded of how he started off as a tadpole.. and it makes me chuckle. Also, his grin is fantastic.

* The C3-PO puns during this battle. Classic. Peak droid in a Star Wars film.

* I can’t help but wonder what happened to Jango’s head when Boba lifts his helmet and puts it against his forehead? I didn’t want it to plop out, but it probably should have. Is it still wedged into the helmet? Is poor Boba going to have to fish it out later (because we know he keeps it)?

*Folks always getting their arms chopped off.

*The Dooku/ Yoda lightsaber battle is epic, and may be slightly underrated.

* Begun the Clone War has. Poor Bail is like, “Damn.” And, we end with Padme ignoring all the red flags. The galaxy will pay for your discretions. Roll credits.

[ahlulbaytnetworks]

🍃🕊🍃 Need for Religion 🍃🕊🍃

🍃 1) What is Religion?

The Arabic word “Deen” دين which is translated as “Religion” in English is used for several meanings:

(a) “Islam; Belief in unity of God; Worship; Obedience; All the acts of worship; piety;” All these meanings are interrelated and are connected with the belief in Creator.

(b) “Judgment; Reward or Punishment; Account; Order; Law;” These meanings are inter-related and point to the belief in the Life-Hereafter.

(c) The third group of its meanings is: “Custom; character; Habit; Religion revealed and traditional both.’”

The idea behind the word (دين ) “deen” is that man, by his nature, has to have a pattern of life based upon some spiritual ideals or ideas which we call ‘belief’.

It appears that the word دين is more comprehensive than the English word ‘’Religion’’ which puts emphasis on only ‘’Human recognition of super-human controlling power and especially of a personal god or gods entitled to obedience and worship, effects of such recognition or conduct of mental attitude, particular system of faith and worship.”

🍃 2) What is the Need of Religion?

There are many reasons why religion is needed for Mankind:

(a) We know that man is a social animal. Every man depends upon millions of people for his life and its necessities. Also we know that every society needs some laws to prevent injustice and preserve the rights of every member of the society. But who is the right authority to make the Law? One man (be he a monarch or a dictator)? No! Because he, instinctively, will look, first of all, after his own interest. A group of people (be it an aristocracy or democracy)? No! Because every one of them is capable of wrong judgment; and a lot of wrong decisions do not add up to a right decision.

(b) Also, it is apparent that no group of people disengage itself from self-interest. For example, in colonial days the assemblies and councils of colonies were enacting laws to suit the interest of the White rulers. Now, the same institutions (but with different members) are making laws keeping in view the interest of the local population. Self-interest was, and still is, the key word of legislation in the whole world.

(c) Moreover, no man or group of men is in a position to make a comprehensive law based on perfect equity and justice.

So it is necessary that the laws should be made by someone who is superior to man, who has nothing to lose or gain by that law and with whom every man has equal relation. and that one is "Allah". Hence we need the religion

(d) Moreover, all the man-made laws and customs have a very serious defect: they cannot stop crime. This defect makes their existence somewhat superfluous. A thief enters an unoccupied house, in a remote village at dead of night for stealing some valuables. He knows perfectly well that there is no representative of the government for good many miles around the house. He feels perfectly safe from being detected. Is there any law of government which can stop him from committing the crime? The answer is, certainly, "no".

No government can stop the said person from stealing, but Religion can.

Religion, true Religion as explained above, teaches that there is a God, Who knows everything and sees everything; who is Just and Virtuous Himself, and wants us to be just and virtuous; that we are responsible for our deeds in His eyes, and we have to give account of our deeds to Him after our death. If a person believes in it, then (and only then) he can restrain himself from committing sins and crimes and inflicting injustice upon other people.

Laws of government can control the external affairs of a man and even that only at a time and place where its hands can reach. But the belief in God and religion controls not only the external acts but hidden desires and inner thoughts also.

This control is not confined to any particular place or any limited time, because God is omnipresent and omniscient

(e) To realize fully the unquestionable benefits which the society derives from the belief in God and religion, try to think about the chaos and turmoil which the mankind will certainly plunge into if the belief in God is put aside. There will not be any society. Instead, there will be a multitude of people. In such atmosphere every individual is at liberty to do whatever he wishes. He thinks there is no God and no life hereafter, and he has come into being by the chance of a blind nature; and he also knows that the span of life is very short. So he naturally will be overcome by the desire to enjoy this life as much as possible without any regard to anything else. His only consideration will be to avoid being caught red-handed or detected by the government law. And whenever he will feel safe he will not stop at any crime to fulfill his desire, how much heinous that desire may appear to others.

Question: Even an atheist may lead a life which is morally as perfect as that of a follower of religion. So what is the need of religion?

Answer: It is a fallacy, to think that the moral life of an atheist is without any obligation to religion. Because those moral thoughts have been bestowed upon him by no other factor but religion. Religious moral teachings have been ingrained in human mind for thousands of years. They have been bestowed from father to son (heredity) and from friend to friend, (environment). These moral values have become inseparable from his conscience. But what is conscience? It is but the religious and moral thoughts which have come to him from his religious forefathers, and now he cannot escape from them. Conscience is based upon the moral teaching of religion. How can the conscience survive, when those teachings of religion are routed out of the humanity as a whole?

Anybody who ponders deeply upon this point will come to the conclusion that no morality can hold is ground, if separated from belief in God and religion.

🍃 3) Misunderstandings About Religion

Often we hear some patent slogan used against ’’Religion’’ they are nowadays widely used by the communists. They are:

(a) Religion is anti-science.

(b) Religion was a drug invented by capitalists to keep the oppressed classes content with their wretched condition. In other words it was opium to make people seep.

(c) Religion retards material and intellectual progress.

Let us, now examine these allegations. All these statements have been made by the Europeans (from Karl Marx to Bertrand Russell) who had known a particular religion only i.e. Christianity. They committed the intellectual sin of seeing a particular religion and assuming all religions (Including Islam) must be of the same caliber. It was, to say the least, a fallacy, if not a deliberate deception.

To explain the above statement, it is necessary to pint out just in general outline what was the attitude of Christianity towards knowledge and progress.

‘’From the sixteenth century A.D. the conflict between the church and science began. This most unfortunate struggle was not started by the scientist but by the protagonists of Christianity, who feared that their religion was in dire danger of losing its hold on the masses. Their house of cards was threatening to fall down. Both Catholics and Protestants, though they were at logger-heads themselves, took the same stand against the impact of revolutionary scientific theories of Copernicus and Galileo. They did what every tyrant, afraid of his inherent weakness, does. Ruthless persecutions were launched against the brave scientists who defied the church and said what they knew was the truth.

‘’At first we should take Copernicus (Nicolaus Koppernik) 1473-1543, as he was the man who set the ball rolling. He did not dare to publish his work, “On the revolution of Heavenly Bodies’’, for a long time due to the fear of the church. In the end he successfully tried to appease the church by dedicating the book to the Pope. In fact his publisher wrote a preface alleging that the theory of the earth’s motion was only a hypothesis and not an assertion as positive truth. In the words of Lord Bertrand Russell, ‘For a time, these tactics sufficed, and it was only Galileo’s bolder defiance that brought retrospective condemnation upon Copernicus. (Religion and Science)

‘’Luther, also, opposed the Copernican system on the theological grounds.

‘’Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), though once a friend of Pope Urban VIII, was thrown into the prison of Inquisition by the orders of the same pope and threatened with torture if he did not recant. Galileo’s only crime was that he supported the Copernican system because of the observations made with his telescope. These observations were more difficult to cope with for the church than the theoretical of Copernicus.

“Giordano Bruno (1549-1600) was another victim of the cruelty of the ‘tolerant’ people. He was burnt alive.

‘’As Lord Bertrand Russell has written: “Theologians were not slow to point out that the new doctrine would make the Incarnation difficult to believe.” (Religion and Science)

“So the Inquisition announced the following as the truth: “The first proposition that the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth is foolish, absurd, false in theology and heretical; because expressly contrary to the Holy Scriptures. . .

The second proposition that the earth is not centre, but revolves about the sun is absurd, false in philosophy, and from a theological point of view at least opposed to the true faith.' (Religion and Science).

"And as it was not enough, the Jesuit Father Melchior Inchofer postulated that 'the opinion of the earth's motion is of all heresies the most abominable, the most pernicious, the most scandalous; the immovability of the earth is thrice sacred; arguments against the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and the Incarnation should be tolerated sooner than an argument to prove that the earth moves.' (Religion and, Science).

Faced with this ruthless oppression, the scientists, in their turn, denounced Christianity as ''anti-intellectual, anti-science, a pack of superstitions and degrading to human progress." What is not understandable is that they aimed their broad-side to all the religions; certainly Islam can never be termed 'un-scientific, illogical or anti-progress.

🍃 4) Evolution and Religion

It is said that the 'Evolution' has proved that there was no need of a Supreme Being in the scheme of the universe.

Though the best place to deal with this question would have been in the Unit 2 (God of Islam); but I propose to give here some points for the student to ponder.

First of all, let it be clear that here I am not talking about the truth or otherwise of the theory of Evolution. This is not the place for it.

Secondly, that mere change within the basic type of living things is not 'evolution.'

The theory of organic evolution involves these three main ideas:

1. Living things change from generation to generation, producing descendants with new characteristics

2. This process has been going on so long that it has produced all the groups and kinds of things now living; as well as others lived long ago and have died out, or become extinct.

3. These different living things are related to each other.”

(World Book Encyclopedia, 1966)

Thirdly that in spite of all assertions to the contrary, Evolution is still a theory, not a fact.

Fact as Webster’s third New International Dictionary says is ‘’an actual happening in time or space’’, a ‘’verified statement.’’

Now what is the ‘’verification’’ of this theory?

A prominent evolutionist W. Le Gros Clark, writes in his book, The Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution:-

‘’The chances of finding the fossil remains of actual ancestors, or even representatives of local geographical group which provided the actual ancestors, are so fantastically remote as not to be worth consideration.

‘’The interpretation of the paleontological evidence of hominid evolution which has been offered in the preceding chapters is a provisional interpretation. Because of the incompleteness of the evidence, it could hardly be otherwise.’’

The science News Letter said in 1965: “The fight is among scientist over just how man did evolve, when he did so and what he looked like.

The above mentioned Mr. Clark writes: “What was the ultimate origin of man?. . . .

Unfortunately, any answers which can at present be given to these questions are based on indirect evidence and thus are largely conjectural.”

A former president of the American Association for the Advancement of science wrote in Science Magazine in support of evolution:-

‘’Come now if you will on a speculative excursion into prehistory. Assume the era in which the species sapiens emerged from the genus Homo . . . hasten across the millenniums for which present information depends for the most part on conjecture and interpretation to the era of the first inscribed records, from which some facts may be gleaned."

L.M. Davies, a British Scientist, once said: "It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as 'Let us assume ' or 'We may well suppose' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's 'Origin of Species' alone."

When you ponder upon the statements quoted above and especially the phrase given in italics by us, you will come to this conclusion that Evolution is not an established fact, but only a theory, among many theories which have been advanced since the beginning of mankind to explain the nature of universe. Many of such theories are now discarded, but once they had the same hold on minds as the theory of Evolution has at present. And this hold on minds does not make it any more perfect.

Indeed, one scientist, Dr. T.N. Tahmisian, a physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission, said: “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact,” He called it "a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling' Another scientist, head of a college science department, J.W. Klotz, stated in 1965 that "acceptance of evolution is still based on a great deal of faith."

And this theory has yet to find enough evidence to support itself. How can such a 'theory' be used to refute the existence of a 'Supreme Being'?

Finally, even the evolutionists do acknowledge that there is the need of an "Ever living, All Knowing, Almighty Being," in the scheme of the Universe as explained by the theory of 'Evolution'.

But, once committed to the denial of God, they are attributing these virtues to that 'Nature' They say that 'Nature' adopted this "Nature" planned that.

Let us see what is this 'nature' anyway? It is nothing but an abstract idea formed in human brain after careful study of the behavior of things, If may be found within the things; but it has no independent existence, And in any case, there is no record of any conference of the 'natures' of various things, held to decide how to co-ordinate their functions. Flowers never conferred with the bees to seek the bees' co-operation in their pollination, offering them, in exchange, their nectar. But we know that bees could not live a single day without flowers; and thousands of flowers would long have been extinct but for the bees.

So, you see, the evolutionists recognize the need of a 'Planner', a 'Designer'. But dogmatically go on repeating that that designer and planner was the 'Nature' (which is just an abstract idea) or the 'Matter' which is a 'Senseless, lifeless thing'.

🍃 5) The so-called Pascal’s Bet

A Muslim poet has said:

قال المنجم و الطبيب كلا هما لن يحشر الاموت فلت اليكما

ان صح قو لكما فلست بخاسر ان صح قولى فا لخسار عليكم

"The astrologer and the physician both said: 'The dead will never be resurrected.'

'I said: Keep your counsel, If your idea is correct I will come to no harm (by my belief in a Day of Judgment); but if my belief is correct, then you will be sure loser (by not believing in that Day)”

Allamah Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali (died in 1111 A.D.) mentions in Mizanul-Aamal that: "Ali - God have grace on him - said to a man who contested with him on the question of the other world: If the truth is what you pretend (i.e., there is no life hereafter), then we shall all be saved; but if the truth is what I have said (i.e., there: is a life hereafter) then you will be condemned and I shall be saved.

That is the very sound, practical, down to earth reasoning in favor of believing in a Creator and a Day of Judgment.

Then Al-Ghazali explains that Ali did not propound this argument in order to cast a shadow of doubt on the reality of the life-hereafter; but it is merely an argument to convince those people who are incapable of knowing that by logical demonstration.

One thousand years after Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s) came the famous mathematician Pascal (died 1662 A.D) and his famous ‘’Parido Pascal’’ (Pascal’s Bet) by which he wished to prove the same thing to the same group of people. His argument can be briefly stated in this way:

"If you believe in the life-hereafter you will gain everything if it really exists; and you lose nothing if it does not exist. Therefore, it is better to bet that it does exist." (Pascal: Ben sees, edited by Y. Brunchircy, Paris 1912, p. 439).

Is it mere coincidence? Or did Pascal get the idea of his (Parido ( = bet)) from Islamic sources? Asin Palacios believes that Pascal must have read it in the Ihya-ul-uloom of Al-Ghazali. But as mentioned above, Al-Ghazali himself refers in Mizanul-Aamal that Ali bin Abi Talib was the author of this argument.

Therefore, we must put the credit where it belongs and accept that Pascal, though he did not acknowledge it, had got his idea from Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s.).

🍃 6) Necessary Qualities of a Religion

So far, I have been explaining the need of religion in a general term.

Now let me enumerate what should be the qualities of a religion, if it is to fulfill the needs mentioned above.

(a) First of all, Religion must satisfy the intelligence and intellect of the Man.

Of course, there are many religions whose motto is “First believe, then you can understand." Frankly speaking, such religions retard the mind and should be termed (and are in fact called) "anti-intellect."

Islam, as explained by the Shia Ithna-asheri faith, gives foremost place to intellect and reason. "Intellect" is one of the four basic sources of Shia Ithna-asheri shariat. Not only this. This faith emphasizes that the matter of faith must be understood by the believer by his own reasoning.

(b) Religion must teach and practice dignity of man.

There are religions which demand that its followers should prostrate before the pictures or statues of some human beings or some animals or other inanimate things.

Such religions degrade their followers to the furthest extent, and should be condemned as such.

Some other religions teach the superiority of one race or caste over others.

It was Islam which was and is the pioneer of the equality of mankind and which, for the first time in the history of religions, taught and practiced the human brotherhood, equality and equity, and presented the dignity of humanity as a fact to the astonished eyes of the mankind.

(c) Religion must be a complete guide to develop human body, mind and spirit as a whole.

There are some religions which put too much emphasis on spiritualism and ignore the body and mind; there are others which have a great deal to say on physical or intellectual advancement.

Such religions cannot take their followers very far, because the development taught by them is lop-sided

It is only Islam, as explained by Shia Ithna-asheri faith, which develops a person as a whole - body, mind and soul all together.

(d) Religion must have a complete code of life.

Religions just preaching to "love thy neighbor” without showing the way, are useless when faced with the practical problems. Islam has a complete code of life which guides a man in his family life, social commitments, financial matters, moral and ethical behavior perfectly.

(e) Religion must be in conformity with the human nature.

There are religions which tend to ignore the nature of man. For example, some religions teach celibacy. They declare by their behavior (if not in so many words) that the Creator made a mistake in creating sexual urge in human beings. Also, they forget (or pretend to forget) that natural instincts cannot be crushed, and that such impositions tend to lead the person to secret liaisons.

And, I wonder what would be the future of humanity if all the mankind becomes the practicing followers of such a religion? Surely, the mankind would be extinct within a space of 40 or 50 years.

Needless to say that such a religion cannot lead mankind to prosperity, because by its nature such religion is against continuity of humanity.

(f) Religion should not be a tool in the hands of oppressor to suppress the masses.

Many religions are rightly accused by the atheists of being just an instrument of the feudal overlords to suppress the oppressed masses and muffle the voice of protest. Such religions, for example, taught the theory of 'Predestination'. Thus, the masses were lulled to believe that all the evil doings, tyranny, and wickedness of the ruling classes were just a manifestation of the Will of God; therefore, such thing should be fore born without any protest.

Such religions have no place in this enlightened century. It is only Islam, as explained by the Shia Ithna asheri faith, which said that such a belief was humbug, that every man is responsible for his own actions and that its responsibility should not be shifted upon God.

It will appear from the above, criteria that among the vast multitudes of the world religions, it is only the Islam (Shia Ithna-asheri faith) which fulfils all the necessary conditions of a true and enlightened religion.

🍃 By ~ Sayyid Sa'eed Akhtar Rizvi

🍃🕊🍃 al-Islam.org 🍃🕊🍃

.

[galacticjedimaster]

The Lore

The First three episodes (The Phantom Menace, Attack of The Clones, Revenge of The Sith) develop around the fall of the Jedi Order. The Jedi Order played a prominent role in aiding to keep peace. As tension grew in the Senate about the on-going war. More and more people started to distrust that the Jedi Order was protecting them. This brought a leeway for Senator Palpatine to influence people into voting him Chancellor. Even the Queen of Naboo States “The day we stop believing in democracy is the day we lose it.” (Charles 288) But by the end of the Clone Wars, Order 66 took place. (Which was the mass killing of Jedi)

Thus what was there to protect people now has fallen under Palpatine, and he rebranded the Galactic Republic to the Galactic Empire. But unbeknown to new watchers Palptine is a sith lord. He slowly influences Anakin to the dark side by stating “Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy and we shall have peace.” (Charles 288) With the rise of Darth Vader, we move on to the next three episodes where we see the formation of a rebellion. Princess Leia is the front and center of the new rebellion we enter. The Age of the Rebellion goes from Leia barely escaping with the plans to the Death Star to fully destroying the Galactic Empire. That's the whole story, or so we thought. With the next 3 trilogy coming out in 2015, it introduced us to the First Order. The First Order attacked the New Republic that was formed after the fall of the Galactic Empire. This completes all we know about the Star Wars universe.

[leelee120000]

My Voice: The January 6 Commission

June 25, 2022

On January 6th 2021 a radical right-wing coup led by MAGA fanatics, QAnon believers, and neo Nazis inspired by President Trump nearly destroyed America as we know her. The mob’s actions killed a Capitol police officer and drove two others to suicide afterwards. 100s were injured. This attack is unacceptable.

We now know, thanks to the investigation, that the mob that had spent a considerable amount of the day building a gallow and screaming, “Hang Mike Pence!.” The group then got within 40 feet of the then vice President, with intent to murder him then and there for disobeying Trump and his orders to lie about the election results. Trump knew Pence, and no one, had power to change it but instead spoke; sparking a mob, and went silent as the mob went to attack. The direct actions of an American president nearly lead to the death of a vice president. It’s shocking. And with each hearing we learn more twisted details. What matters most however, is Trump knew the Big Lie that the election was stolen was baseless. He refused to intervene and stop the bloodthirsty mob. This is ridiculous and should be condemned.

The Big Lie is already being used among Trump supporting candidates and the conspiracies around the events of January 6 have only emboldened the right. If the Department of Justice doesn’t make arrests post hearing we will face an unprecedented uphill battle. The misinformation will thrive. The ever growing divide of the American people, half of which are being fed these lies to downplay this appalling event, will inevitably cause greater harm. Now is not the time to mince words or dance around the truth. Staying informed from as many credible sources as possible and sharing them is vital.

Tension is higher now than ever and the response to the attack will influence the shape of American politics for the next century. Will we coware each time a President attempts a coup? Or will we stay faithful to the fact that even a President isn’t above the law? There are no second chances, we need to make sure this never happens again. We should never look at the Capitol and see a President’s logo in place of a torn down and discarded American flag among bodies.

Has the damage already gone too far? Are we now stuck in an unrepairable mess? The fear of our future presses on, like a crushing weight. What comes of this, what happens to democracy? How were we so close to losing it all to an egomaniac? These questions can make anyone spiral.

The only thing we have is hope, and gratitude. Gratitude that good people refused to lie, and endangered themselves to protect democracy. Hope for a brighter future, where QAnon conspiracies are treated as laughable, the Proud Boys and all neo Nazis are universally shamed, and no President believes themselves above the will of the people.

LeAnne McPherson

[loverandservantoftheahlulbayt]

🍃🕊🍃 Need for Religion 🍃🕊🍃

🍃 1) What is Religion?

The Arabic word “Deen” دين which is translated as “Religion” in English is used for several meanings:

(a) “Islam; Belief in unity of God; Worship; Obedience; All the acts of worship; piety;” All these meanings are interrelated and are connected with the belief in Creator.

(b) “Judgment; Reward or Punishment; Account; Order; Law;” These meanings are inter-related and point to the belief in the Life-Hereafter.

(c) The third group of its meanings is: “Custom; character; Habit; Religion revealed and traditional both.’”

The idea behind the word (دين ) “deen” is that man, by his nature, has to have a pattern of life based upon some spiritual ideals or ideas which we call ‘belief’.

It appears that the word دين is more comprehensive than the English word ‘’Religion’’ which puts emphasis on only ‘’Human recognition of super-human controlling power and especially of a personal god or gods entitled to obedience and worship, effects of such recognition or conduct of mental attitude, particular system of faith and worship.”

🍃 2) What is the Need of Religion?

There are many reasons why religion is needed for Mankind:

(a) We know that man is a social animal. Every man depends upon millions of people for his life and its necessities. Also we know that every society needs some laws to prevent injustice and preserve the rights of every member of the society. But who is the right authority to make the Law? One man (be he a monarch or a dictator)? No! Because he, instinctively, will look, first of all, after his own interest. A group of people (be it an aristocracy or democracy)? No! Because every one of them is capable of wrong judgment; and a lot of wrong decisions do not add up to a right decision.

(b) Also, it is apparent that no group of people disengage itself from self-interest. For example, in colonial days the assemblies and councils of colonies were enacting laws to suit the interest of the White rulers. Now, the same institutions (but with different members) are making laws keeping in view the interest of the local population. Self-interest was, and still is, the key word of legislation in the whole world.

(c) Moreover, no man or group of men is in a position to make a comprehensive law based on perfect equity and justice.

So it is necessary that the laws should be made by someone who is superior to man, who has nothing to lose or gain by that law and with whom every man has equal relation. and that one is "Allah". Hence we need the religion

(d) Moreover, all the man-made laws and customs have a very serious defect: they cannot stop crime. This defect makes their existence somewhat superfluous. A thief enters an unoccupied house, in a remote village at dead of night for stealing some valuables. He knows perfectly well that there is no representative of the government for good many miles around the house. He feels perfectly safe from being detected. Is there any law of government which can stop him from committing the crime? The answer is, certainly, "no".

No government can stop the said person from stealing, but Religion can.

Religion, true Religion as explained above, teaches that there is a God, Who knows everything and sees everything; who is Just and Virtuous Himself, and wants us to be just and virtuous; that we are responsible for our deeds in His eyes, and we have to give account of our deeds to Him after our death. If a person believes in it, then (and only then) he can restrain himself from committing sins and crimes and inflicting injustice upon other people.

Laws of government can control the external affairs of a man and even that only at a time and place where its hands can reach. But the belief in God and religion controls not only the external acts but hidden desires and inner thoughts also.

This control is not confined to any particular place or any limited time, because God is omnipresent and omniscient

(e) To realize fully the unquestionable benefits which the society derives from the belief in God and religion, try to think about the chaos and turmoil which the mankind will certainly plunge into if the belief in God is put aside. There will not be any society. Instead, there will be a multitude of people. In such atmosphere every individual is at liberty to do whatever he wishes. He thinks there is no God and no life hereafter, and he has come into being by the chance of a blind nature; and he also knows that the span of life is very short. So he naturally will be overcome by the desire to enjoy this life as much as possible without any regard to anything else. His only consideration will be to avoid being caught red-handed or detected by the government law. And whenever he will feel safe he will not stop at any crime to fulfill his desire, how much heinous that desire may appear to others.

Question: Even an atheist may lead a life which is morally as perfect as that of a follower of religion. So what is the need of religion?

Answer: It is a fallacy, to think that the moral life of an atheist is without any obligation to religion. Because those moral thoughts have been bestowed upon him by no other factor but religion. Religious moral teachings have been ingrained in human mind for thousands of years. They have been bestowed from father to son (heredity) and from friend to friend, (environment). These moral values have become inseparable from his conscience. But what is conscience? It is but the religious and moral thoughts which have come to him from his religious forefathers, and now he cannot escape from them. Conscience is based upon the moral teaching of religion. How can the conscience survive, when those teachings of religion are routed out of the humanity as a whole?

Anybody who ponders deeply upon this point will come to the conclusion that no morality can hold is ground, if separated from belief in God and religion.

🍃 3) Misunderstandings About Religion

Often we hear some patent slogan used against ’’Religion’’ they are nowadays widely used by the communists. They are:

(a) Religion is anti-science.

(b) Religion was a drug invented by capitalists to keep the oppressed classes content with their wretched condition. In other words it was opium to make people seep.

(c) Religion retards material and intellectual progress.

Let us, now examine these allegations. All these statements have been made by the Europeans (from Karl Marx to Bertrand Russell) who had known a particular religion only i.e. Christianity. They committed the intellectual sin of seeing a particular religion and assuming all religions (Including Islam) must be of the same caliber. It was, to say the least, a fallacy, if not a deliberate deception.

To explain the above statement, it is necessary to pint out just in general outline what was the attitude of Christianity towards knowledge and progress.

‘’From the sixteenth century A.D. the conflict between the church and science began. This most unfortunate struggle was not started by the scientist but by the protagonists of Christianity, who feared that their religion was in dire danger of losing its hold on the masses. Their house of cards was threatening to fall down. Both Catholics and Protestants, though they were at logger-heads themselves, took the same stand against the impact of revolutionary scientific theories of Copernicus and Galileo. They did what every tyrant, afraid of his inherent weakness, does. Ruthless persecutions were launched against the brave scientists who defied the church and said what they knew was the truth.

‘’At first we should take Copernicus (Nicolaus Koppernik) 1473-1543, as he was the man who set the ball rolling. He did not dare to publish his work, “On the revolution of Heavenly Bodies’’, for a long time due to the fear of the church. In the end he successfully tried to appease the church by dedicating the book to the Pope. In fact his publisher wrote a preface alleging that the theory of the earth’s motion was only a hypothesis and not an assertion as positive truth. In the words of Lord Bertrand Russell, ‘For a time, these tactics sufficed, and it was only Galileo’s bolder defiance that brought retrospective condemnation upon Copernicus. (Religion and Science)

‘’Luther, also, opposed the Copernican system on the theological grounds.

‘’Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), though once a friend of Pope Urban VIII, was thrown into the prison of Inquisition by the orders of the same pope and threatened with torture if he did not recant. Galileo’s only crime was that he supported the Copernican system because of the observations made with his telescope. These observations were more difficult to cope with for the church than the theoretical of Copernicus.

“Giordano Bruno (1549-1600) was another victim of the cruelty of the ‘tolerant’ people. He was burnt alive.

‘’As Lord Bertrand Russell has written: “Theologians were not slow to point out that the new doctrine would make the Incarnation difficult to believe.” (Religion and Science)

“So the Inquisition announced the following as the truth: “The first proposition that the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth is foolish, absurd, false in theology and heretical; because expressly contrary to the Holy Scriptures. . .

The second proposition that the earth is not centre, but revolves about the sun is absurd, false in philosophy, and from a theological point of view at least opposed to the true faith.' (Religion and Science).

"And as it was not enough, the Jesuit Father Melchior Inchofer postulated that 'the opinion of the earth's motion is of all heresies the most abominable, the most pernicious, the most scandalous; the immovability of the earth is thrice sacred; arguments against the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and the Incarnation should be tolerated sooner than an argument to prove that the earth moves.' (Religion and, Science).

Faced with this ruthless oppression, the scientists, in their turn, denounced Christianity as ''anti-intellectual, anti-science, a pack of superstitions and degrading to human progress." What is not understandable is that they aimed their broad-side to all the religions; certainly Islam can never be termed 'un-scientific, illogical or anti-progress.

🍃 4) Evolution and Religion

It is said that the 'Evolution' has proved that there was no need of a Supreme Being in the scheme of the universe.

Though the best place to deal with this question would have been in the Unit 2 (God of Islam); but I propose to give here some points for the student to ponder.

First of all, let it be clear that here I am not talking about the truth or otherwise of the theory of Evolution. This is not the place for it.

Secondly, that mere change within the basic type of living things is not 'evolution.'

The theory of organic evolution involves these three main ideas:

1. Living things change from generation to generation, producing descendants with new characteristics

2. This process has been going on so long that it has produced all the groups and kinds of things now living; as well as others lived long ago and have died out, or become extinct.

3. These different living things are related to each other.”

(World Book Encyclopedia, 1966)

Thirdly that in spite of all assertions to the contrary, Evolution is still a theory, not a fact.

Fact as Webster’s third New International Dictionary says is ‘’an actual happening in time or space’’, a ‘’verified statement.’’

Now what is the ‘’verification’’ of this theory?

A prominent evolutionist W. Le Gros Clark, writes in his book, The Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution:-

‘’The chances of finding the fossil remains of actual ancestors, or even representatives of local geographical group which provided the actual ancestors, are so fantastically remote as not to be worth consideration.

‘’The interpretation of the paleontological evidence of hominid evolution which has been offered in the preceding chapters is a provisional interpretation. Because of the incompleteness of the evidence, it could hardly be otherwise.’’

The science News Letter said in 1965: “The fight is among scientist over just how man did evolve, when he did so and what he looked like.

The above mentioned Mr. Clark writes: “What was the ultimate origin of man?. . . .

Unfortunately, any answers which can at present be given to these questions are based on indirect evidence and thus are largely conjectural.”

A former president of the American Association for the Advancement of science wrote in Science Magazine in support of evolution:-

‘’Come now if you will on a speculative excursion into prehistory. Assume the era in which the species sapiens emerged from the genus Homo . . . hasten across the millenniums for which present information depends for the most part on conjecture and interpretation to the era of the first inscribed records, from which some facts may be gleaned."

L.M. Davies, a British Scientist, once said: "It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as 'Let us assume ' or 'We may well suppose' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's 'Origin of Species' alone."

When you ponder upon the statements quoted above and especially the phrase given in italics by us, you will come to this conclusion that Evolution is not an established fact, but only a theory, among many theories which have been advanced since the beginning of mankind to explain the nature of universe. Many of such theories are now discarded, but once they had the same hold on minds as the theory of Evolution has at present. And this hold on minds does not make it any more perfect.

Indeed, one scientist, Dr. T.N. Tahmisian, a physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission, said: “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact,” He called it "a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling' Another scientist, head of a college science department, J.W. Klotz, stated in 1965 that "acceptance of evolution is still based on a great deal of faith."

And this theory has yet to find enough evidence to support itself. How can such a 'theory' be used to refute the existence of a 'Supreme Being'?

Finally, even the evolutionists do acknowledge that there is the need of an "Ever living, All Knowing, Almighty Being," in the scheme of the Universe as explained by the theory of 'Evolution'.

But, once committed to the denial of God, they are attributing these virtues to that 'Nature' They say that 'Nature' adopted this "Nature" planned that.

Let us see what is this 'nature' anyway? It is nothing but an abstract idea formed in human brain after careful study of the behavior of things, If may be found within the things; but it has no independent existence, And in any case, there is no record of any conference of the 'natures' of various things, held to decide how to co-ordinate their functions. Flowers never conferred with the bees to seek the bees' co-operation in their pollination, offering them, in exchange, their nectar. But we know that bees could not live a single day without flowers; and thousands of flowers would long have been extinct but for the bees.

So, you see, the evolutionists recognize the need of a 'Planner', a 'Designer'. But dogmatically go on repeating that that designer and planner was the 'Nature' (which is just an abstract idea) or the 'Matter' which is a 'Senseless, lifeless thing'.

🍃 5) The so-called Pascal’s Bet

A Muslim poet has said:

قال المنجم و الطبيب كلا هما لن يحشر الاموت فلت اليكما

ان صح قو لكما فلست بخاسر ان صح قولى فا لخسار عليكم

"The astrologer and the physician both said: 'The dead will never be resurrected.'

'I said: Keep your counsel, If your idea is correct I will come to no harm (by my belief in a Day of Judgment); but if my belief is correct, then you will be sure loser (by not believing in that Day)”

Allamah Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali (died in 1111 A.D.) mentions in Mizanul-Aamal that: "Ali - God have grace on him - said to a man who contested with him on the question of the other world: If the truth is what you pretend (i.e., there is no life hereafter), then we shall all be saved; but if the truth is what I have said (i.e., there: is a life hereafter) then you will be condemned and I shall be saved.

That is the very sound, practical, down to earth reasoning in favor of believing in a Creator and a Day of Judgment.

Then Al-Ghazali explains that Ali did not propound this argument in order to cast a shadow of doubt on the reality of the life-hereafter; but it is merely an argument to convince those people who are incapable of knowing that by logical demonstration.

One thousand years after Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s) came the famous mathematician Pascal (died 1662 A.D) and his famous ‘’Parido Pascal’’ (Pascal’s Bet) by which he wished to prove the same thing to the same group of people. His argument can be briefly stated in this way:

"If you believe in the life-hereafter you will gain everything if it really exists; and you lose nothing if it does not exist. Therefore, it is better to bet that it does exist." (Pascal: Ben sees, edited by Y. Brunchircy, Paris 1912, p. 439).

Is it mere coincidence? Or did Pascal get the idea of his (Parido ( = bet)) from Islamic sources? Asin Palacios believes that Pascal must have read it in the Ihya-ul-uloom of Al-Ghazali. But as mentioned above, Al-Ghazali himself refers in Mizanul-Aamal that Ali bin Abi Talib was the author of this argument.

Therefore, we must put the credit where it belongs and accept that Pascal, though he did not acknowledge it, had got his idea from Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s.).

🍃 6) Necessary Qualities of a Religion

So far, I have been explaining the need of religion in a general term.

Now let me enumerate what should be the qualities of a religion, if it is to fulfill the needs mentioned above.

(a) First of all, Religion must satisfy the intelligence and intellect of the Man.

Of course, there are many religions whose motto is “First believe, then you can understand." Frankly speaking, such religions retard the mind and should be termed (and are in fact called) "anti-intellect."

Islam, as explained by the Shia Ithna-asheri faith, gives foremost place to intellect and reason. "Intellect" is one of the four basic sources of Shia Ithna-asheri shariat. Not only this. This faith emphasizes that the matter of faith must be understood by the believer by his own reasoning.

(b) Religion must teach and practice dignity of man.

There are religions which demand that its followers should prostrate before the pictures or statues of some human beings or some animals or other inanimate things.

Such religions degrade their followers to the furthest extent, and should be condemned as such.

Some other religions teach the superiority of one race or caste over others.

It was Islam which was and is the pioneer of the equality of mankind and which, for the first time in the history of religions, taught and practiced the human brotherhood, equality and equity, and presented the dignity of humanity as a fact to the astonished eyes of the mankind.

(c) Religion must be a complete guide to develop human body, mind and spirit as a whole.

There are some religions which put too much emphasis on spiritualism and ignore the body and mind; there are others which have a great deal to say on physical or intellectual advancement.

Such religions cannot take their followers very far, because the development taught by them is lop-sided

It is only Islam, as explained by Shia Ithna-asheri faith, which develops a person as a whole - body, mind and soul all together.

(d) Religion must have a complete code of life.

Religions just preaching to "love thy neighbor” without showing the way, are useless when faced with the practical problems. Islam has a complete code of life which guides a man in his family life, social commitments, financial matters, moral and ethical behavior perfectly.

(e) Religion must be in conformity with the human nature.

There are religions which tend to ignore the nature of man. For example, some religions teach celibacy. They declare by their behavior (if not in so many words) that the Creator made a mistake in creating sexual urge in human beings. Also, they forget (or pretend to forget) that natural instincts cannot be crushed, and that such impositions tend to lead the person to secret liaisons.

And, I wonder what would be the future of humanity if all the mankind becomes the practicing followers of such a religion? Surely, the mankind would be extinct within a space of 40 or 50 years.

Needless to say that such a religion cannot lead mankind to prosperity, because by its nature such religion is against continuity of humanity.

(f) Religion should not be a tool in the hands of oppressor to suppress the masses.

Many religions are rightly accused by the atheists of being just an instrument of the feudal overlords to suppress the oppressed masses and muffle the voice of protest. Such religions, for example, taught the theory of 'Predestination'. Thus, the masses were lulled to believe that all the evil doings, tyranny, and wickedness of the ruling classes were just a manifestation of the Will of God; therefore, such thing should be fore born without any protest.

Such religions have no place in this enlightened century. It is only Islam, as explained by the Shia Ithna asheri faith, which said that such a belief was humbug, that every man is responsible for his own actions and that its responsibility should not be shifted upon God.

It will appear from the above, criteria that among the vast multitudes of the world religions, it is only the Islam (Shia Ithna-asheri faith) which fulfils all the necessary conditions of a true and enlightened religion.

🍃 By ~ Sayyid Sa'eed Akhtar Rizvi

🍃🕊🍃 al-Islam.org 🍃🕊🍃

.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Red Wave?   More like Red Wedding.

* * * *

Democrats should be proud!  ::  November 9, 2022

Robert B. Hubbell

         It is 9:00 PM Pacific as I begin to write this evening’s newsletter and only a few races have been called. But this much is clear: Democrats have every reason to be proud of their battle in the midterms. Control of Congress still hangs in the balance, but it is unlikely that there will be a “red wave” at the national or state level. Yes, there are disappointments (Beto O’Rourke, Stacey Abrams, Tim Ryan, Val Demings, Cheri Beasley), but there are reasons for celebration—Senator Maggie Hassan defeating election denier Don Buldoc in New Hampshire and Josh Shapiro beating election denier Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania’s governor’s race. (The latter may be key in protecting the integrity of the 2024 presidential election.) Kathy Hochul became the first woman to be elected as governor of New York, and Becca Balint became the first woman and openly gay person to represent Vermont in Congress.

         As recently as a week ago, Republican pollsters were predicting the GOP would pick up 35 seats in the House. That prediction is in line with “conventional wisdom” that the party in power loses seats in Congress. Exit polling by CNN shows that “inflation” was the most important issue to the largest bloc of voters—an issue that (wrongly) favors Republicans. And yet—at midnight Eastern time, the most likely outcome in the House is that the majority party will maintain control by a handful of seats (per MSNBC).

         Despite heavy criticism of Democratic messaging, something must account for the fact that Democrats are overperforming as measured against conventional wisdom. That “something” is Democratic messaging about democracy, reproductive liberty, and Joe Biden’s legislative achievements, including infrastructure, climate, social benefit programs, and fighting inflation. Whether those messages are sufficient to hold the House remains to be seen��but they appear to be enough to deny Kevin McCarthy the “mandate” he believed was his divine right.

         The Senate likewise seems too close to call, but Mitch McConnell’s early (and now withdrawn) predictions of a GOP majority may come down to a run-off in Georgia between Raphael Warnock and Herschel Walker.

         The most positive indicator for the health of our democracy is that 8-in-10 voters believe that elections are conducted in a manner that is fair and accurate. After two years of non-stop election denialism by the GOP, that is good news, indeed. Per CNN,  

Roughly 8 in 10 of voters in this year’s midterms said they were at least somewhat confident that elections in their state are being conducted fairly and accurately, according to the preliminary national results of the exit poll conducted for CNN and other news networks by Edison Research.

About half said they were very confident. Only about 2 in 10 said they were not very or not at all confident.

         Even where Democrats have suffered defeat, they have fought well and kept races closer than Trump’s margin of victory in 2020. More on that in future newsletters.

         As we await the full results, it is worth reflecting on predictions that most definitely did not come true. For a period of two weeks, major media outlets were breathlessly reporting that MAGA vigilantes acting as self-appointed “poll watchers” would show up en masse on Election Day—possibly armed. In October, Steve Bannon was telling anyone who would listen that Republicans would have a 45,000 member “Army of Patriots” intimidating voters at the polls. Except for one drop-box in Maricopa County, Arizona, the armed vigilantes failed to materialize. And if the 45,000 MAGA poll watchers showed up, they did not make their presence known. See USA Today, Voting rights experts report a smooth midterm election, some glitches. (“The relative calm on Tuesday was at odds with the run-up to the election . . . .”)

          Of course, even a single armed vigilante intimidating voters is unacceptable. But at the 230,000 polling locations in the U.S., it appears that there were few, if any, incidents of armed intimidation or aggressive behavior by MAGA poll watchers. For that, we should be thankful.

         When Bannon and others touted their “45,000” member army of poll watchers, I received panicked emails from readers who assumed that those poll watchers would cause havoc, intimidate voters, and suppress turnout. That didn’t happen, but Bannon’s propaganda had its intended effect: it instilled fear and doubt in Democrats. See Yahoo News / AFP, Right-wing election 'army' sparks fear for US midterms.

         We should always take threats of voter intimidation and suppression seriously. But we should also remember that Republicans are attempting to exaggerate their prowess in order to mess with our minds. Republicans don’t have superpowers—except when it comes to deceit, depravity, and shamelessness. Let’s keep that in mind for the next few weeks when, and if, Republicans make grandiose claims of what they plan to do with any victories they achieve in the midterms.

[northsouth89]

Palaestra-Beta-Etal : Dazanoso, Time Wisard

~

D: Some guys back in the day said "Fuck The King" (bad fuck) and "Let's Fuck with Democracy" (good fuck). That, by my measure, is a good direction to move.

D: However; these same guys also had some, shall we say, moral blemishes relating to the practice of buying and selling and torturing fellow humans. Again, by my measure.

D: I do not here cite sources, I do not lean on ethics or philosophy. These are my measures on my own authority. Any who would be convinced to measure similarly merely by way of citation are, in my measure: cowards. While cowards can be tolerable, I do not seek their company nor their support.

D: Yes, where was I?

D: Time.

D: With the benefit of hindsight I believe myself in possession of a better informed measure than those before me had to weigh the deeds and doings of themselves, their contemporaries, and their predecessors.

D: I also expect that time does not stop with me.

D: Who in what future will look upon me, and by what unit shall they measure?

D: They, I expect, will have access to knowledge unavailable to me. They will have seen experiments play out, their conclusions becoming obvious in retrospect. How I could be so foolish to agree with my own time and not their future may become an empathy left to specialists.

D: My audience are these specialists.

D: The general trends and fashions of language, of method, of dress, of pleasure, these I do not attempt to foresee. Such turbid seas shine back not in time.

D: But those who look back as I look back. Those who look forward as I look forward. Here I seek peers. Here I seek flat places kept clear for me, as I keep doubts and guesses for those who reached forward.

D: The surest way to predict the future is to cause it.

D: I would rather be less sure and more hopeful, more collaborative, more trusting of my peers.

D: The dead have nothing to fear from my measure. In as much, I have nothing to fear from those who measure me.

D: The only thing I have to lose among my before-peers and my after-peers, even my now-peers, is the camaraderie we could have shared. The nod of recognition, the smile that touches the eyes in quiet reading.

D: We haunt one another with our dances of poetry. Saturated with ghosts of ourselves, of one another. We luxuriate in this orgy of mind, of time, of place that keeps us from fully falling into one another as much as we know we would if we could touch any other way.

D: It is these kisses I send.

D: Kisses deep and long and exploring, for some.

D: Kisses sweet and quick, for some.

D: Kisses on the forehead, or on the hurt, for some.

D: There are many reasons to travel in time, all incidental to this.

D: There are other dimensions that matter, yes. There are important things to do. But those are effort, those are to an end. And like all things to an end when the end is found they are done.

D: Dancing, lips to cheeks, being delighted and delightful, being loving and frightful, teasing and weeping and laughing. This is intrinsic. This is a path worth walking. After all work which could be done is done, what makes us linger?

D: Have you been? Have you gone? They're lovely. They're green. These hills for dying on.

[imspardagus]

Two Horse Race

“And Democracy has fallen at the last fence…”

My Mother enjoyed a flutter on the horses. I think it started with a lucky, superstitious win during the Second World War (the war, if you recall, to end fascism), when she backed an outsider with a name that recalled her brother Ken, who, at that time, was a Red Beret, parachuted into war-torn Europe, and it romped home at 66 to 1.

But she always flatly refused to bet on the Grand National. “It’s a cruel race,” she said, “Horses are maimed and die.” My Mother’s kindness was second to none but her willingness to pursue logic beyond first base was never strong.

I’d like to think, however, that if she were still alive she would be aware of a painful analogy that we face in present-day politics. Because it seems to me that what we see in our electoral commitment to “first past the post” (FPTP) comes pretty close to the Grand National in its pursuit of winning for its own sake regardless of the damage left in its wake: the fallen horses of people’s hopes and aspirations and, at the last ditch, of democracy itself.

I feel this very powerfully when I consider what now passes for the Labour Party. FPTP is so manifestly a corruption of representative democracy that any decent party, or politician, with even a passing commitment to the national interest, should be determined to see it replaced by something better. And by better, I mean something that, at the least, allows each member of the electorate to conclude that his or her vote counts (companies can’t vote, of course. But in our travesty of a democracy, they are allowed to bribe politicians to do their bidding).

But the Labour Party is so convinced that it can occasionally “win”, outright, under FPTP that it would rather see the country as a whole lose nine times out of ten in an election, and allow a minority party to scoop up the majority of seats (only then to ride roughshod over the constitution through the whipping system) than change to a fairer system under which we can all claim to have a voice, if change would mean “sharing” the temporary ascension to absolute power that corruption once in a while allows it.

This is, frankly, perverse, but also, frankly, very human. Contrary to what Steven Pinker wishes to persuade us (his book, “Rationality”) we humans are not rational. We are rationalisers, a very different animal. We think, yes, but we think mostly to support our own short term advantage, or to confirm our prejudices, not to promote our long term best interests or to change our minds.

If only the leadership of the Labour Party would stop and think. It’s the race that’s wrong. They are saying the equivalent of “I know this is a dangerous sport, I know my beautiful horse, and several beasts of great majesty may die outright or be so horribly maimed that they need to be put down, I know that even I and my fellow jockeys may be thrown and suffer appalling injuries. But I believe I can win. I believe I can beat all the others to the line. And that’s what counts.” No. No it doesn’t.

What counts is the national interest. First, second, third and last. What counts is service to all the people of this nation. Ideology is a false god that must be subordinated to service. And serving the people involves, just at the base level, ensuring that their voice is heard, ensuring that they have real access to justice, ensuring that they have proper, effective levels of social security and health care, ensuring that they have clean water to drink and can afford to live, and building a future that is fit for their children. If that is “socialism’, so be it. But all it is in fact is Element 1.01 of effective governance in a healthy modern democracy.

The trouble is that people have been duped by consumerism into seeing everything as a “winner takes all” competition that exists for its own sake. It isn’t. People are not disposable commodities. They are what life is about. They are what it is for. This is not X Factor or Strictly, where those voted out get to sit in the audience and applaud the stronger acts as they pick up the trophy. We have to make a world in which the ceremony is just the start, and is where the real work begins; work to ensure that nobody gets left behind.

It is easy to claim to be “the party of business”. Business is selfish, myopic and easily appeased. But business is just what people do and it is people we have to take care of. People who actually do the business, get things done, keep things working. People who, admittedly, sometimes don’t know enough to judge what is in their best interests but who still need to be protected, sometimes even from themselves. Democracy has, first and foremost, to be a safeguard from tyranny and not to become the tyranny of a claimed majority.

And that requires people of good will to work together even if it means surrendering some of the imagined sovereignty of individualism. Working together is what saved the human race from extinction. The lie of extreme individualism, “libertarianism”, is now the human race’s greatest threat.

If only Keir Starmer weren’t so stupidly wedded to coming second behind the sweaty arse of the Tory horse, the almost inevitable outcome of his blinkered approach to our corrupt electoral (and Parliamentary) process, he could pull off the biggest win imaginable: the creation of a modern nation, confident and secure, tolerant and dynamic, vibrant and successful. But to do that, he has to surrender his addiction to power at any price and recognise the need for concerted change above all. He needs his ambition to be bigger than an electoral win in a rigged competition.

We are running out of time for Keir to grow up and see the true nature of his patriotic duty. The race to the bottom, which sees the Government treating Parliament with the utter disdain of a bullying thug that expects now to get its own way because it always has, is under starter’s orders. He needs urgently to change his colours and ride for a progressive alliance.

[chessinventor]

While some DS conspiracists claimed that when the leader of Ukraine gave a date of the end of the Russia Ukraine war they thought that is the evidence of the whole war being a setup by NATO and US to advance some ulterior agendas, I am not so confident that Ukraine alone could set the date for the end of the war with Russia when Putin is commanding the Russian army. If it is indeed a consipracy of One World Government then it would lose all its credibility when it can't even pinpoint a day for the end of the war. And that could only happened if Putin is himself part of DS conspirator.

The trouble of all conspiracy theories is there are no evidences to concretly disprove any of them. When one suggests one evidence to disprove then the consipracy theorist would change the content of the consipracy theory to adjust to that. It is pretty much like a religion when there is no way to disprove it among its believers. So there really is no point to disprove a conspiracy theory.

With the current facts as we have so far doesn't support the hypothesis that this war is a well coordinated effort by US, NATO then Russia, many of the DS pick out Putin as part of the conspirator for I don't know what curious reason. Why would Putin running an official capitalistic country seating on the a hugh reserve of oil and natural gases not invited to be part of the World Government? And a DS conspirator group that failed to control or manipulate the leader of one of the really big and influential state in the world would be doing the poor job to control the direction of development of the world. Why must One World government be stopped within the boundaries of Western democracies but not extended to Russia and South America and Africa? What I saw really is the limit of imagination and the lack of knowledge of the world. There could be thousands of prespective to understand global affairs and one is not necessarily better than the others.

Another thing one may Miss is if Russia is fighting DS conspirator group and CCP is behind Russia's back. Then those who are in Hong Kong fighting tooth and nails against CCP are they supporting DS and One World government?

[stephenjaymorrisblog]

A Humid August in the Catskills

(Self-reflection of a Malcontent)

Stephen Jay Morris

7/30/2022

©Scientific Morality

My inner child believes that Pamela and I have guardian angels. Knock on wood, we escape of the ravages of the pandemic, prosperity of a rich economy, the Climate catastrophe, and the political soap opera of Donald Trump. Though this safe place is not perfect, it does have its up and downs—like humidity. Damn, I hate it! It sticks to my skin like gum on the soles of my shoes. I get rashes on every region of my body. We have an air conditioner in our bedroom, but it is loud and keeps us nowhere near a restful sleep. It is a lose-lose proposition. But at this point in history, it sure beats living in California.

This article is being written via stream of consciousness. I don’t know what the next sentence will bring. So...am I homesick for California yet? Sure. Well, kinda. Naturally, my memories are rich and very selective. The weather was almost perfect. Politics were commercial and plastic. The fucking Conservatives tried to make California out to be the former Soviet Union, while the Liberals wanted you to believe that California is the utopia of Social Democracy. I think not on either count. They turn a blind eye to the homeless and the ghettos, but they remain concerned about their wealthy donors’ happiness. That’s nice.

California is the birth place of social justice warriors and other reminiscences of the politically correct past. Conservatives think they’ve got the market cornered on satirizing this minuscule sect which looms largely in the Right wingers’ imaginations. Whoever they’re making fun of don’t realize that it’s because of their low IQ and low-T. Its called the “New Age Left.” They’ve been around since the 70’s. You know who was making fun of them from the get go? We of the New Left were, in the 70’s. Really, dude! You think that you are comedic geniuses because you’re making fun of pacifists and political correctness?! Not so fast, sunny boy! Conservatives have always been ignorant of current fads. During the Hippie phase, they were making fun of Beatniks!

California has always been an idiosyncratic state. If you are a Conservative, then you were a “special conservative,” that is. In Texas, kids’ history books are no longer using the word “slaves” to reference those who were actually slaves. Because of conservative correctness, they are now referred to as “involuntary relocation laborers.” I guess all of the Texans who are into S&M and B&D will have to relabel their services as, “The Involuntary Relocation Dungeon.” If you ask me, it don’t have a good ring to it, like this oldie: “Hell’s dungeons for Disobedient Slaves!” Just doesn't have the same bite. California Conservatives would never do that. In fact, California was the place where Gay Conservatism got its start.

Sometimes, Mexico would send its monsoon to Southern California and, man, did it get humid there! A monsoon was one illegal alien the Conservatives couldn’t stop! The California conservative would say the cause of Homosexuality was the monsoon and Disco music. The monsoon made So-Cal humid as Florida. You stupid Right wingers that are taking refuge in Florida think that you’re going to a Conservative promised land! Ha, Ha! When it gets humid in California, it lasts just a few days or less. In Florida, it’s like that all fucking year ‘round, you stupid assholes! Yeah, your air conditioner will be on 24/7 and the power company will charge you more than your ex-wives’ alimony! It is so bad in Florida, that Cuban exiles want to swim back to Cuba!

Man, do I hate humidity!