#unless its like a serious matter like racism or some big issue the person might have made an honest mistake on

[nightswithkookmin]

G I R L

I just saw y the HYBE x Ithaca Holdings video and it really hit me with some realisations. HYBE partnering with them is bound to change some things in a huge way. Collabs and economics notwithstanding, Ithaca is home to NUMEROUS big name artists. I want to focus on the fact that: (1) Beiber is a heavily tattooed dude, I wonder if this fact will give some leeway for Kook to be a bit more free with his existing tatts or allow him to continue getting more. (2) Demi is an openly queer woman. This, along with how open Ithaca’s artists are with their support for the LGBTQ+ community, makes me wonder how it will influence HYBE artists who might be queer themselves (looking at Jikook 👀). I fully know that culturally Korea is its own thing and HYBE its own entity, but I think this might open up some doors for our boys both musically speaking as well as regarding their own selves. Dearest Goldy of mine, what do you think?

Hmmmmmmm

That's an interesting question.

I do agree that this provides a huge economic opportunity for BTS as a group and as investors in Hybe and for frankly anyone within Hybe labels- there's a lot of talents who would kill to be part of this company now. I just know it.

Hell I wanna be part of Hybe and I can't even sang. Lmho.

Cute, if you think I can dance. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

BigHit just got cooler you know.

But I think you are basically asking if this new acquisition will in effect impact the lifestyle of BTS, specifically Jikook as queer people in any way?

I'd say no- especially on the issue of tattoos. But I might be wrong. I just think it takes more than a business merger to undo a person's lifestlye and or socialization or even influence it.

Unless of course, this merger guarantees them certain universal rights and protections outside their culture and political system I don't see how it's to profit them as queer people in any major way.

Whatever impact I'd say is rather intangible.

If you know what I mean.

I've said a few times now how BTS by virtue of their presence in the international community, in my opinion, are socialized and are expected to be socialized a tad differently from the average regular conservative or even liberal S. Korean person with no external influences whatsoever on their socializations.

Your socialization informs your lifestyle.

Justin, Troye, RM and other artists have undoubtedly had and perhaps continue to have an influence on Jk musically and lifestyle wise, to some extent, but he has his own unique values and beliefs and morals that has been acquired and instilled in him through the years independent of these influences.

He is his own person afterall.

Plus did you see the arm sleeve on the director of the MV for Home? He is surrounded at the work place with people that are tatted too. It can't be just Justin B.

He saw a girl with tattoos and said that was something he'd love to have one day when he got of age and he got it- in spite of Suga's objection. He's always expressed interests in tattoos and wanting to become a tattoo artist.

He got these tattoos in spite of the inconveniences they pose to his expressions of self within his career and society- as tattoos are still pretty much stigmatized in S.K and aren't legally allowed on certain broadcasts within S. Korea. And he continues to add on them, draw over them etc way before this merger came into existence.

If he decides that's what he wants he will get them but it wouldn't be because Justin Bieber is heavily tatted or because his company expanded.

I'm not sure what you mean by leeway, but in a recent Run episode (the one with the famous chef) we saw his full arm out and I think that was the first time we had seen his tats on full display on run.

Contrastingly, he had his whole arm bandaged in the Let's BTS interview on KBS.

He covers his tattoos most times because of broadcast rules that prohibits (regulates) not just tattoos but alcohol consumption, cussing, nudity etc on public television that require specific ratings.

Merger or not he will still have to adhere to the laws of South Korea, including entertainment and media broadcasting laws and hide his tattoos as and where.

On the topic of queerness, I think now more than ever BTS would have to become socially, racially and culturally conscious and aware the instant this deal is concluded in May.

Ithaca has one of the most diversified group of artists under its belt- from Quavo who is black to Demi who is queer like you pointed out.

Now more than ever they are at the center of the global conversations we are having in our generation- from racism, to LBGTQ plus marginalizations, to all oppressions of minorities and minority groups.

And with that proximity comes a need to keep themselves in check now more so than ever- which include a check on the cultural appropriation bit, the queer baiting, drawing on queer aesthetics in their 'fan service' culture and other problematic issues that is characteristic of KPop.

What they do now matters more than ever- socially speaking of course.

When Jin started eating a lollipop JM gave him provocatively, JM asked him not to do that on camera but to reserve things like that for the group off camera.

If 'gay' is not gay but their 'culture' I think they know better to keep it to themselves off camera and act 'right' on camera- especially now.

I'm not about to stan a group that capitalizes on the trauma and oppression of me and my people in the name of entertainment. That's just tacky.

On the plus, I think it's great that they be surrounded by other queer folks in the business and be part of a community that welcomes and support queerness so they don't feel like they are the only ones.

That's not to say they aren't surrounded by queer people in their dialy lives.

I mean they have a large staff and I know damn well some of those staffers are queer as well- why wouldn't they be. Lol.

They've always had that 'supportive' environment to foster their relationship- well except for that one time a manager tried to bitch slap JK. Lol. Sorry.

It's not funny at all. Serious face.

They've always been free and loose in places outside Korea- Japan for one, to be themselves in certain 'controlled" areas of their lives.

I think if anything there's gonna be a focus on creating conducive and inclusive work environments and ethics for everyone not just queer people within the company at large.

I think Jikook can relate more, have certain essential conversations in the group, be exposed to and be part of the 'community' in a way that just felt so distant to them prior to the acquisition- in my opinion.

There is strength in numbers after all. Other than that those two companies might operate like night and day with a few eclipses in between.

The bigger question for me is how SK is going to react to Hybe as an international company from now on. No elite Korean company has openly admitted queer artists within their label. Such revelations presumably is bound to impact their social and economic standing...

Seems in acquiring Ithaca though Hybe have circumvented the conservative problem within Kpop and their culture as they have acquired openly queer artists.

Not that they care about an artist's sexuality. Bang have made it perfectly clear he prioritizes a person's talent over their sexual preference and thus hire artists based on their skills regardless of their sexuality.

But that is also not to say that the company wouldn't be met with harsh criticisms and suffer economic loss should they openly admit the sexuality of certain artists they work with.

I mean he did advise Jo Kwan on the risks he would be taking in going in the direction he wanted to go in with his heels schtick. So he is aware of the risks involved in going public with an artist's sexual orientation.

He talked about Korean companies playing it safe and not taking certain risks especially when it comes to deeds that are deemed 'rebellious' against the Korean conservative way.

-Watch and learn people, if you can't hire openly gay talents acquire their company. Problem solved. Lol.

From May, Hybe will technically officially become the first elite Korean company with openly queer artists under its labels that openly touches on and advocates for LGBTQ plus rights.

I'm waiting for Pride month with a cup of tea. Mu haha ha.

BTS has performed with queer artists in the past, dabbled in LGBTQ plus conversations which was mostly met with mixed reactions from the general public- some oblivious to who these artists were much less that they were queer. (Sis laugh with me. Hehe. If you know you know)

BigHit is gradually evolving the status quo.

It's an interesting development I must say, one I'm very much invested in at this point.

BigHit has always aimed beyond the borders of Korean commercial verse often straddling the line of conservatism, literally just became an international company within South Korea governed by both Korean and American laws that in all essence conflict with eachother morally and constitutionally.

Bang has some heavy balls I'll give him that.

Also, since this is an acquisition and not a merger I doubt if much will change in the structures of either company- the family photoshoots would be interesting to watch.

Imagine trying to get Arianna, Justin, BTS, TXT in one large studio for a photoshoot. I'm literally cackling. Lmho.

Scooter Braun will become part of the board of Hybe to manage the company and he is part owner of Hybe along with Justin, Ariana and BTS who also have shares in the company- until they decide to sell their shares that is.

That's about it.

I'm not sure how these Asian haters are gonna respond to an Asian company taking over 'America.' That's something to watch out for.

Then there's this whole issue of 'scandals' and both campanies view on it.

Western companies feed off chaos and drama and scandals, Kpop is the exact opposite.

Most of these Artists under Ithaca have had some pretty bad records and are prone to scandals and stuff like that. In case of an inevitable future scandal, the news would read 'BTS's so so and so.'

They are gonna make it all about BTS.

I mean when BigHit went public with their IPO and it went south it was all about BTS' 'failed IPO' in the news rather than the company it's self.

I have mixed feelings about this acquisition.

It's obvious BigHit is saving Justin Bieber's label. You don't sell unless you are in some huge financial decline blah blah.

Hybe is keeping them in business while building their own portfolio in the industry. BTS may not have a Grammy but Hybe has several artists with Grammys under it's belt now. Smirk.

The success of Justin, Ariana and all these artists are the success of Hybe which together with the powerhouse that is BTS gives Hybe more prestige- it's like watching the game of thrones but this time it's a bunch of nerds with chapsticks and Prada. Lmho.

At least now people will think twice before they peddle the 'they are not gay, it's their culture' nonsense.

Not sure if this answers your question?

I purple you💜💜💜💜💜

Signed,

GOLDY

[petals42]

Can I ask for a bit of advice? Recently someone reblogged a fic of mine and added a HUGE condescending critique on their blog. This critique was probably about as long as the fic. I think they were trying to be helpful, and I can see their point even if I don't wholly agree, BUT I didn't ask for concrit, it was just for fun, and it hurt my feelings. Is it necessary to acknowledge the comment at all? Is there a way to discourage this behavior? It makes me not want to post more fic.

Aw, anon-- I’m sorry this happened to you! People can be a bit rude and entitled, and IMO, reblogging with critique is even worse than leaving a comment on AO3 bc it’s more public. Like, only the authors reads AO3 comments where as reblogging on a tumblr is an invitation for others to join the conversation. Basically, I think you’re right to be annoyed. I would be pissed too, especially if the critique was as long as the fic. Like wtf, dude.

As for response, well, you have lots of options! I’ve seen many different ones. Some people like to reblog their comment with a simple “Thanks, but I didn’t ask for critique”; others like to go more into why this is rude and uncalled for. If the person was acting in good faith, then hopefully either of those options would cause them to apologize, delete, and not repeat the behavior. 

However, unfortunately, sometimes something as simple as this on tumblr can start up The Discourse. The person might dig in or get defensive/aggressive and try to defend themselves (when really all you needed was a “Sorry! Won’t do it again!”) and it can snowball. You get lots of lovely people rushing to your aid, for sure, but it can just be a huge pain in the ass. 

My preferred method is to find a friend and rant about it to them in private. All bad or rude commenters get ruthlessly made fun of by yours truly and Leda Ledserelli in private. I say something like “Dude, can you believe this jerk?”, Leds says something like “Hold on im reading the comment... omg what a fucking LOSER” and then we talk about how terrible their lives must be that they are reduced to this level of activity and this continues until I feel about rolling my eyes and ignoring them. Laughing at would-be trolls or rude people I find to be the most satisfying way of dealing with them. 

So in short, I would say you are not obligated to reply or respond to the commenter at all. Just ignoring it will probably make it die faster than any other option. HOWEVER, if you are not an “ignore it” type of person, then feel free to reblog and add one of the other options-- or send them a private message and see how that goes! Know that you are in the right on this one-- if you didn’t say you wanted critique, you shouldn’t be getting it. Especially not in a place as public as a reblog. Please don’t let it stop you from posting your work! For every one rude person there is on tumblr, there are many, many more lovely, nice people who I’m sure loved reading it!

I hope this advice helped!

[girl4music]

Part 2 - Addressing the situations and circumstances of using violence and weapons in our everyday reality such as; school shootings, police brutality, and terrorism. (Click here for Part 1)

School shootings: It is ludicrous to think that keeping weapons around where there are children about is a way of keeping them safe. That will more than likely put them more at risk of getting hurt by making more weapons available for any Tom, Dick and Harry to come in and use them since you can't be sure who will or won't. Responsible and reasonable regulations need to be put in place instead to avoid this and to keep one another safe and secure. Not just with guns. All weapons. Despite what you might think, keeping a weapon on you fully exposed, makes you a target. It does not make you any safer. Getting rid of the weapon might though. The only time it might not is when it is necessary to use it to avoid being hurt or killed. Until then, they should be out of the premises. While it is true that anyone intending to cause any kind of harm will have their own weapons, let's not make it easier for them to just grab one because they're accessible to them within the establishment anyway. I propose a suggestion. No more weapons unless worn by law enforcement trained to deal with dangerous and threatening situations. You don't need to train a teacher to use them. Teachers are a symbol of peace to a child or should be. They're not a protector or defender unless they must be. We all have a responsibility to protect and defend ourselves and our loved ones, this is true. But there is a big difference between protecting and defending yourself, or someone innocent, and partaking in violence out of irrational fear and anxiety. If you can defuse the situation without resulting to violence, try to do so first. As Xena said; "it's wisdom before weapons", and pulling one out only makes you, or someone you're trying to defend and protect, a target. It will not ensure your or their, safety and security.

Police brutality: The police use violence a lot to deal with situations. However, it is a just cause to them because they are the heroes, defenders and protectors of humanity. I am not saying violence is right for the police to act in and not for anyone else. I'm saying it may be the most effective option they have. I'm saying that could be the answer to saving the day. Please don't think that because I'm saying this, that it's not ever your place to result to violence if you absolutely have to, and there's no way you can contact law enforcement. Police officers are just trained to use it when it is necessary for them to. It's just a shame some use it for entirely their own benefit, and for their hateful prejudice against other human beings. Some get away with using it at any point, no matter what the situation is. I am fully aware of the on-going issues with police brutality. We can all be heroes, or we can all be villains. Don't ever be a bystander. Don't ever be the person who chooses to do nothing. Doing something is always better than doing nothing. Even if that something is something that isn't right or has serious consequences. If you must defend or protect yourself or other helpless, vulnerable people… then please do. Whichever way you can. No hate. No prejudice. No discrimination. No racism. No ageism. No homophobia. No xenophobia. No transphobia. No queerphobia. Stand for all and keep your hate and prejudice out of it. Wearing a badge does not mean you don't have to abide by the law too. If anything, if you're a police officer, it's much more important to.

Terrorism: Fear is the one great motivator for people to act in violence in a time when it is not necessary for them to do so and when it is not required for them to do so. When a person holds a knife to your throat or a gun to your head, or to somebody you love and are responsible for…. then you can view them as a threat and act in violence. No other time should it be necessary. No other time is it required. I don't like to single out and generalise any one specific country because all countries deal with this. But America is insane in thinking they need MORE weapons and MORE public access to them to get rid of terror. NO, THEY DON'T! That will only make things worse. It's not even that you must get rid of weapons completely. Just have better regulations on accessing them and using them. Ironically, the people that have used weapons the most, know how best to deal with them, and to stop evil by using them. I can only assume that's because they've experienced the terror, pain and grief that violence can bring first-hand. They know the consequences of resulting to it when it's not necessary to, or even when it is necessary to. It's a big deal.  We're at the point now where we think terrorism will just turn up at our doorstep at any moment. But if you let such worries and stress keep you up at night, you become paranoid, and you will be in no position to fight back if that is indeed the reality. If it's not, the best thing you can do for yourself is to seek help from a professional who deals with the manifestation of paranoia out of fear and anxiety. As I've stated above, if that's what's happening, it means you have the problem, and no one else. There are people in this world who are nowhere near a war zone that sleep with a gun or a knife under their pillow in case anyone breaks and enters and presents any threat or danger to them, or their family. The likelihood of that happening is much less than it would be in a war zone. You do not need any kind of weapon that close to you. You don't need to constantly feel like you must use one either.

All that aside, what I'm saying here also includes situations not involving violence too. Everyday situations. Try to acknowledge the situation, but don't think it's always your responsibility to take control of it. I know life can be scary when you don't know what's going to happen next. But you must impart a little wisdom into it. Not everything is under your control, and once you let go of the thought of that, you are free and will be much happier. You've just got to leave it alone and let it do as it does. Not clinging on to it all the time. Nothing is going to happen to you. If it does, something, or someone, will always be there to help you, as long as you ask for it. Trust and have faith in the Universe. Remember that nothing is set in stone. It always depends on the situations what happens. Adapt to those situations, don't conform to them. Don't try to change them. You must understand that nature itself is not a "thing". It's an array of forces. It's life in motion. It's changes and evolution. It's energy, in all its frequencies and vibrations, reacting and connecting with each other in a dance of relationship of positives and negatives. It may not seem that way from the small perspective you're viewing the Universe from, therefore it will appear as contradictory to you to think anything negative that happens is a good thing. But in the bigger picture, I can assure you that the positives and negatives complement one another and are working in harmony as one to better the world. Fear is only an illusion and you can transcend it if you can understand that everything is exactly as it should be for the nature of change and evolution. You don't want to hear it, but these things are meant to happen for a reason, and you must let them. You can't do anything about them except changing your perspective on them. This is what you must do. You don't change the world by forcibly and physically changing it. You change your perspective on it. That's what I did. I'm much happier now and I also feel much safer. I've just learned to let go. I believe it's the best thing to do. It's not until it presents any real threat or danger to me, or anyone else, will I try to take control or change anything that happens in the world. I let nature take its course and I believe we all should. Once again, to reiterate what I said in the first paragraph… When it comes to violence, it's about being aware of that balance of defence and defuse, and when it's imperative to injure or kill to protect yourself and others. To ensure your, or their, survival, and to stop evil. I believe there is time and place for violence, but it's only when all other options are not available or have been tried already and have been unsuccessful. When and where it's the only option you have left. For me, personally, it's not until a person holds a knife to my throat or a gun to my head, will I act in any kind of violence at all. I consider myself a pacifist until the very moment when I can't be. Until I must partake in or result to violence to protect and defend myself or others.

If life has taught me anything worthwhile, it's that nature is always fluid. It's never solid. It's constantly changing and evolving. There are always ways of getting around a blockage to get to where you need to be, and there are always choices. All is temporary and there's no such thing as "one way" to live life. Life changes. People change. Things change. There are many ways of dealing with those changes that vary among many people. In the teachings of the Tao, there can be no other way than "all ways are the right way always" or change and evolution wouldn't happen. It's how the Universe must work for it to evolve. As humans, we tend to forget that. We forget that there is a much bigger picture to all of this than our everyday reality of living in it and that situations are sent to try us to remind us of that. To show us that it's how it must happen or there would be no happening at all. That's just a little wisdom to impart, so we don't drive ourselves crazy dealing with everyday life's ups and downs, and life's situations, whether violent or not. If it's imperative to act in violence, it's the right way because it's the only way to ensure our survival and our evolution. If you don't take that chance, you may end up regretting it, or you won't even be around to see how it affects others. It's wisdom of how you do it, not who, what, when, where, or why you do it, that matters. As long as you don't "do nothing" in the sense where you don't do anything about it… ever… I think you'll work it out just fine.

[s-leary]

Fascism Watch, March 4-5

Trump

Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones. This whole article is amazing. Here's a small portion:

"It would have been difficult for federal agents, working within the law, to obtain a wiretap order to target Mr. Trump’s phone conversations. It would have meant that the Justice Department had gathered sufficient evidence to persuade a federal judge that there was probable cause to believe he had committed a serious crime or was an agent of a foreign power, depending on whether it was a criminal investigation or a foreign intelligence one.

Former officials pointed to longstanding laws and procedures intended to ensure that presidents cannot wiretap a rival for political purposes.

“A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice,” said Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for Mr. Obama. “As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen.”

But a senior White House official said that Donald F. McGahn II, the president’s chief counsel, was working on Saturday to secure access to what Mr. McGahn believed was an order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing some form of surveillance related to Mr. Trump and his associates.

The official offered no evidence to support the notion that such an order exists. If one does, it would be highly unusual for a White House to order the Justice Department to turn over such an investigative document, given the traditional independence of law enforcement matters."

White House requests Congress investigate whether Obama administration abused power

Trump flashes anger over Sessions recusal, Russia stories in tense Oval Office meeting

The Conspiratorial Game of Telephone in Bannon’s Rag that Made Left, Right, and POTUS Go Crazy

Comey Asks Justice Dept. to Reject Trump’s Wiretapping Claim

Mr. Comey, who made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter, has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down the claim because it falsely insinuates that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said.

A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment. Sarah Isgur Flores, the spokeswoman for the Justice Department, also declined to comment.

Mr. Comey’s request is a remarkable rebuke of a sitting president, putting the nation’s top law enforcement official in the position of questioning Mr. Trump’s truthfulness.

It's literally pay to play at Mar-a-Lago

It's a nice setup for those who want some government favor and can afford a six-figure check. And it's a nice setup for Donald Trump.

Jeff Sessions, who couldn't possibly have anything better to do this weekend, was greeting guests at a gala.

Trump sons, planning expansion of family business, look to leverage campaign experience

The company says it has signed at least 17 letters of intent with potential developers. It is targeting an array of cities such as Austin, Dallas, St. Louis, Nashville and Seattle — and Trump Jr. said the campaign proved useful in forging relationships with potential new connections.

“I met people along the way that would be awesome partners,” he said.

Yet another person connected to Trump and Russia has died: Alex Oronov. Oronov was connected to Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, whom you might remember from his colorful threats to the Daily Beast over their coverage of Ivana Trump's abuse claims.

Last week I wrote about Michael Cohen and his extensive network of personal and business relationships in the Ukrainian-American emigre community. One of those was a man named Alex Oronov, who runs a major agribusiness concern in Ukraine. Oronov was a partner in the ethanol business Cohen and Cohen's brother Bryan set up in Ukraine about a decade ago. Oronov is Bryan Cohen's father-in-law. Today we learned that Oronov apparently organized that 'peace plan' meeting that brought together Ukrainian MP Artemenko, Cohen and Felix Sater. About four hours ago Andrii Artemenko, the Ukrainian parliamentarian who came to New York with that 'peace plan', went on Facebook to announce that Alex Oronov has died.

Oronov reportedly lived in one of Trump's Florida condos.

Keystone pipeline won't use US steel despite Trump pledge

Trump campaign applies to trademark ‘Keep America Great!’ as his 2020 campaign slogan

Trump's long history of racism is well documented, but this moment from Don Cheadle is just... wow.

(@DonCheadle tweet)

Immigration

Trump to unveil new immigration ban on Monday. Here's the weird part: “Employees at DHS were instructed to work from home on Monday morning.” Are we planning for a Reichstag fire, or do we just not want anyone at work to answer the phone?

Trump admin. plans expanded immigrant detention. We'll have the best internment camps, big league, lots of federal contracts, with bonus slave labor.

(@Luvvie tweet)

ETA: The sign appears to be street art.

After Decades In The U.S., NY Immigrant With Years-Old Pot Conviction Faces Deportation

Deportation of grandmother leaves a San Diego military family reeling

Clarissa Arredondo, 43, is the mother of Adriana Aparicio, whose husband is a Navy veteran working as a contractor in Afghanistan. The couple has two daughters, 2 and 3, and Arredondo, who came to the U.S. more than 25 years ago, helped take care of them.

Congress

Some GOP lawmakers’ block-everything mentality could imperil big-picture plans

Across the Capitol, there’s a new generation of Republicans who have risen to power since the GOP last attempted to enact a sweeping agenda that would overhaul big pieces of the economy such as the health-care and tax systems. Quite simply, there aren’t many Republicans around with muscle memory of what it’s like to craft large pieces of legislation that rely almost entirely on votes from their side of the aisle.

The problem is particularly acute in the House, where just 60 Republicans — a quarter of their caucus — have ever served in the majority with a GOP president.

Moreover, more than 160 House Republicans are getting their first taste of working with a Republican president. Their entire legislative careers until now have been dedicated to stopping an administration’s actions.

Cabinet & Federal Appointees

Sessions Will Submit Amended Testimony, Address Senators’ Questions on Monday. Get your popcorn ready.

Home Alone in the Trump Administration

President Trump has appointed fewer than three dozen of the top 1,000 officials he needs to run the federal government. Worse, he doesn’t think that’s a problem.

The president seems to have lost interest in the nomination process after making his cabinet and Supreme Court picks, people involved in the transition say. Now, he’s trying to pass off his inattention as some kind of plan. “In many cases, we don’t want to fill those jobs,” he said on Fox News this week. “What do all these people do? You don’t need all those jobs.”

The Washington Post has a handy tracker for positions requiring Senate confirmation. Trump keeps complaining that Congress is dragging its feet on confirming his nominees, but there are currently 517 positions he hasn't even nominated.

The Curious Case of Sebastian Gorka, Trump’s New Terrorism Guru. He's advising on national security but doesn't appear to have security clearance.

Even Scott Pruitt thinks the not-yet-public proposed EPA budget cuts are too much.

Under Trump, an Already Depleted I.R.S. Could Face Deep Cuts. It's madness to cut the agency that's in charge of bringing in money, unless perhaps Trump doesn't like the fact that they expect money from him and his friends.

Trump's budget proposal includes steep cuts to NOAA, surprising no one. Still, that's depressing.

Trump's neglect of the CDC while China is experiencing a bird flu epidemic has set up the US for a health crisis

This Stunningly Racist French Novel Is How Steve Bannon Explains The World. '“The Camp of the Saints” tells a grotesque tale about a migrant invasion to destroy Western civilization.' It really is stunning; steel yourself before reading this.

[citizentruth-blog]

Undermining Democracy, GOP-Style

Brian Kemp is a disgrace. (Photo Credit: Office of U.S. Senator David Perdue/Flickr) When it comes to the present-day incarnation of the Republican Party, always beware the shell game.  Per Dictionary.com, shell game is defined as "a sleight-of-hand swindling game resembling thimblerig but employing walnut shells or the like instead of thimblelike cups." If you're familiar with the setup of three-card Monte, the logistics are essentially the same, only with cards instead of shells. Find the pea (or the Queen of Hearts) under the shell. Double-down on your ability to find it again. If you're successful, you win big. If you're not, the opposite happens. With Donald Trump, Con-Man-in-Chief, working in cahoots with a party whose agenda seems increasingly predicated on deception—so that you don't discover how bad their policies actually are for you or the country at large—this diversionary tactic is alive and well. Before your eyes, numerous issues await your attention, but energy/money/time being limited, you can only pick one on which to act at the risk of having all three suffer. Concerning the events of the last week and change, three "shells" jump to mind being of national import, especially fresh after Election Day. All merit scrutiny as threats to democracy, and yet, there aren't enough hours in the day. That press conference President Trump has had some stupendously bad press conferences during his tenure, but his post-election presser, if not the outright worst, ranks right up there. There's a lot to unpack here, so let's get to the nitty-gritty, shall we? The great and powerful Republican Party: First things first, Trump started by lionizing the GOP's "achievements." Apparently, not losing control of the Senate and ceding control of the House qualify. At any rate, they were achievements because the Democrats had an unfair advantage in fundraising from special interests and wealthy donors and because the media is so gosh-darned mean to Republican candidates. Also, we had a bunch of retirements. But we had big rallies! And we did better than Obama! The country is booming! If the Democrats don't screw everything up, we'll all be united and thriving together! On bipartisanship: With the whining about the Republicans' handicap thus dispensed with, it was time for questions. First up, about that spirit of bipartisanship he and Nancy Pelosi talked about. Like, that's not really going to happen, right? Especially with all the investigations expected to be going on and unless y'all compromise? Trump demurred on the issue. No, we're totally going to be able to work together with the Democrats. Of course, if we can't, they're the ones in control of the House, so you know—their fault. Oh, that border wall... We're gonna build the wall. We've already started building it, in fact. Just try and stop it. The American people want it. The Democrats want it—they just don't want to admit it. Fine by me. I'll take the political capital and run with it. But the caravan is coming, ladies and gents. I can't say for sure that I'd advocate shutting down the government for it. But come on—I totally would. On the ever-tumultuous Cabinet: Trump is totally happy with his Cabinet. Good Cabinet. Great Cabinet. As long as no one suddenly displeases him, he has love for all. At this point, in a completely unrelated move, the President pushed a button revealing a pool of sharks underneath the floor and lowering a human-sized cage suspended above it from the ceiling. The Jim Acosta portion of the program: If there's one moment of the press conference you heard about, it was likely this. CNN's Jim Acosta, established persona non grata among Trump's base, pressed Trump on referring to the migrant caravan in Central America as an "invasion." Trump was all, like, well, I consider it an invasion. Acosta was all, like, but that caravan is hundreds and hundreds of miles away and you're demonizing immigrants by showing them climbing over walls, which they're not going to do. And that's when things got really interesting. As Trump settled into Attack Mode, Acosta tried to ask a follow-up question. Trump was all, like, you've had enough, pal. Nevertheless, he persisted, trying to ask about the Russia investigation. Meanwhile, a female aide tried to grab the mic away from Acosta, which he stifled with a "Pardon me, ma'am" and a hand on her arm. Before Acosta relented, Trump called the investigation a "hoax" and called Acosta a "rude, terrible person." Fun times. More about the Jim Acosta portion of the program: NBC News's Peter Alexander came to Acosta's defense as next reporter up—only to get harangued by the President in his own right—but the implications of this kerfuffle and the subsequent revocation of Acosta's press privileges in covering the White House are serious. I don't care what you think about Acosta personally, even if you feel he's a self-aggrandizing hack. Judging by the smarmy attitude of other CNN personalities like Anderson Cooper and Chris Cuomo, elevated self-appraisals seem to be a fairly common occurrence there. I also don't care what you think about Barack Obama's frosty relationship with FOX News and the questionable treatment its reporters received at the hands of the Obama White House. On the latter count, two wrongs don't make a right, and if Trump and Co. want to distinguish themselves, they should do it by being better and less petty—not the other way around. To that effect, squelching Acosta's voice in a dictatorial way should be concerning no matter where you stand politically in the name of journalistic integrity and a free press. And let's not start with the whole "Acosta assaulted that young woman" narrative. If you're relying on a doctored InfoWars clip to make your argument, you already should take the hint you're probably on some bullshit. More on bipartisanship: After Jim Acosta was given the ol' Vaudeville Hook, Alexander questioned Trump on why he was pitting Americans against one another. To which Trump asked back—and I am not making this up—"What are you—trying to be him?" He was referring to Acosta, of course. Even after what just happened, it was stunning. For the record, Pres. Trump gave a dodgy "they're soft on crime" answer and suggested the results of the election would have a "very positive impact." So, um, yay togetherness! If the Mueller investigation is unfair to the country and it's costing millions of dollars, why doesn't Trump just end it? I'm posting the whole question here, because the President sure didn't answer it convincingly. On voter suppression: "I'll give you 'voter suppression': Take a look at the CNN polls, how inaccurate they were. That's called 'voter suppression'." Um, what? On the individual mandate: You know, I could tell you what he said, but do you have any confidence that, regardless of how people feel about the individual mandate, Republicans have a plan in mind which will allow them to keep premiums down and cover preexisting conditions? Neither do I. When all questions by women of color are "stupid" or "racist": Speaking of three-card Monte, here's a shell game within the shell game in which you get to pick which one is the most flagrantly dog-whistle-y. PBS NewsHour's Yamiche Alcindor asked Trump about whether his claim to be a "nationalist" has emboldened "white nationalists" here and abroad. Trump said it's a "racist" question. Putting aside the notion held by many that racism implies power and Trump therefore has no idea what he's talking about in this regard, it's a legitimate question. Trump pivoted to his overwhelming support from African-American voters—a fabrication, at any rate—but his lack of an appropriate response betrays his complicity on this issue. More on denigrating black female reporters: While the dialog with Alcindor was the only such interaction with an African-American female reporter during the press conference, it's not his only recent unflattering characterization herein. In response to a question by CNN's Abby Phillip about whether he appointed Matthew Whitaker as acting Attorney General, he called her query "stupid" and opined that she asks "a lot of stupid questions." As for April Ryan, Trump recently referred to her as a "loser" and someone "who doesn't know what she's doing." If these comments were isolated incidents, one might be able to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. In such close proximity to one another and based on his track record, though, Trump deserves no such consideration. He's attacking these women of color because he has a problem with being challenged by strong females and because it's red meat to throw at his base. Other odds and ends: Trump evidently can't turn over his tax returns because he is under audit. This is complete and unmitigated bullshit. Trump likes Oprah. Even if she, too, is a loser. If anything is going to be done with DACA, it will apparently have to be dealt with in court. Whose fault is that? You guessed it: the Democrats. Trump claimed to have a lot of trouble understanding people from foreign news outlets. If there were anything to make him seem like more of the "ugly American," well, this would be it. What did Trump learn from the midterm results? Seeing as he learned that "people like him" and that "people like the job he's doing," he obviously didn't learn a damn thing. Will Mike Pence be Trump's running mate in 2020? Yes. Glad that's settled. Nice hardball question there. How will Trump push a pro-life agenda with a divided Congress? Like a mother trying to give birth, he's just going to keep pushing—don't you worry, evangelicals. Did China or Russia interfere in the election? The official report's, as they say, in the mail. How can we enact a middle-class tax cut alongside the existing corporate/high-earner tax cut? With an "adjustment." What kind of adjustment? Trump's "not telling." YOU HAVE NO IDEA. JUST SAY IT. Per "Two Corinthians" Trump, God plays a very big role in his life. He's also a "great moral leader," and he loves our country. On an unrelated note, a lightning bolt ripped through the ceiling during the press conference, narrowly missing Trump as he delivered his remarks. Au revoir, Monsieur Sessions Politics makes strange bedfellows. If you're thinking how strange it is to be protesting the firing of Jeff bleeping Sessions, you're not alone. Sessions' aforementioned removal as AG in favor of Trump loyalist Matthew Whitaker—assuming he actually was fired and didn't resign, though how would we know?—is not something that anyone feels bad about for Sessions's sake. You make a deal with the Devil, and eventually, you expect to get burned, no? Given his profile as a notorious anti-drug dinosaur who infamously once professed that good people don't use marijuana, some drug reform activism groups are even happy he's gone. Outside of this context, though, the larger partisan hostility toward Robert Mueller and his investigation matters. I'm not going to even get into whether Trump has the right to remove Sessions and replace him with someone like Whitaker who wasn't confirmed by the Senate, or whether it matters if he was fired or if he quit. Honestly, these questions are above my ken as a citizen journalist. If past statements are any indication, however, putting Whitaker in charge of the DOJ is suspect. The man didn't exactly write the book on how to limit the scope of the Mueller investigation, but he did pen an opinion piece for Trump's favorite news outlet on how it should be done. As with invalidating Jim Acosta's White House press privileges (a move which has prompted another lawsuit against the Trump administration, mind you), such is a line the president should not cross, no matter what side of the aisle you're on. As Americans, we should all be worried about the fate of the Mueller investigation as it comes to a head, and should implore our elected officials to safeguard the inquiry's results. The ghost of the 2000 election Oh, those hanging chads. It's somehow comforting—and yet actually deeply, deeply disturbing—that not much has changed since the fracas surrounding the 2000 recount that captivated a nation and prompted cries of a "stolen" victory for George W. Bush. Then again, that Al Gore didn't win his own state and that thousands of Florida Democrats voted for Bush puts a bit of a damper on pointing to these shenanigans and Ralph Nader as the only reasons why Gore lost. As with Hillary Clinton losing in 2016, alongside legitimate concerns about Russian meddling and James Comey's untimely letter to Congress, it's not as if strategic miscues or lack of enthusiasm about the Democratic candidate in question didn't play a role. Now that I've set the scene, let's talk about 2018. There were a number of close races across the country this Election Day—some so close they still haven't been certified or conceded. Depending on your views, some were either disappointments or godsends. If you were pulling for Beto O'Rourke in Texas, while you still should be encouraged, you were nonetheless dismayed to find that enough voters willingly re-elected Ted Cruz, famed annoyance and rumored Zodiac Killer. If you were pulling for Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona, meanwhile, you likely were over the moon once the race was finally called. Of the key races not yet called at this writing, those in Florida and Georgia loom particularly large. In the Sunshine State, the candidates of both the race for U.S. Senate between Rick Scott (R) and Bill Nelson (D) and the race for governor between Ron DeSantis (R) and Andrew Gillum (D) are separated by less than half of 1%. Meanwhile, in the Peach State gubernatorial race, there are enough outstanding votes that Stacey Abrams (D) and her campaign are convinced they can force a runoff election based on the margin. In all three cases, despite the razor-thin vote disparities, Republicans have been quick to cry fraud or try to expedite certifying the results. Scott, with Trump throwing his own claim around wildly in support, has made accusations of electoral malfeasance without the evidence to back it up. And this is just speaking about what has happened after the election. Leading up to the election, DeSantis caught flak for telling voters not to "monkey this up" by voting for Gillum, dog-whistling loud enough for racists across the Southeast to hear. Brian Kemp (R), meanwhile as Georgia Secretary of State, oversaw the purging of voters from rolls, the failure to process voter applications, and keeping voting machines locked up—all primarily at the expense of voters of color, a key Democratic constituency. Depending on how far back you wish to go, the antics of DeSantis, Kemp, and Scott are only the latest turn in a long-standing American tradition of voter suppression aimed at blacks. Carol Anderson, professor of African-American studies at Emory University, provides a concise but effective history of keeping blacks from the polls—by hook or by crook. We may no longer be threatening prospective voters of color with tar and feathers, but voter purges, closure of polling locations, and disenfranchisement of felons from being able to vote aren't much of an improvement. This is 2018, after all. As Van Jones and others might insist, Kemp et al. can only win one way: by stealing. To put it another way, if these Republicans were convinced they had won legitimately, they wouldn't need all the chicanery, subterfuge, and insinuations of impropriety. Even if they do prove to have the votes necessary to win, their conduct is a stain on the offices they have served or will serve. Like it is with the White House's revocation of Jim Acosta's privileges following Trump's press conference or the suspicious installation of Matthew Whitaker as head of the Department of Justice, the injustice here is such that it should, ahem, trump partisanship. Instead, our "winning is the only thing" mentality and emphasis on results over process all but ensures bipartisan inaction. Assuming a shell game is run fairly, the customer playing need only follow the correct shell amid all the movement. This itself might be a chore depending on how much and how fast the shells move. Going back to the Wikipedia entry on the shell game, though, there's an important note about how, frequently, games of these sort are not on the up-and-up: In practice, however, the shell game is notorious for its use by confidence tricksters who will typically rig the game using sleight of hand to move or hide the ball during play and replace it as required. Fraudulent shell games are also known for the use of psychological tricks to convince potential players of the legitimacy of the game – for example, by using shills or by allowing a player to win a few times before beginning the scam. In other words, it's a con. You've been following the wrong shell all along because the eyes deceive. In the context of President Donald Trump's unbecoming behavior, his DOJ shakeup of questionable legitimacy, and the Republican Party's stacking of the electoral deck, while all of these matters merit your justifiable outrage, they are yet a distraction from something else not even on the table. For one, shortly after the press conference, Trump issued a directive designed to halt asylum-seeking at our southern border. It's a particularly problematic order, in that it appears to fundamentally misunderstand asylum law and makes it yet harder to apply for asylum than it already is. It's also reactionary policy that overstates the dangers of the migrant caravan and illegal immigration in general, and further puts us out of step with international standards on safeguarding refugees/asylees. This executive order comes on the heels of Trump's stated desire to end birthright citizenship, another move which would be of dubious constitutional validity and subject to challenge in court by civil rights advocacy groups, not to mention having U.S. troops stationed at the border with Mexico. It's easy to dismiss these as political stunts designed to fire up his base when you have no skin in the game, so to speak. For immigrants and would-be applicants for asylum/visas, this rhetoric is more worrisome. Owing to our country's poor track record of acting on behalf of vulnerable populations—I'll bring our sordid history of intimidating voters of color and otherwise acting in official capacities to deny them their rights back up, in case you need reminding—this is more than simple hand-wringing based on the theoretical. In the miasma and noise of a Republican agenda fueled by the views of FOX News talking heads, Koch-Brothers-funded legislative influence, obeisance to moneyed interests and religious conservatives, Tea Party railing against deficits, and Trump's own prejudicial outlook, it's legitimately hard to cut through all the bullshit and focus on what we can do as possible influencers. By now, the sense of fatigue is real, especially because when we act to counteract said agenda, there's also half-hearted Democratic Party policies and media clickbait designed to offend around which to work. So, what's the answer? Assuming my words are even that useful in this regard, I'm not sure. As noted, all of the above merits scrutiny, but we have our limitations. It may be useful to zero in on one or a handful of issues that arouse your personal political passions. Plus, if you can afford it, so many causes spearheaded by organizations devoted to the betterment of society deserve your donations, though throwing money at these problems does not automatically equate to solving them. At the end of the day, though, what is abundantly clear after decades of failed policy initiatives is that tuning out is not a viable option if we want meaningful change. Indeed, people-powered solutions will be necessary if we are to fix our broken democracy—and there's a lot to fix, at that. Recognize the shell game for what it is, but don't refuse to play. Instead, change the game.   Read the full article

[russellthornton]

20 Best Questions to Ask in a Relationship to Understand Each Other

Do you want to get to know your partner better? Do you want to deepen your connection? You can do so with the best questions to ask in a relationship.

Just because you’re in a relationship, doesn’t mean you know everything about one another. Even couples married for 30+ years have more to learn. But what are the best questions to ask in a relationship? Is it your favorite color? Or biggest pet peeve? Or should the questions be deeper?

Bad questions to ask in a relationship

Before we get into the best questions to ask in a relationship, there are some you may want to avoid. And others you will want to reword.

Asking questions that come with accusations is never a good move. Questions like, “Why are you so crazy?” or “What’s the matter with you?” will only cause more trouble than they are worth. Instead of putting it all on them, be a bit more calm and understanding.

You can ask something like, “Sometimes you get so upset at the tiniest thing, why do you think that is?” A more patient question worded in a way that makes it clear you actually want to help and not blame is the first step to making bad questions good questions. [Read: How you can be more open and vulnerable in a relationship]

The best questions to ask in a relationship

If you are looking to deepen your connection, find out more about your partner’s past, or just learn more about them, these are the questions you want on standby.

These all come with a lot of explanation as to how your partner became the person they are today. Just remember that communication is a two-way street, so be prepared to open up yourself.

#1 What was your childhood like? Unless you are childhood sweethearts, there is a good chance you don’t know much about how your partner grew up. It might be shocking that you knew so little about this time in their life, so change that.

A lot of people may say the past is in the past, but getting to know what made your partner who they are is so important. This could also clue you in on parts of your own relationship you never really thought about before. Plus, you may find you have more in common than you ever realized. [Read: How to create a deeper connection with someone]

#2 Who was your first love and what was that experience like? Our first love may have been in grade school or it could have been in college. It can be considered puppy love, but that infatuation or full on relationship is how we were first introduced to love.

It changes how we see things and how we act in relationships moving forward. Talking about your exes is a no-go if you are still harboring feelings, but as long as you’ve moved on, sharing these experiences with one another opens your relationship to a whole other level.

#3 What was your first impression of me? Once you have been dating for a while, you see your partner as just that. This is someone you are with. But when you first met, your thoughts were probably pretty different. Talk about what you thought when you first met.

Was it solely about attraction? Did you think they were stuck up? Maybe they found you to be mysterious and intriguing. Learning about what interested you both at the beginning is so insightful to how the rest of your relationship developed from there. [Read: What is pillow talk? How to use it right and perfect your romance]

#4 How do you want to deal with fights? This is a question not enough couples ask each other. You get into a fight and one person wants to talk it out while the other wants time alone. And then things can get misunderstood.

Arguments in a relationship go much more smoothly when both you and your partner decide how to deal. Do you want to take some time to cool down and then talk or do you want to get everything out in the open. Having this talk and knowing how your partner deals best can make every future issue that much less of one.

#5 What are your deal breakers? This can be a super scary question to ask someone you are currently dating. When you first meet you find out if they smoke or drink. And if that is a deal breaker, you don’t know each other so it is no big deal.

But once you have a connection and are emotionally invested you can go a long time without talking about the more difficult topics. And the longer you put it off, the harder it will be later. Do you want kids, but your partner doesn’t? Do you have opposing political or religious views?

It can be brutal to bring up something that could break you apart, but if you don’t talk about this for another year down the road you will only cause more heartbreak. If you talk about it now, you may even be able to come to a compromise. [Read: 50 relationship questions to test your compatibility instantly]

#6 Do you have any regrets? So many people claim they have no regrets. I myself would like to say that, but if you told me I could go back and change something I probably would.

Mistakes you have made and the things that came from them make us who we are today, but sometimes things would be easier or better if that mistake never happened. Asking your partner what they would change or what they regret says a lot about who they are.

Do they regret hurting someone? Do they wish they could change their college major? Or do they regret something else. Some people wish to go back so their lives would be better today. Others might want to improve someone else’s life. This can let you know a lot about your partner and yourself. [Read: Thought-provoking questions to keep you thinking and curious]

#7 If you won the lottery what would you do? This may seem like a surface level question, but money is such a powerful thing in this world. Knowing if you and your partner agree on what to do with such a large amount of it can say a lot about your potential future together.

Would you travel the world? Would they want to save it? Or would you both prefer to donate it?

#8 What do you get from our relationship? This can be another hard question to ask if you don’t have a lot of confidence. Although it can strengthen your bond, it could potentially create friction.

Do you both simply get companionship from one another? Or do you get respect and support? Do you get happiness and intimacy? Sharing the answer to this question can guide you to make your relationship stronger or reaffirm what you already knew.

#9 Do you believe in fate? Believing in fate can be mixed with believing in soulmates. Were you meant to be all along? Or do you work at your relationship everyday and fight for each other? Answering this can clue you into their bigger views of the world. [Read: Real soulmates – 20 signs you’ve met the love of your life]

#10 Do you hold grudges? You may already know the answer to this depending on how long you’ve been together, but seeing how self aware your partner is is definitely beneficial. They may say they forgive easily, but do they constantly bring up that one mistake you made?

This can open the door for a further conversation or help you clue each other in on somethings you may not realize.

#11 If you could change one thing about me, what would it be? This is a truly insightful question. Some would maybe say that you pick your clothes up off the floor or close the door when you use the bathroom. But if they say something about your looks or personality that is something to think about.

Perhaps they would prefer if you were less hot headed. That is something you can work on. But if they prefer you had more money or a better tan, you may want to rethink things.

#12 What offends you the most?  Not only does this let you know how sensitive your partner is, but it can let you know if they have been hurt in the past or what to avoid in the future. Are they most offended when someone attacks their character? Or are they offended by racism and ignorance?

#13 What do you think you need to work on personally?  If they say nothing, well, that is a problem all on its own. But this can help you give them more respect or be more patient in certain situations. Maybe they have to work on forgiveness or trust. Or perhaps they have low self esteem or high levels of anxiety.

Don’t forget that within your relationship there are two individuals with their own problems and struggles. [Read: Watch out for these types of toxic relationships]

#14 What scares you most about the future?  This can give you a glimpse at what your partner might stress about down the road. Are they worried about money? Having a job? Or perhaps being a parent or the state of our country? Or maybe even the environment? [Read: Intellectual questions – 43 cues to spark smart talk with anyone]

#15 What do you define as cheating? Depending on someone’s past, their definition of cheating can vary quite a bit. Is it a kiss or more? Is is flirting? Knowing that you are on the same page regarding what cheating is will definitely help you moving forward.

Something you may view as totally innocent could be a huge betrayal to your partner. Knowing this is necessary.

#16 Is there something you would like us to do that we’ve never done? This gives them a safe place to propose something they may have been nervous to bring up in the past. Is there something they want to try in the bedroom? Or have they always wanted to take a trip to France? [Read: 30 naughty questions for couples to keep the spark alive]

#17 Do you struggle with confidence? For some reason, admitting you have self esteem issues to your partner is seen as such a defeat. Maybe people think their partner will feel sorry for them or something. But I think talking about confidence issues with your partner can only be beneficial.

It opens both of your eyes to certain situations and sensitivities you or your partner may have. It can also guide you both to a more healthy self image.

#18 Do you have a living will? Another more difficult subject that many people don’t want to think about let alone talk about, but depending how serious your relationship is, it is good to know these things. God forbid anything were to happen, it is vital that someone close to you in your life knows what you want.

#19 What do you think about my family? When discussing you childhood, you get to know your partner’s family and their relationship, but what do they think of your family? These people could potentially be family one day, so sharing these opinions is healthy and useful.

Perhaps your partner loves your mom, but feels she’s judgmental when they discuss work. You can try to avoid more awkward or tense situations with your partner and certain family members if you actually know the issues. [Read: You should be asking your significant other these important questions]

#20 Are you happy? It is easy to make this question all about you, but when asking it realize just because you are a couple, it doesn’t mean all their happiness depends on you. They could be disappointed with their career or success.

Talking about your happiness lets you realize what you may want to change or do more of in life so that you can be happy together.

[Read: 14 steps to emotionally connect with someone and feel closer]

There are hundreds of questions to ask in a relationship. All these questions will strengthen your bond and make your relationship come together on a deeper level.

The post 20 Best Questions to Ask in a Relationship to Understand Each Other is the original content of LovePanky - Your Guide to Better Love and Relationships.