#I have no idea how affiliated the different country divisions are

[dowsa-coursera]

Assignment #1

Data Set

The data set I choose to work with is the Outlook on Life Surveys (2012). I am particularly interested in looking at the connection between the political party and the opinions on the country and life of the American citizens surveyed in the codebook. The variables I am thinking of including are: which political party do you identify with, how did you vote, are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future and in general, and what is your opinions on dating outside race. I think those variables will allow me to explore the link that might exist between someone’s political affiliations and their level of tolerance to people of different backgrounds, as well as their general attitude towards life.

Background

While this particular codebook is not as recent as the last election, I am interested in exploring the link between politics and tolerance because I feel like it’s a very current issue. Since Obama’s first term as president, my family members and peers have become more involved in conversations about politics and what sort of implications come with voting for a certain candidate. Social media and mainstream culture has also worked towards furthering division between political parties. I think by looking at the data and the surveys, I can work towards having accurate and clear language around if and how the average American views politics and any correlation that might exist with personality or general attitudes in life.

Research Question(s)

What does your political party say about you? Does being a Democrat or a Republican make you more tolerant towards others and more hopeful towards the future?

Hypothesis

I believe that people who identify as Democrats and plan to vote (and/or have voted) for democratic candidates in the past are generally more tolerant towards people of different races. I think they also would be more willing to date outside their race. I think how optimistic/pessimistic they are in their personal lives and towards the future of America might vary. But generally, I predict that the more tolerant a person is, the more optimistic they are about the future of America.

Literature Review

1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0028393206001606

“Political attitudes can be powerful forces, motivating action and influencing perception…”

This article is a study in how political parties and affiliations affect us on a neural level. I wanted to search up any scientific evidence that supports the influence that politics plays on us, even on a subconscious level. The study showed subjects of various political parties a candidate from the opposite party and measured brain activity. In short, they found that subjects “expressing negative feelings towards the opponent and positive feelings towards their own candidate.” This supports that Us vs. Them mentality that participation in American politics can produce. I chose this to introduce the conversation of political ideation and party division.

2. https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/73/5/917/1868315

“A number of political commentators and social scientists have speculated about the implications of the election of Barack Obama for race relations.”

This study explores racial attitudes during the Obama Era. It sets out to find out if race relations and dynamics were improved following the first Obama Presidency. I chose this because it is very interesting and has to do with a large part of my research question. It is also one of the survey questions that I am thinking of using for my data set.

3. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105138

“Recent commentary points to clear increases in ideological polarization between the major American political parties. We review the theoretical and empirical literature on party polarization and partisan change.”

This study delves further into party polarization and the state of the US at this time. I though it would be very current and provide further context for my research.

4. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0964663909339087

“The author argues that the social signifiers of race and gender, tied together with sexuality, are interlocking sets of power relations and these intersecting discourses are integral to understanding the comparative regulation of interracial intimacy in North America.”

This article studies the history of interracial dating/relationships in North America. It also delves into the laws and practices that both aided and worked against anti-miscegenation in the 19th and 20th century.  I chose this to inform some of the statistics and background on interracial relationships in America.

5. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Hoz-fNJDnwMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA26&dq=democrats+and+tolerance&ots=6GW2DPRZk6&sig=fhd1ZcvHyvZ8Wv4x1p5Y5nz7BXw#v=onepage&q=democrats%20and%20tolerance&f=false

“This path-breaking book re-conceptualizes our understanding of political tolerance as well as of its foundations. “

This book is all about political tolerance, and intolerance particularly in relation to American democracy. I predict that I will use this resource a lot because of how close the subject matter is to my research question. It appears to approach the subject in a more comprehensive manner, and to also explore the history behind the intolerance that certain minority groups face. I hope that it also allows some background that I can utilize for my hypotheses.

Resources

Hutchings, Vincent L. “Change or More of The Same? Evaluating Racial Attitudes in the Obama Era.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 1 Jan. 2009, academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/73/5/917/1868315.

Kaplan, Jonas T., et al. “Us versus Them: Political Attitudes and Party Affiliation Influence Neural Response to Faces of Presidential Candidates.” Neuropsychologia, Pergamon, 9 June 2006, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0028393206001606.

Layman, Geoffrey C. “PARTY POLARIZATION IN AMERICAN POLITICS: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences.” Annual Reviews, www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105138.

Sullivan, John L., et al. Political Tolerance and American Democracy. University of Chicago Press, 1993.

Thompson, Debra. “Racial Ideas and Gendered Intimacies: the Regulation of Interracial Relationships in North America - Debra Thompson, 2009.” SAGE Journals, journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0964663909339087.

[yerjigsawpuzzleblues]

In My Own Write: Burma

Yes, I made a Beatles reference let me cope.

So, as you may know, Burma has been taken over by the military on the 1st of February 2021 and it got a really bad reception, to say the least. Seriously, I’m pretty sure that even Movie 43 was received better.

Anyroad, one of the ways to communicate said reception is to organise peaceful protests, which the fuckers (read: the police and the military) would always try to “disperse” in ways including but not limited to:

Using water cannons

Using tear gas

Using stun grenades

Using air guns

Using rubber bullets

Arbitrarily arresting peaceful protesters

Beating up said protesters

Arbitrarily arresting bystanders

Beating up said bystanders

Breaking into homes

Sending thugs out to create chaos

Shooting into the crowd

Shooting at bystanders

Shooting into homes

Shooting at hospitals

Using live ammunition

Taking headshots

Using snipers

Using machine guns

Using fighter jets

Fun times./s

Therefore, to hinder these fuckers, we have to think outside the box. We improvised barricades of all different sizes. We stuck photos of MAL on the ground because we found out that they daren’t step on his face. And last but not least, we hung up htameins (female longyi, the Burmese traditional skirt) because it’s considered bad luck for men to walk underneath a woman’s garment, especially if it’s supposed to be worn below the waist (i.e., it reduces their power or something, y’know). This introduced a very serious topic into the mainstream — the antiquated concept of hpone (glory/power) and the implicit, and sometimes explicit, misogyny inherent in our society. As such, many people are reexamining their belief systems and changing them when necessary.

This brings me to my next point — the role of ethnic minorities in Burma. We have over 135 ethnic groups here. Normally, that sort of diversity would be celebrated, right? Well, let me introduce you to a process called Burmanisation, where non-full-Burmans are forcibly assimilated into Burmese culture.

Take me, a Sino-Burman, as an example. I am registered as a full Burman to avoid discrimination. My family went to great lengths to ensure that I learn the Burmese language. I went to great lengths to avoid displaying any stereotypes associated with Sino-Burmans. I prevented myself from fully enjoying anything Chinese. Don’t get me wrong; I wasn’t trying to hide who I really am because I can easily tell people my race when asked, but I felt guilty whenever I immersed myself in Chinese culture. All that, just because of the simple fact that it is easier to be a Burman. And I came out relatively unscathed.

Because other ethnic minorities... they have it so much worse. The Rohingya genocide is the most notorious, but for decades, various ethnic minorities have been oppressed by the dominant Burman ethnicity, which makes up over two-thirds of the population in Burma. We have had to survive in a system rigged against us on all fronts. Standardised testing made it more difficult for ethnic minorities to do as well as ethnic Burmans due to language barriers. Non-Burman culture isn’t taught in schools. Ethnic languages aren’t taught in schools. Prominent non-Burmans were only featured if they had an effect on Burman history, and even then, they wouldn’t be covered as much as Burmans. Otherwise, the amount of non-Burman history in textbooks can be summed up as ‘zero, zip, zilch, nada’. This fosters ignorance of the significance and even the existence of other ethnic groups, thereby perpetuating a more subconscious form of racism, y’know; after all, you can’t make an effort to include something if you aren’t even aware of said thing. And more often than not, brute force is used by the military to oppress ethnic minorities, causing mass displacement and yielding countless casualties.

Let me give you a little history lesson. Back in the days of old, Burma was a powerful empire with various dynasties and racial and religious segregation was already a thing (tm). For instance, some kings banned Islamic ritual slaughter. But for some reason, nationalism wasn’t as widespread back then. Then, everything changed when the British attacked. Methinks it awakened some sort of dormant patriotism or something, y’know, because Burman nationalism was initially just directed against the British and those affiliated with the British (it included Indo-Burmans because Burmans believed that Indians migrated to Burma as a result of both India and Burma being British colonies). And then, the British government allied themselves with other ethnic minorities such as the Karen, Kachin, and Chin peoples, who converted to Christianity en masse. This led to a more ethnoreligious form of nationalism, where the dominant idea was not only to establish the dominance of the Burman ethnicity, but also to establish the dominance of Theravada Buddhism, which the majority of Burmans adhered to. As such, further disenfranchisement of ethnic minorities soon followed and now we have the longest-running civil war in history (*whispers* it’s still ongoing).

Then came General Ne Win’s coup and along with it came the Burmese Way to Socialism, a ridiculously isolationist, nationalist, and xenophobic ideology that aimed to whittle down foreign influence to nil. Fulbright? Goodbye. World Bank? No, thanks. Asia Foundation? Well, you get the idea. It actively pursued Burmanisation as a policy. It nationalised almost all industries in Burma, which had an adverse impact on other ethnic minorities like Anglo-, Sino-, and Indo-Burmans who had carved out comfortable niches in the economic sector up to that point. Then, there were the anti-Chinese riots in 1967 that led to expatriates and those of mixed background either fleeing Burma or using Burmese names and passing themselves off as Shan. And ever since then, Burmanisation has thrived both implicitly and explicitly in our society.

That’s not to say that there were no attempts to create a federal republic, because there were. The most famous of these attempts was the Panglong Agreement of 1947, where the idea of a Union of Burma was signed. But General Aung San, the leader of the Burmese interim government and one of the main proponents of the agreement, was assassinated before we achieved independence so there’s that. But even then, the plan wasn’t perfect; for instance, the Karen and Karenni (Kayah) weren’t represented and there was no consideration for the Mon, Rakhine, Pa-O, Palaung, and Wa peoples for various reasons (the Mon and Rakhine states were part of Ministerial Burma at the time, and the Pa-O, Palaung, and Wa were under the umbrella of Shan states).

But now I see lots of Buddhist Burmans realising how privileged they are and apologising to various ethnic minorities for not speaking up for them sooner. I see people reassessing their past behaviour and making amends if necessary. I see people pledging to do better and to fight for the rights of ethnic minorities as well. While there is still a few people who still claim that the general population are all oppressed (which is true to a certain extent because nobody apart from the military junta benefitted from the various coups), there are more who now recognise that the extent of said oppression varies based on ethnicity and religion — the former group is the exception, not the rule.

If there’s one silver lining in the coup, this is it. It has sparked dialogue about topics that were previously taught to be taboo. It has given marginalised communities a chance to have their voices heard. It has led to reassessments of beliefs inculcated in us by decades of religious segregation, class divisions, and racial barriers. This is a turning point in the history of the country, a time of unprecedented unity among people regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender identity, and sexual/romantic orientation. So, it seems as though the so-called Tatmadaw has succeeded in their apparent goal of national unity — they’ve united everyone against them.

In conclusion, we don’t want to go back to the status quo. We don’t want a return to ‘normalcy’. What we want is an inclusive federal democracy and equal rights for all.

Thank you all very much, you’ve got a lucky face.

The end.

#hmmm a think piece that doesn’t provoke any thoughts #fancy that #really on brand for me #but I needed to rant #so there I go #what’s happening in burma #burma #myanmar #sensitive material tw #history #idk #it’s got some history #southeast asia #asia #stating point of view #tear the top right off my head #for military reasons that was a joke #don’t do that #don’t do anything to me #it cannot be a part of me for now it’s part of you #long post

[newstfionline]

Sunday, December 20, 2020

Americans Are Drinking More During The Pandemic (NPR) When the pandemic began spreading across the U.S. in March, stores, restaurants and schools closed down. But liquor stores in many parts of the U.S. were deemed essential and stayed open. Alcohol sales have ticked up during the pandemic, so maybe it’s a good time to ask yourself: Are you drinking more than you’d like to be? R. Lorraine Collins, a psychologist at the University of Buffalo, recommends asking yourself, “Are you keeping alcohol as ... a special beverage for limited situations, or are you engaging in alcohol use across the board?” A break from alcohol can lead to a range of outcomes. As we’ve reported, a 2016 British study of people who participated in a monthlong “Dry January” break, found that 82% said they felt a sense of achievement. “Better sleep” was cited by 62%, and 49% said they lost some weight. Maybe you hike farther, have better conversations or get better sleep. Notice if your life feels richer to you. If we’re stuck at home for now, why not give it a try? What do you have to lose?

‘Do as I say’: Anger as some politicians ignore virus rules (AP) Denver’s mayor flies to Mississippi to spend Thanksgiving with his family—after urging others to stay home. He later says he was thinking with “my heart and not my head.” A Pennsylvania mayor bans indoor dining, then eats at a restaurant in Maryland. The governor of Rhode Island is photographed at an indoor wine event as her state faces the nation’s second-highest virus rate. While people weigh whether it’s safe to go to work or the grocery store, the mayor of Austin, Texas, heads to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, on a private jet after hosting a wedding for 20. California’s governor dines at a swanky French restaurant with lobbyists, none wearing masks, a day after San Francisco’s mayor was there for a birthday party. Both had recently imposed tough rules on restaurants, shops and activities to slow the spread of the virus. To the public’s chagrin, some of America’s political leaders have been caught preaching one thing on the coronavirus and practicing another. Sure, politicians have long been called out for hypocrisy. But during a pandemic that’s forced millions into seclusion and left many without paychecks, such actions can feel like a personal insult—reinforcing the idea “that some people just don’t have to follow the rules while the rest of us do,” says Rita Kirk, a professor of communications at Southern Methodist University. Pandemic-era hypocrisy has only deepened the polarization in a time already marked by division, emboldening those who doubt the seriousness of the virus and dividing people’s responses based on political affiliations.

Hacked networks will need to be burned ‘down to the ground’ (AP) It’s going to take months to kick elite hackers widely believed to be Russian out of the U.S. government networks they have been quietly rifling through since as far back as March in Washington’s worst cyberespionage failure on record. Experts say there simply are not enough skilled threat-hunting teams to duly identify all the government and private-sector systems that may have been hacked. FireEye, the cybersecurity company that discovered the intrusion into U.S. agencies and was among the victims, has already tallied dozens of casualties. It’s racing to identify more. “We have a serious problem. We don’t know what networks they are in, how deep they are, what access they have, what tools they left,” said Bruce Schneier, a prominent security expert and Harvard fellow. Many federal workers—and others in the private sector—must presume that unclassified networks are teeming with spies. Agencies will be more inclined to conduct sensitive government business on Signal, WhatsApp and other encrypted smartphone apps. The only way to be sure a network is clean is “to burn it down to the ground and rebuild it,” Schneier said.

College students recruited as teachers to keep schools open (AP) As the coronavirus sidelines huge numbers of educators, school districts around the country are aggressively recruiting substitute teachers, offering bonuses and waiving certification requirements in order to keep classrooms open. Coming to the rescue in many cases are college students who are themselves learning online or home for extended winter breaks. In Indiana, the 4,400-student Greenfield-Central school district about 20 miles (32 kilometers) east of Indianapolis made a plea for help as its substitute pool shrank. “I said, ‘If you’ve got a student who’s in college, maybe they’d like to work even a two-month thing for us—which would be a stopgap, no doubt—but it will help us a whole, whole bunch,” said Scott Kern, the Greenfield-Central Community School Corporation director of human resources. Over a dozen college students answered the call including his own daughter, 19-year-old Grace Kern, who is studying medical imaging technology at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. She has been working in elementary school classrooms, helping students as teachers offer instruction remotely via a screen inside the room.

An Ex-Governor Is Gunned Down, Punctuating a Deadly Year for Mexico (NYT) The former governor of the state of Jalisco was gunned down early Friday while vacationing in the resort city of Puerto Vallarta, the authorities said, a brazen killing that further illustrated the government’s struggles to rein in the deadly violence that has surged across Mexico over the past five years. The killing of the ex-governor, Aristóteles Sandoval, who was shot in the back inside a restaurant restroom, is one of the highest-profile political killings in Mexico in recent memory, security experts said. Mr. Sandoval was killed just hours before President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his cabinet delivered a grim update on the nation’s security situation during a news conference. More than 31,000 murders were recorded in Mexico this year as of November, the latest month for which government statistics are available, a figure roughly on pace with 2019. But homicides have nearly doubled over the past five years.

Bosnian city of Mostar gets a vote (AP) Irma Baralija is looking forward to Sunday, when she intends to vote and hopes to win her race as the southern Bosnian city of Mostar holds its first local election in 12 years. To make that vote possible in her hometown, the 36-year-old Baralija had to sue Bosnia in the European Court of Human Rights for letting a stalemate between two major nationalist political parties prevent her, along about 100,000 other Mostar residents, from voting or running in a municipal election for over a decade. By winning in court in October 2019, Baralija believes she has “busted the myth (that nationalist parties) have been feeding to us, that an individual cannot move things forward, that we matter only as members of our ethnic groups.” Left without fully functioning institutions, Mostar—one of the impoverished Balkan country’s main tourist destinations—has seen its infrastructure crumble, trash repeatedly pile up on its streets and hazardous waste and wastewater treatment sludge dumped in its only landfill, which was supposed to be for non-hazardous waste.

India’s virus cases cross 10 million as new infections dip (AP) India’s confirmed coronavirus cases have crossed 10 million with new infections dipping to their lowest levels in three months, as the country prepares for a massive COVID-19 vaccination in the new year. Dr. Randeep Guleria, a government health expert, said India is keeping its fingers crossed as the cases tend to increase in winter months. India is home to some of the world’s biggest vaccine-makers and there are five vaccine candidates under different phases of trial in the country.

Israel’s top-secret Mossad looks to recruit via Netflix, Hulu and Apple TV (Washington Post) After decades in the shadows, Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, the Mossad, has been getting a lot of airtime, both on the news and in popular TV thrillers. In real life, details of operations attributed to Israel are in the open like never before, including the theft two years ago of a trove of nuclear secrets from inside Iran, last summer’s drive-by killing of al-Qaeda’s No. 2 in Tehran and the assassination last month of Iran’s top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. And on the screen, streaming hits like Apple TV Plus’s “Tehran,” Netflix’s “The Spy” and Hulu’s “False Flag” have starred the Mossad as a cold, ruthless and efficient machine. Far from squirming, the once-supersecret agency has welcomed the exposure, former spies say. The Mossad needs recruits. Military veterans who might have once made their career in national service now leave to work for lucrative start-ups, or found their own. Israeli companies Waze, Wix, Viber and others were started by intelligence veterans. In response, Yossi Cohen, the Mossad’s director since 2016 and a close ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has embarked on a hiring spree, increased the agency’s number of sabotage operations and enlarged its budget by billions of shekels. The Mossad’s recruitment drive includes a heightened social media presence and a calculated trickle of unconfirmed information about its exploits. And former spies say the agency is quietly embracing a slew of TV shows and movies that could do for the agency what “Top Gun” famously did for naval recruitment: make a life in the organization seem cool again.

Chaos and jubilation as freed Nigerian schoolboys reunite with family (Reuters) Parents sobbed, mobbed their children in hugs and even kissed the ground in gratitude on Friday as they reunited with scores of schoolboys who had been kidnapped a week earlier in northwest Nigeria. Hundreds of adults jostled to find their offspring among the 344 dusty and dazed looking children who had arrived by bus in Katsina state on Friday morning. Those who succeeded cheered and grabbed their children, but scores more were still waiting by early evening. “I feel like God has granted me paradise because I am so happy,” said an ebullient Hamza Kankara after she found her son, Lawal, in the crowd. Another man knelt and kissed the ground, thanking God for the return of his young son, before clutching the boy and sobbing.

#headlines #news

[artyloreviews]

Death Stranding (2019) - The Incoherent Ramblings of a Porter

Death Stranding is an equally flawed as it is innovative. Hideo Kojima’s new entry, unbound from the chains of his previous corporate affiliation is a divisive one, but offers much, both technologically and narratively. While perhaps not as memorable as the former Metal Gear series, it is an attempt at an experience that would otherwise be immediately shunned, were it not for the name and talent attached to it.

Death Stranding, much to no one’s surprise, is one of the most divisive titles to release among critics and players alike. As a longstanding fan of Hideo Kojima’s work, I too was questioning whether or not the experience of going through Death Stranding was worthwhile, as some notable review websites, following the lifting of the review embargo, refused to rate the game - let alone play it. There is some fault in me reading reviews prior to experiencing it for myself, but I believe it is necessary to disclose that particular bias, in spite of my somewhat feverish favor of Metal Gear and my almost instantaneous pre-order of the title upon it becoming available. I would go as far as to say that my acquisition of a PlayStation 4 had been somewhat influenced by the announcement of said new “independent” Hideo Kojima game all the way back in 2016. To say that I had nothing but expectations, would be an understatement. The reception being as divisive as it is makes it difficult to be objective on the topic, so I will allow myself the irregular personal remark every once in a while, if need be – consider that what you will. Think of this as less of a review, and more like the condensed ramblings of a madman. Alongside that, I will attempt to be as spoiler free as possible – at least for a time. I will make it clear whenever that is no longer true. If that sounds good to you, let us move onto the brunt of the topic…

Death Stranding is a spectacularly boring game. The eternal debate whether games should innately be fun or engaging comes to mind almost instantaneously upon first impression. You’ve most likely heard it: “Mindless busywork”. “Walking Simulator”. All signifiers of the core gaming demographic’s displeasure with whatever the fuck Death Stranding is. Its director Hideo Kojima, calls it a “strand game” – the first of its kind. Something I would consider to be one massive taunt towards the public, as if saying: “We’ve made something that didn’t exist before - a new color of game.” How much of that is true remains to be seen, as the future of strand games as a genre will likely be decided, depending on whether there will be many new strand games entering the ecosystem, or if the originator of the term remains the only example of their existence. The fundamental idea of the strand game is not an unfamiliar or an unappealing one – it’s what up until now was called “asynchronous multiplayer” or “network/online features”. Death Stranding is a single-player game at its core, but these online features are somewhat more integrated into the experience. Another term comes to mind that could perhaps adequately describe how that online element is integrated, and I believe its derivation from an antiquated term for a certain subset of MMO games is not coincidental - Death Stranding is a “persistent world”. Looking at Death Stranding as a type of MMO is not too farfetched, I believe. The importance of social aspects in that type of games is not to be understated and it just so happens to be one of the core themes not only of the strand game, but Kojima’s recent beliefs as a whole.

Surprisingly for some, the thematic elements of Death Stranding are not so obtuse and impenetrable like in the Metal Gear series, but rather surface level in comparison. In essence, it is a game about reconnecting people in an age of social isolationism. Kojima hints that the internet has served to connect people, but also widen the gap in actual physical connections through its ease of use and accessibility, making people more likely to stay at home and connect via all manner of messaging services, rather than meet face to face. This topic is also likely more culturally significant to members of countries like Japan and the USA, as the notion of isolationism in general has had a greater effect diachronically, as domestic interests outweighing the need for more outward connections has been at the center of both countries’ foreign policy at one point or another. It comes as no surprise then, that a Japanese studio sets their game in a ravaged American wasteland where conversations and physical contact are merely superficial, goods and services are delivered via a third party, and the outside is seen as hostile and the idea of connection is seen as dangerous.

The game’s story, however, seems to be disconnected from all of this. I would go as far to say, that you could change the themes for something else entirely and the implications would remain the same. The writing seems more interested in revealing the deciphered cryptic marketing materials shown prior to the game’s release. Phrases such as “Create the rope.”, “Tomorrow is in your hands.”, “Stick vs. Rope” and just the word “Strand” are littered everywhere, drawing vague lines between plot events, real world history and cultural practices, and Kojima’s own brand of conjecture. The naming conventions for people and things remain as campy as they’ve ever been, as the translation from Japanese to English seems to yet again have been the difference between something that sounds cool and western, to completely banal.

On a technological level, the game is a masterpiece. From simple rendering, to the way physics is implemented, to the effects and lighting. Kojima Productions (often abbreviated to KojiPro) have mastered their 3D scanning technology, since the creation of the Fox Engine and Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain. Death Stranding was practically sold on the idea of featuring notable voice and film actors such as Norman Reedus, Mads Mikkelsen, Léa Seydoux, Troy Baker, Margaret Qualley, Tommie Earl Jenkins, Lindsay Wagner and directors such as Guillermo Del Toro and Nicolas Winding Refn. Most people will likely see this as Kojima boasting about his connections to Hollywood celebrities, but the fact remains, that this is a star-studded cast of an incredibly high caliber. Particularly commendable are Troy Baker and Tommie Earl Jenkins, who through use of this technology enhance the fidelity of their in-game performance to almost life-like proportions.

The individual systems that make up the core mechanics of Death Stranding are made with the same level of attention to detail as one would expect from KojiPro. The same maximalist control scheme that spans the entire controller that was made infamous with Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater makes a return in all of its “hold three different buttons and time a fourth correctly to perform an action you will have to do repeatedly” glory. However, the amount of menu time one has to indulge in has increased tenfold, as any and all rejiggering one has to do with their inventory and or interacting with the world requires about 2-3 button presses, holding a button to confirm and waiting through about 3-4 “micro-cutscenes” which are individually skippable by pressing 2-3 buttons per scene, even if you’ve seen that particular animation play thousands of times. And you will be seeing some of these animations thousands of times, because they are there for everything and anything, from the most core of mechanics, to the things you would never care to even see, let alone do. This is a very long-winded way of getting to perhaps the game’s biggest detractor:

Death Stranding does not value your time. Everything is very laborious, slow, monotonous and sluggish. While eventually you could get into the grove of things and begin to look at it in a different light, the fact remains, the game fundamentally works against you in every way, because the as view of it all likely reveals how little there is of Death Stranding to actually experience. Some have expressed that it should be looked at as more of a meditative experience, where the journey is not merely a means to an end, but rather time for you to be with your own thoughts and explore. While I wholeheartedly agree that that is somewhat of the core Death Stranding experience, I have to disagree that the game’s meditative nature and exploration are player-driven. Even the story itself has glaring pacing issues and it often wastes massive amounts of the player’s time through tedious backtracking, just so there can be a few hours of game in between cutscenes, even when everything is clearly urgent. Even some of the more appealing set pieces, get cut short as a spontaneous blurt of synth noises plays whenever even an insignificant gameplay event takes place.

Ludvig Forsell’s original score for the game is simply fantastic. While it doesn’t have the character of the scores for previous Kojima titles like those by Norihiko Hibino and Harry Gregson-Williams, it does retread the familiar cinematic tropes that seem to be more of what Kojima’s vision is shifting towards nowadays. Forsell’s prior work for Kojima on MGSV:TPP was forgettable, save for maybe one or two tracks, but for Death Stranding he seems to have had free reign to compose for this new IP, and has made some highly moving tracks that play sparingly in important plot moments, giving them that extra punch. Ludvig’s heavy use of synths is highly welcome, as it seems to be more of his specialty, rather than the grand orchestral compositions. In addition to the score, Kojima has picked out some select licensed tracks. Those seem to be of varying and sporadic quality, and barely any thematic connection to the game. It appears to be Kojima’s new thing; to just put in whatever he thinks will sound good and hope that it fits with little consideration as to its cohesion. Hideo’s recent displays of his taste in music seem to be embodied by the inclusion of one Icelandic band - Low Roar, whose entire discography is seemingly included, and frankly is the only one of the musical choices that seems to fit the tone and atmosphere of Death Stranding’s world, featuring somewhat melancholic and subdued vocals, backed by mellow synths and pads, slow drum beats and droning guitar. Low Roar seem to even have the range for more imposing tracks, as shown in the reveal trailer’s “I’ll Keep Coming” and the in-game track “Give Me an Answer”. If Low Roar were to be the only inclusion, I would frankly be happier than the menagerie of tracks that the in-game player provides. It is one of those cases, where less would mean more, as it would indicate a clearer vision than the strange assortment of tracks seemingly pulled straight from Hideo Kojima’s incredibly expensive Walkman.

I recommend you play Death Stranding for yourselves, despite my bold claims. I wish I could tell you why, but it is a Hideo Kojima game after all. Much lies in context and that frankly is as much as I can muster without going into it deeper. This is the point where I will not so reluctantly have to go into spoilers. And when I say spoilers, I actually mean “beat the game”. We will have to retread on some of the previous points with the benefit of hindsight. I’ve intentionally barely said anything about the actual content of the game but the briefest remarks, which you might find disappointing, but I assure you it is necessary. I would go as far to say that this is where the real review actually begins. Read beyond this point at your own peril:

Death Stranding is a spectacularly boring game… and it has to be. The ending of Episode 2 is what shifts the paradigm irreversibly. The moment Higgs – the particle of god that permeates all of existence, reappears following his brief appearance in the inciting incident with the corpse disposal team and kicks you in the head with the words: “So how ‘bout it? Aren’t you tired of the grind? Isn’t this what you’ve been waiting for this whole time? A game over!?” Up to that point, I could understand the frustration that most people had with it. I myself even contemplated if this is worth my time, and was considering quitting the whole endeavor, genuinely seeing it as pointless busywork with little to no variation. But after it? Boy, was I reinvigorated to endure just a little bit more. Higgs’ fourth wall break was just a subtle wink, a hint that all of this was intentional. It recontextualized the sluggishness and the drab grinding, where it was used to make the eventual reveal hit harder, the reveal that there is so much more to Death Stranding, so much we people don’t know. It makes you feel like you’ve passed a trial by fire, where you’ve been forced to use only the most basic mechanics for the first twenty or so hours, delivering everything by foot with no aid, only to be among the few who have shown the resilience to be rewarded with confirmation that it was not all in vain. The world is miserable, depressing and unforgiving. Small mistakes can be irreversible and that carries the weight of constant hypervigilance. But with Episode 3 Death Stranding shows its true face. Suddenly you have more structures than you know what to do with, you can build roads, you can drive vehicles, you can enhance your abilities with exoskeletons, you can customize your backpack with actual useful trinkets, covers and pockets. From a game that was slow and drab, it turned into a game about actually “Rebuilding America” piece by piece, creating infrastructure and using the online features to make the game better not just for yourself but for everyone!

What a strand game truly is, is very akin to an MMO, in more than one sense; and in my opinion it is frankly better. There is this anecdote I read on Twitter while I was playing through the game. It was about how the simple act of placing down a rope over some difficult terrain carried weight, because you wanted to throw the rope back, so someone else who is following your path, can use it too; how no other game does that or makes you think of feel that way. And that is what I think is at the core of Death Stranding’s gameplay loop, distilled into one meaningful choice. No longer do you have to thing only for your benefit, but for those who will follow in your footsteps.

Building structures is your stake into the future. When you finish the game, you will most likely not come back to it for a long time, but those structures will remain, even after you’re gone (at least until the timefall eats away through them) and other people will make use of them to accomplish their goals. I can say that there are few experiences as immersive as creating a path, that evades a camp of MULEs and a BT field though a perilous mountainside and seeing that someone else is using it. That single message that pops up onto your screen, makes it feel worth it. Even the simple act of walking down a path makes it so that if enough people walk along it, it will turn into a beaten path, which is much easier to see and usually has no snow on it making traversal less difficult – a mechanic that I do not know how I will live without in other exploration-based games. And KojiPro have made an effort to make sure you know that is intentional, as seen in some of the interviews and e-mails you get, where they discuss how things like oxytocin and “likecin” are produced from physical contact and receiving likes as a porter (or even how receiving too many can lead to addiction, like in the case of MULEs and Homo Demens). There is one particular correspondence with the crew of the first waystation you ever connect up to the chiral network, and how they’ve slowly stopped using the synthetic oxytocin that you delivered to them and began producing it naturally, because you’ve given them hope and they’ve been going outside and celebrating with each other – restoring physical contact. I can’t even explain the weird sensation of meeting your first set of NPC porters out and about. After such a long time of speaking only to holograms, beginning to doubt if there even is anyone out there – meeting two confused porters, running around doing deliveries with tools strapped to their suits and being able to wave to them (or even trade items) is such a surreal experience.

Those are some of the more immersive elements of the game and frankly, I wouldn’t mind to see those explored further. However, Kojima had other intentions, and that is where I and the game’s story diverge. Sam Porter Bridges is so far from me as a player, that he might as well not even be controlled by me. His actions in the plot are so oblivious, that it is hard to sympathize with him, especially so during the final hours of the game. Fragile literally forces into the plot your love for Amelie, as if the estranged brother, who does not give a single fuck about his family or his country that (mind you) no longer exists, cares about this “sister” of his, that he is even somewhat forced into going to save. The way she manipulates him into kicking Fragile to the curb is also one of the moment that drew an even larger divide between where I was and when Sam supposedly was, and I surmise most players felt the same. There is this sentiment that most people don’t even refer to him as Sam, but rather as Norman Reedus, since Sam is not even an empty vessel for the player, but something even more abstract; something like a character that you only get to pilot in between bad decisions made in cutscenes.

The eventual reveal that the entire main goal of the game was in vain from the beginning, that you were being manipulated by Amelie, who was never in danger and needed no saving, just so that the overly forced End of the World plotline can take place, presented as a major subversion, felt expected. “Just like how The Patriots turn out to have been manipulating Snake in Metal Gear Solid from the beginning.”, I told myself when first listening to that pivotal Mario and Princess “Beach” dialogue. The fight with the big BT with Higgs stuck to it, firing rockets at the middle section and the radar dis-- I mean right shoulder of the BT genuinely felt like fighting Metal Gear Rex - especially with Troy Baker screaming in reverberated pain like Cam Clarke did in MGS1. That, followed by a hand to hand fistfight atop Re-- I mean, in a sea of tar with fighting game health bars and stamina meters to save the woman in the background – just like in my Metal Gear video game. It’s pretty blatant and it doesn’t really take a keen eye to see it.

“Getting a little touchy-feely there, Mr. Aphenphosmphobia. Well, congratulations. You won the game. Too bad you didn’t stop shit…” is where the game probably should have ended. What follows is what I would consider to be Kojima’s weirdest decision to date – explaining everything that was confusing and tying up loose ends in the same game that creates them. The next four-five chapters are just that – exposition dump after exposition dump. Nothing left for consideration, no pondering as to what something means. Kojima singlehandedly offered a MGS4 to his MGS1. A key to all questions at the very end, so that nothing is left uncertain.

Which takes me to my next point – the interviews. Slowly but steadily, the idea of the “codec conversation” in Kojima’s repertoire is phased out by optional cassette tapes or in the case of Death Stranding, actual text exposition dumps. Previously you’d at least get to appreciate someone reading them to you in character, but now you have to go through hundreds of emails and interviews by yourself. I can’t begin to imagine what understanding some of the concepts of the game is like without going through the interviews, even if I haven’t gotten to read them, as it most likely requires 100% completion. In Metal Gear, seeking out new codec conversations in random parts and events of Metal Gear, ensured there was quite a large amount of replayability and you’d usually find new details about characters or helpful tips and strategies on repeat a playthrough, but now, once you’ve completed the game, there is nothing new or different – It’s always going to be the same interviews, in the same place, at the same time. Death Stranding has no replay value whatsoever. Once you’ve seen it, you’ve seen all of it.

Speaking of in-game players and Walkman earlier reminded me that there is also the surprising absence of a portable music player in-game, for what is probably the most musically saturated Kojima title in years, as music is only available to you while resting in your private room or in a safe house, where you can listen to the owner’s collection of tracks, even those obtained later in the game. This is in a game, where about 90% of your time with it is in complete silence, save only the odd interjection by Sam, mumbling something to himself and the sounds of the wind and falling rocks in the distance. I feel like I would genuinely feel so much better and could stomach most of the detracting elements of Death Stranding, if I could only play some Low Roar, as I discover a nice view and decide to take a short rest to take it all in. If a game like Metal Gear Solid 4 could have an MP3 player in it and even load some podcast in for you in the goddamn war-ravaged Middle East, then surely we could have had one in this one as well, right?

The quality of Kojima’s writing also varies wildly, as genuine moments of subtlety and clever world-building are followed by incessant amounts of tutorialization, presented as dialogue that an actual human is supposed to produce in a way that sounds natural. All of that, mixed with hundreds, if not thousands, of different ways of saying “Thank you, you’ve really saved us out here!”, “Could you deliver this for me?” and “Boy, we sure do feel connected out here, thanks to you!”, littered with thousands of emoticons and expressions of adoration for your skillful and vitally important delivery of a couple of packages of old magazines and some rocks. This, complemented by the late realization that the world of Death Stranding isn’t actually that large in scale, so much so that I would bet you can pinpoint exactly were on the map a location is, given only a screenshot of a random assortment of moss and rubble; all makes the over-exaggeration of the effects of your feats seem like genuine lies, placed there to make you feel a false sense of accomplishment. Perhaps they do it with good and earnest intent in rewarding you for the things you’ve done for them, but you know what you’ve delivered, and you know it’s not that important most of the time.

A section of the game that I was particularly fond of was Episode 11 – i.e. the final episode for Cliff Unger in Vietnam. I recommend you all play that sequence again via the figurines behind Sam in his break room, but with “The End” by The Doors playing in the background. The whole bit is clearly an homage to Apocalypse Now and it almost feels timed to the beat. I felt like it was supposed to play, but they couldn’t get the license to it, so I added it on top myself and at that point I could feel Kojima and I enjoying the sentiment on the same wavelength. This is also the episode where Mads Mikkelsen finally gets enough screen time for you to really get an appreciation for his performance, which up until now had been quite subdued. Cliff is fear-inducing and nightmarish upon introduction, his voice reverberating throughout the battlefield, but with the events of Episode 11 you begin to see his more tragic side of the story’s main events. Mikkelsen lends his talent completely to the whims of Kojima, and that makes for an outstanding performance, much like those by Troy Baker and Tommie Earl Jenkins, yet somehow felt misused and underplayed, as Cliff simply fades away from existence.

The game’s ending has me holding conflicting opinions: at the same time, I genuinely do not understand why anyone would care enough for Amelie, not to empty a clip into her back, much as I did immediately upon being given the option, and at the same time despising having to just witness the non-decision you have to make in the game’s final moments. Having no choice but to hug her and listen to her ponder upon existence, and eventually having her make the decision herself whether or not to initiate judgement day. You only have to run around aimlessly and listen to her monologue about how much she cares, as your trigger finger is still itching to end it all, as the game eventually wins itself. Stylistically impeccable and unnerving, as the uncertainty of what is going to happen, continues to grow, only to climax with a whimper of what feels like a glorified deus ex machina. This is followed by Tommie Earl Jenkins’ powerful final scene, breaking down a character that up until now had seemed one-note and bereft of any emotional depth, only to reinvigorate him and shed any doubt as to who and what he represents in the world of Death Stranding. That however is thrown away, as it steps aside for the epilogue with Lou, as Sam has somehow synthesized a connection to him exactly as Deadman takes him away to delete his memories and their connection, yet Sam manages to carry it to the very end, where it is ultimately revealed that after all the displays of his renewed connection to the people and the world around him, he still doesn’t care for anyone or his country, burning his cuffs and forgoing it all, yet Lou is somehow exempt from Sam Porter Bridges’ final moment of decicive introversion. Even after all of this, Kojima adds one final series of subversions, as Sam is revealed to have been Cliff Unger’s son, through whose eyes we’ve been seeing those dream sequences, finally stitched together into one cohesive whole at the very end, revealing a backstory that ties up loose ends no one was really asking to have tied up. And also, Lou is apparently Louise – a girl. The ending is divisive, because you have the actual tangible story of Sam growing to accept people in his life, getting used to the taste of Fragile’s cryptobiotes and building a relationship with her, ridding himself of his phobia and getting in touch with the people around him like Deadman and Die-Hardman, connecting everyone in the UCA into a whole and living to see another day – only to throw it away at the last minute, but not entirely, out of fear that something would be left unaccounted for. It could have been so much more, or if not, at least somewhat better executed.

When it comes to technical execution, the game is spotty, but ultimately very well made. The physics of just walking from point A to point B are probably the most impressive thing you’ll probably experience this decade, even if it is sometimes unwieldy and comical. The whole element of keeping balance and the implementation of inverse kinematics to any terrain, is a marvel to behold and it will frankly be difficult to play anything that doesn’t have that much depth anytime soon. One could only wish they had put that much attention to detail into the vehicles, which drive like a load of bricks even on flat ground. When it comes to pure visual fidelity, the Decima Engine is stunning in its execution of photorealistic graphics when in the hands of KojiPro. The amount of landscaping that has taken place is probably mind-blowing, as a lot of the routes that the game takes you through are plotted in such a way as to lead to wide open areas of land, where the game’s more introspective moments occur, where you’ve just crossed a difficult to pass field of BTs or hostile terrain and the camera pulls back from Sam and captures the vista that unfolds before you, as the melancholic tones of a Low Roar begin to pierce the silence. I say it takes you there, because for those who have tried to make some more extreme routes, will know well that there are actually quite a lot of invisible walls all around you at all times, allowing routes to mainly take place in certain sections of the map. You still have the freedom to place whatever items in whatever location you wish, but there is almost always a clear alternate route that you can take, which more often than not has been placed there by the developers and only needs you to place the ladders and ropes along it. This is what I meant earlier in the piece by the exploration not necessarily being player-driven. The invisible hand of KojiPro is there to guide you at all times, as you can never really stray too far from the intended path, believing that you are doing so of your own free will and creativity.

Death Stranding is a divisive game because it really tries so hard to be this artistically extravagant video game with great implications, but ultimately renders its greatest threat as a Mary Sue very late into the game, way beyond the average span of interest, while it already has a very charismatic and well-defined villain in the face of Higgs from the very beginning, who gets somewhat shortchanged into being the self-insert fourth-wall-breaking tool, who is only played as a means to someone else’s end. Everything past Episode 11 feels unnecessary and diminishes from what the game had already done perfectly until now. The game’s length in pacing are all over the place as well: Excluding what I would consider to be the mandatory grind of Episode 2, everything else genuinely seems like padding for time, going back and forth across the whole map multiples of times for seemingly arbitrary reasons, haphazardly going into BT infested zones for items of sentimental value, while the threat of annihilation looms over every encounter with them, and by the time something actually engaging happens, you’re often too exhausted to do it.

At the same time, it is also offers this incredible amount of progression and gradation compared to how you started out merely two chapters ago with your ever-expanding arsenal of infrastructure changing the fundamental core of the game. It features all-around outstanding performances (excluding some awful line-reads by Léa Seydoux, which is a shame, because her character could have been so much more, only to be reduced to a fast travel NPC with a catchphrase, which she never seems to be able to pronounce). There is the amazing social strand system that takes the game from a regular single-player slog, to a somewhat indescribable social multiplayer experience, where everyone it working towards the same goal, but helping each other along the way, making travel more efficient and hauling larger loads easier. It also presents this horrifying yet beautiful world, that gets easier to traverse the more you know about its hazards and people, and in a way builds sympathy for the plight these people endure in their post-apocalyptic dystopia. Death Stranding’s world is somehow empty, yet full of substance, yet one-note in scope, yet thematically rich. A game that is equal measure incredibly gratifying, boring as shit, visually and mechanically impressive, a surface level social commentary, a love letter to war and kaiju films, an Icelandic alt pop album and a walking simulator – truly a feat only Hideo Kojima himself and Kojima Productions could accomplish.

7/10

#death stranding #game review #review #opinion piece #sam porter bridges #fragile #cliff unger #higgs #norman reedus #lea seydoux #mads mikkelsen #tommie earl jenkins #essay #ramble #analysis

[arcticdementor]

Though its origins go back many years, Boris Johnson’s decisive victory in the general election was made possible by the unwillingness of most of the political class to learn the lessons of the 2016 Brexit referendum. Labour has suffered a cataclysmic defeat. The Liberal Democrats have been reduced to a disoriented rump, while the Independent Group for Change has evaporated along with the phantom of a new centre party. The DUP has been marginalised and the Brexit Party effectively liquidated. The unified Conservative Party that has been created in a matter of months, following generations of division over Europe, is an astonishing feat. The power Johnson commands in the Commons has no precedent for decades, and there is no serious opposition.

Yet outside government, British institutions are vehicles for a progressive mindset that is hostile to much of what he aims to achieve. This places a question mark over whether he will be able to secure the conjunction of political power with cultural legitimacy that Antonio Gramsci, one of the most penetrating 20th-century political thinkers, called hegemony.

…

For the two wings of British progressivism – liberal centrism and Corbynite leftism – the election has been a profound shock. It is almost as if there was something in the contemporary scene they have failed to comprehend. They regard themselves as the embodiment of advancing modernity. Yet the pattern they imagined in history shows no signs of emerging. Any tendency to gradual improvement has given way to kaleidoscopic flux. Rather than tending towards some rational harmony, values are plural and contending. Political monotheism – the faith that only one political system can be right for all of humankind – has given way to inescapable pluralism. Progress has ceased to be the providential arc of history and instead become a prize snatched for a moment from the caprice of the gods.

…

In these pages in October I suggested that British politics had reached a Hobbesian moment. Voters demanded a government, not anarchy presided over by a gibbering rabble. The clean-out in the Commons followed from this imperative. The single most important lesson of the previous three and more years is the abject incompetence of Britain’s centrist political class. Their comical despair today comes from their inability to grasp the part they played in the debacle that has engulfed them.

…

A hint of what was to come could be seen in the debacle of the People’s Vote (PV) campaign. Reported as the outcome of organisational conflicts and clashing personalities, its implosion in the run-up to the election revealed the basic contradiction in the Remain movement. Alastair Campbell, an éminence grise of the campaign, has written that it failed because it could not explain to people why, when the country had voted for something, it should not happen. In fact, everyone knew the sole reason for a second referendum was to nullify the first. That is why a section of the PV campaign opted for Revoke. Searching for a unique selling point, the Liberal Democrats did the same. Preferring the risk of a Jeremy Corbyn government to Brexit, Remainer grandees and centrist journals and commentators backed Jo Swinson’s extremism. In turn, she triggered an election that made Brexit inevitable. There is a certain rationality in politics, it seems, after all.

…

While the liberal centre has disappeared as a significant force in politics, the future of the Corbynite ascendancy has yet to be decided. If, as some are already speculating, Keir Starmer proves most able to unite the party and its affiliated organisations, Corbynism could become not much more than a divisive faction. Wisely, Starmer has accepted the finality of Brexit. In the interests of continuity, he has talked up his humble origins and will make much of his work with trade unions. But he remains ineffably the candidate of the woke bourgeoisie in the party’s mass membership and metropolitan redoubts, and in practice could well complete the detachment of Labour from its working-class roots that Corbynism has accelerated. Rebecca Long-Bailey, the Corbynite continuity candidate despite her protestations otherwise, is campaigning on the basis that Labour voters who rejected Corbyn’s message were mistaken, so it is they – not her party – that must change.

…

Corbynism was Marxian in the sense that Oswald Mosley was Keynesian. But it is by using a Marxian idea of hegemony that Labour’s future, and that of Johnson’s Conservatives, can best be plotted. Corbynite Labour is a morbid symptom of the decay of centrism. The problem Johnson faces is that while he exercises unassailable power in government, British institutions as a whole remain vehicles of progressivist ideology.

…

Representing Johnson’s government as neoliberalism in populist clothing misses the regime shift that is taking place. Horror at the spectre of “Singapore-on-Thames” is a sign of ignorance and confusion. Singapore is far from being an untrammelled market economy. Land is the property of the state, and around 80 per cent of the island’s housing supplied by a government corporation. A highly effective civil service is engaged with companies and active throughout society. Singapore is a success story of managed capitalism, not the free market.

A Singaporean model cannot be transplanted here. Britain is a large, multinational, unevenly developed country, not a city state (though London now resembles one). But Johnson will need something like Singapore-style government if he is to keep his working-class voters on board. Dominic Cummings’s proposals for renovating the state machine reflect this fact.

…

Whether Johnson can retain his commanding position depends in the short term primarily on how well he maintains his pact with his new voters. If working-class jobs are hit hard by tariffs in the event of a hard Brexit, Labour has a chance to revive rapidly. The votes that have been lent to Johnson were part of a transaction in which greater economic security was a vital component. Working-class Labour supporters who turned to Johnson after a decade of Conservative austerity did so, in part, because they perceived him as a different kind of Conservative. A spate of closed factories and bankrupt farmers could discredit this perception.

…

If only people aged between 18 and 24 had voted in the general election, Corbyn would have won an enormous majority. No doubt this is partly because of Corbyn’s promise to abolish student tuition fees and the difficulties young people face in the housing and jobs markets. But their support for Corbyn is also a by-product of beliefs and values they have absorbed at school and university. According to the progressive ideology that has been instilled in them, the West is uniquely malignant, the ultimate source of injustice and oppression throughout the world, and Western power and values essentially illegitimate.

Humanities and social sciences teaching has been largely shaped by progressive thinking for generations, though other perspectives were previously tolerated. The metamorphosis of universities into centres of censorship and indoctrination is a more recent development, and with the expansion of higher education it has become politically significant. By over-enlarging the university system, Blair created the constituency that enabled the Corbynites to displace New Labour. No longer mainly a cult of intellectuals, as in Orwell’s time, progressivism has become the unthinking faith of millions of graduates.

When Labour voters switched to Johnson, they were surely moved by moral revulsion as well as their material interests. As polls have attested, they rejected Labour because it had become a party that derided everything they loved. Many referenced Corbyn’s support for regimes and movements that are violently hostile to the West. Some cited anti-Semitism as one of the evils their parents or grandparents had gone to war to defeat. For working class voters, Labour had set itself against patriotism and moral decency. For Corbynites, in the form in which they are held by what is still a majority of British people, these values can only be expressions of false consciousness. Labour’s dilemma is whether it continues to promote progressive orthodoxy or tries to reconnect with its traditional voters.

…

Liberal or Corbynite, the core of the progressivist cult is the belief that the values that have guided human civilisation to date, especially in the West, need to be junked. A new kind of society is required, which progressives will devise. They are equipped for this task with scraps of faux-Marxism and hyper-liberalism, from which they have assembled a world-view. They believed a majority of people would submit to their vision and follow them. Instead they have been ignored, while their world-view has melted down into a heap of trash. They retain their position in British institutions, but their self-image as the leaders of society has been badly shaken. It is only to be expected that many should be fixated on conspiracy theories, or otherwise unhinged. The feature of the contemporary scene progressives fail to understand, in the end, is themselves.

Johnson’s dilemma is how to cement his alliance with the working class while the cultural establishment remains wedded to progressivist values. It may be that hegemony is no longer possible for his or any political project. Society may remain fragmented indefinitely, and in some areas unalterably polarised.

…

Boris Johnson has come to power at a moment of high uncertainty. Progressive theories that claimed to divine the future have proved as trustworthy as Roman auguries. Gramsci’s belief that the working class makes history has turned out to be right, at least in Britain, but not in the way he and his disciples imagined. Somewhere in the heavens, the gods are laughing.

#john gray #the new statesman #united kingdom

[hooliganstreetjournal]

'white privilege' doesn't matter...racism rebranded

Ah.  Here we fucking go.  I don’t want to write about this subject because it’s been co-opted by cowards and waved around like a burning American flag.  The subject is…ugh…white privilege.  I can’t even say it without dry-heaving stomach acid fumes.  My fingers don’t even like punching it into existence, but here we are.

Before you stake what’s left of your charred flag, be open to the (dumb) idea of ‘white privilege’ and all of the inherent flaws that gather around it.  At the very base, what the fuck is this thing our silly culture has deemed ‘white privilege’?  

white privilege, as I understand it, is any benefit…ugh…white people receive, knowingly or otherwise, as a result of racism in our society.  

Please allow me to pull the tangled panties out of your sticky mousetrap with some caveats:

Not all white people benefit from white privilege.

Benefiting from white privilege doesn’t make the beneficiary racist in any way.

People of all colors benefit based on their skin color as well.

Less likely to get sunburned (example).

Does that make anyone feel better?  

Alright.  Back to this bullshit.  I think we can all agree, on some level, that racism exists in this country.  Let’s start there.  If you don’t agree with that, I don’t know what to tell you.

Why I have such a vehement distaste for the whole white privilege concept is that it is racism’s second-hand smoke.  Boil white privilege down and you inevitably get back to racism.  That’s all.  Why dress up the fucking pig?  Why coin this new term, white privilege, if the problem is racism?    

Most of us realize that racism exists.  Naturally, with racism, people with different colored skin will be treated differently.  When you treat people differently, for any reason, someone is going to bitch about fairness.  Leads us right back to racism (which we know is unfair).  Because white privilege is such a talking point, the most pathetic people in our society, media, has pumped it up.  Now, too many dorks are waving their flags, marching for, or against, racism’s second-hand smoke.  

Meanwhile, the racist continue to puff clouds of hate with three hands.  Don’t rebrand racism.  Racism is brutally divisive.  The entire platform of white privilege is a milder version of the same unnecessary division.  

Take race out of it, for a moment.  If someone said you, yes you, were receiving undeserved benefits.  And you took a step back, thought about it, and saw yourself in the same miserable middle-class position as everyone else — what would you think?  

We’re all full of ego and shit.  The last thing we want is to be labeled beneficiary for no reason and without reaping any rewards.  It separates “us” from “them” and plants more seeds of resentment.  Maybe you throw your hands up and say “Fuck that! I’m eating the same shit-sandwich as everyone else.”  Or maybe you try to prove how you haven’t received any undue benefits.  Either way, it’s not a pleasant feeling.  

So here we are.  white privilege divides again.  Sure, some white people recognize some level of advantage (back to the results of regular ol’ racism). Some of these people stand up, or march, or shout, or hug people of color in order to show their solidarity.  But these weren’t racist to begin with.  Benefiting or not, they’re breathing in the same second-hand smoke that everyone else is.  Whether they enjoy the cheap head-high is ultimately irrelevant.  

All we have is more noise.  More division, more outrage aimed at the wrong targets.  And racism does what racism does.  

What people maybe don’t want to hear is that racism is…ugh…unfortunately…human nature?  It’s born from ignorance and fear and it exists across the globe.  

If I could snap my fingers and make everyone exactly the same hue, guess what?  People would, probably immediately, team up.  By nose shapes, or armpit funks, or shoe size, they’d join clans and haters would continue right on hating.  That’s how it works.  Some people are dumb and/or afraid, and that’s their basic operating system.  

I appreciate the enthusiasm to squash out racism and all of its dirty affiliates.  But putting lipstick on the pig of racism isn’t going to make the world any better.  Sure, in many ways, our society was built right alongside racism.  (As most societies have been).  It’s not fair for all skin colors.  But to grandstand on behalf of, or even in opposition to ‘white privilege’ is simply slapping pointlessly at clouds of second-hand smoke.  

I don’t have an answer.  Maybe invite a racist to your party.  Maybe show them pictures of black people and give them treats when they don’t shriek.  Maybe just talk to them as you would any regular (flawed) human and try to figure out where it comes from.  So long as they’re not actively hurting anyone (name calling doesn’t count), be nice to them, and be nice to their kids.  And maybe, after all of us are dead and gone, there will be a more interesting subject to write about, rather than lame-ass racism.  

#white privilege #privilege #racism #racism rebranded #rebranding racism #people of color #grant woods #my writing #hugaracist

[thisismyobsessionnow]

sigh

#vaaaaaanity fair WTF #all I wanted today was to enjoy hopefully even more amazing Måneskin content #but no every time I see that name all I'm going to think about it that literal trash??? #I have absolutely no words for this #and I'm tired #I have no idea how affiliated the different country divisions are #but you all be aware that whatever love I show Vanity fair Italia today #that love is not extended to whatever trashy rumours their US 'journalists' are allowed to publish #because they can kindly fuck off

[justashh]

Assignment 1: Developing a Research Question

As an International Relations student I am deeply vested in the areas of social behaviour politics. It then, went without question, that I would look to the Outlook on Life Survey 2012 Code book. It contained a number of topic that I was interested to know more about. 

Though it took some time to figure out what would be my first topic, I eventually settled on voting behaviour. In Jamaica, where I’m from, voting behaviour is particularly interesting due to how nuanced it is. From tribalism to resulting conflict between rivaling fractions, the dynamics of how persons vote and why is a complex but seemingly riveting area of study. Though the Outlook on Life Survey studies issues in relation to Americans, I am interested in seeing how this parallels the reality of Jamaica.

So I picked my first topic; to reiterate, it’s voting behaviour. By canvassing the code book I was able to find 3 variables in relation to my topic. These were political affiliation,  interest in politics and government and personal political identity. 

I then started to think of what exactly about voting behaviour intrigues me and it dawned on me that this behaviour though nuanced typically relies on a few factors. In Jamaica, social class is a big factor in which party persons vote for as they different classes tend to have different interests and supports the party whose objectives and plans reflect this. I have no doubt that this is similar in America. Atleast, I would like to see if this similarity exists in America as well. Therefore, my topic of interest is social class. I looked through the code book again and find the variables use of food stamps, benefiting from social security and income level.

You may view excerpts from the code book relating to these variables here.

Therefore, the question at hand is, how closely are the indicators of social class related to voting behaviour.

Literature Review

According to Alford (1963), social class and political behavior are probably not as closely in the United States as in some other Anglo-American countries. He posits that there are no particular class interests that any party identifies themselves with. That is to say there is no outright connection to a class-based organization nor is there is campaigning for votes based on a party’s appeal to a particular class. However, that is not to say that policies may not inadvertently reflect certain economical interests which are closely reflect to those of a certain class. Therefore, the electorate votes based on the party that perceivably supports their vested economic interests.

In ascertaining how applicable this scenario is for the US electorate, it is important to define social class. The terms meaning has evolved over the years. Since class is inherently a divisive term, it makes sense to use the definition which shows support of the clearest cut and distinguished lines of differentiation; that would be the different income levels. Some persons might think of education levels, location and family background, however, based on the changes that have happened over these lines of differentiation have become muddled. However, divisions along the lines of lower, middle and higher based on varying levels of income attainment paint a better picture of the hierarchical groupings.

According to Stonecash (2012), Since the 1970s, income inequality has steadily increased – and electoral politics has also become more polarized, with Republicans and Democrats now taking strikingly different positions on many issues, including matters like taxes, the minimum wage, and social spending on programs for the middle class and the poor. This mere fact supports the Alford’s point that political parties tend to represent specific economic interests, at least perceivably so by the electorate.

Additionally, in examining the relation between class and voting behavior, it is important to look at how salient the former affects voter turnout. Socio-economic factors have been linked to voter turnout, with Kwon (2005) asserting that People with more education vote at much higher rates than those with less education, higher income and middle-class people are more likely to vote than lower income people. Taking these factors into consideration will give a better idea of how class affects the perception of the benefits of voting differently and how this perception affects voter turnout.

A popular idea is that rich people vote more frequently because they are more invested in the systematic institutions of the country as they have more to lose/gain. They have to protect this interest by voting ‘right’. But what is voting right, in terms of the perceived benefits to each individual class? Earlier works from Lipset, Lazarsfeld, Barton, and Linz (1954) acknowledge that the most impressive single fact is that in virtually every economically developed country the lower-income groups vote mainly for parties of the left, while higher income groups vote mainly for parties of the right. The explain this in terms of preserving economic self-interest. The explanation for this is simple economic self-interest. Lower income groups will support the party which reflects ideals of equality and are perceived as engines of social change; the leftist part. On the other hand, the higher income group will support the Rightist group to maintain their economic advantages.

 References

Stonecash, J. (2000). Class and Party in American Politics. Westview Press. Retrieved from https://scholars.org/contribution/does-class-matter-when-americans-vote

 Alford, R. (1963). The Role of Social Class in American Voting Behavior. The Western Political Quarterly:Vol. 16, No. 1 (Mar., 1963), pp. 180-194. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/445967?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Kwon, U. (2005). Who Voted?: Social Class and Participation in United States Presidential Elections. Dissertations. 1042. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/1042

Hypothesis

Higher-income earners are more likely to vote for the Republican party while Lower-income earners will lean towards the Democratic party. 

[hellohoroscopedates-blog]

Astrology, Daily Horoscope

In numerous bits of the world precious stone looking is thriving again in the twentieth century. In countries, for instance, India it has never lost its interest. No huge development in life can be safely endeavored with the exception of if the signs are propitious. No marriage will continue without horoscopes being drawn up.

 We conversed with precious stone gazer and Astro*Carto*Graphy ace Kimberly Peta Dewhirst about how newcomers may dive their toe into this heavenly practice — and advantage from it at the same time.

 If you understand your beginning, time, and date, you can investigate your own Astro*Carto*Graphy map on the web (Dewhirst likes Astrodienst's guide generator explicitly), yet prepare to be overwhelmed. "You get an enormous overabundance of 40 lines" streaking over a guide of the world, Dewhirst says. Appropriately known as the planetary lines, these lines demonstrate the areas of the world that were energetically affected by the planets at the hour of first experience with the world. Make an effort not to push if your head's currently turning — "it's genuinely jumbling," Dewhirst yields, anyway if you have a general understanding of the planets and what they address, you can in any occasion start to research your guide without any other individual.

 While looking own guide, Dewhirst raises one of my Venus lines, which cuts by Toronto, down through Ohio, and forward to cut up Honduras radiantly. She vivaciously prescribes I should book my next trip to Toronto, just to see what it takes after to visit a district so infested with flirtatious Venusian essentialness. Since Venus appears on my guide around there, I may feel logically flawless, all the additionally charming — and people may give more thought to me, Dewhirst explains.

 However, she incorporates, these effects are express to me and my guide. Locational soothsaying is a significantly near and dear kind of planetary comprehension and booking a one-on-one scrutinizing with a seer will give you a considerably more clear idea of how different bits of the world will impact you. Also, comparatively as with everything puzzling, locational precious stone looking may be used to rouse your next trip, yet it shouldn't be the primary factor you consider before booking your tickets.

 Ensuring an unfaltering movement  horoscope dates of new business is fundamental to every affiliation. Locate the World is the development business ace at making showed and innovative responses for invade overall markets, drive bit of the general business and addition salary.

 We are excited about arrangements and advancing, helping our development clients adventure into new promotes, explore new arrangements channels, win new customers and comprehend their overall potential.

 As your associate we work to empower you to make bargains depiction programs that meet your intriguing needs. Our equation for advancement is direct. We listen to you. You uncover to us what you have to accomplish. By then we build.

 It is connected to knowing you. It is connected to acknowledging who to center in each country to meet your objectives and pass on the perfect result. It is connected to being your picture in the close-by feature and passing on the right message to the right gathering of onlookers at the ideal time.

 Today, we have more than 65 working environments globally, conveying inventive arrangements and promoting answers for an alternate client base to help understand their market advancement challenges. Despite our middle arrangements and publicizing business, Discover the World is a development head, giving propelled game plans through its creative bigblueroad.com division.

 Our joined nature of talented neighborhood travel specialists and stimulating on the web advancement empowers our clients to extend advantage, open new promotes, hold and create associations, deal with issues and organization needs.

[niafrazier]

Making the Case for Beto O’Rourke

Full disclaimer: Beto is one of my top picks amongst the 2020 democratic field as of now. I’m a supporter but am in no way affiliated with his official campaign.

At a certain point, Beto O’Rourke was hailed by the media as basically the second coming of Obama, RFK, JFK, [insert any popular democratic figure from this past century… oh and Abe Lincoln]. After he unsuccessfully attempted to unseat Ted Cruz in the senate race, many people across the country were calling him to run for the presidency. He even surged in polling being just behind Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, both who virtually have 100% name recognition. His senate race garnered national attention and even caught Oprah’s attention (she practically begged him to run on her show FFS). Many (including me) grew to admire his authentic, organic, and down-to-earth approach to politics, which is especially refreshing to see given the fact that everything seems so contrived nowadays. So, he wrestled with his decision thoughtfully and eventually came around to the idea, officially tossing his hat into the ring on March 14th, 2019. But now? Right out the gate, the narrative has shifted, and to the mainstream media pundits and Twittersphere, he is seen as an empty-suited, entitled, misogynistic, arrogant dude dripping with white male privilege. What changed?  How is it that the media, the very one that contributed to the rise of “Betomania,” subsequently went into a frenzy and poo-pooed all over his rollout? The faux outrage, double standards, and cynicism directed at Beto by opinion writers, pundits, etc. have basically motivated me to give my own takes on the most common criticisms I’ve seen thus far. So, here we go:

 “ ‘Man, I’m just born to be in it?’ ”

I’m not gonna lie, taking a look at the Vanity Fair cover and seeing that quote was a facepalm moment. As predicted, this quote sparked outrage fairly quickly… given the optics of a privileged straight white man joining a race of several qualified women and POC… Understandably so.  However, upon reading through the whole article, I was able to grasp the essence of Beto’s words. Here’s what he says leading up to his declaration, expressing urgency:

 “This is the fight of our lives…not the fight-of-my-political-life kind of crap. But, like, this is the fight of our lives as Americans, and as humans, I’d argue.”

And now here’s the full quote: “Man, I’m just born to be in it, and want to do everything I humanly can for this country at this moment.”

 He’s not so much saying that he was born to be in a position of power, rather, he’s expressing that during such dire times, especially in U.S. democracy, he could not in good conscience be complacent and not take action. Just as he was drawn to serve his district in El Paso as a 6 year city council member and a 3-term congressman, he believes that at this moment, he has a purpose to serve the whole nation by being as actively involved in the national discussion as possible—to stand up to bigotry and divisiveness displayed by the current administration of the White House. Beto basically confirmed what I had thought after further inspection when he clarified his statement later (Google it. I’m having trouble with my hyperlinks right now). Could he have worded it better? Sure. I just reject the notion that this one gaffe is supposed to sum him up as an egotistical maniac… please. 

“He adds absolutely no value to the race”

This is arbitrary depending on what your key issues are, but I’m gonna give my take on why I think he’s an excellent addition to the race. So, I’ve been intrigued about the possibility of an O’Rourke presidential run since he’s hinted at it back in November. I really didn’t know much about him until toward the end of Midterm season, but the more I learned, the more impressed I became. (Side note: it was this clip that first caught my full attention.) What really fueled my interest in Beto though, was his stance on immigration. As a first generation Nigerian American, this topic is pretty personal to me. My parents were fortunate enough to have the opportunity to immigrate to America and raise me and my three other siblings. However, I’ve also seen firsthand the difficulty of not only getting through with the ridiculous process but also assimilating into this country. For so long, the Democrats haven’t really made immigration a central issue, until the Trump administration hijacked it and pushed the Overton window all the way to the right. With heightened xenophobia running rampant in this country as a result of this abhorrent presidency, it is pertinent that the Democrats not merely pay lip service to this issue any longer and take serious action. Beto has an advantage here: He’s grown up in and served as a U.S House Rep. in the border district of El Paso, also home to the largest binational community in the Northern hemisphere. He can add a lot to the national discussion and debate on the matter. When Trump came to El Paso, the local community organized a counter rally where Beto gave an impassioned speech about the border wall and immigration. It’s pretty long, but I highly recommend the watch. Furthermore, Beto has outlined a 10 point proposal on how best to approach the immigration issue, along with some facts about the border’s history, which you can read here. Immigration hasn’t really been a winning issue, and I honestly don’t see it being one in 2020. With that being said, I respect the fact that despite this, Beto has shown that this is an issue that he deeply cares about. If I’m being honest, even though comprehensive immigration reform is universally called for amongst Democrats, I doubt that anyone in the field will truly make immigration a main priority in their prospective presidencies. To me, Beto has shown that he will. Even if he doesn’t clinch the nomination, it still means a ton to me that we can have the potential to change the narrative of immigration in this country with serious discussion. With the way Beto is able to convey his message, I am hopeful for what’s to come.  

So, let’s talk about Texas. With the way Beto was able to energize the Democratic base in Texas, Democrats have the opportunity to put the Republican bastion state into play. With 38 electoral votes at stake, Texas is extremely crucial for the GOP. To put things in perspective, if Texas turned blue in 2016, President Hillary Clinton would have been a thing.

*Bonus: “He Lost to Ted Cruz lol… already a nonstarter”

Yes. But you know who else lost to Ted in Texas? Donald Trump. Cruz obliterated him in the Texas Republican primaries. I’m not saying Texas is guaranteed to turn blue with Beto on the ballot, but if we learned anything in 2016, it’s not to underestimate the possibility of seemingly blue or red states to flip at any given moment. The GOP has taken note of this. We’ve seen that Beto has a ton of appeal in Texas amongst not only Democrats but Never-Trump-Republicans and independents as well! If Beto is on that ballot, the GOP will most likely exhaust a ton of resources and money into Texas to keep it from going blue. This will only make other states that Trump won with the slimmest of margins vulnerable. Also… I find it disingenuous to make comparisons between Beto and other senators that hail from deeply blue states regarding electability. If Beto lost to Ted in California, then yeah… we could have a conversation about that.

“A woman running mate is his preference? Who does he think he is?”

The backlash on this surprised me, to be honest… Even Whoopi Goldberg blasted his ass for the statement on The View.  If I had to go on a whim here, I feel like it was the Vanity Fair article that sort of set the mood for Beto’s campaign thus far… because otherwise, I believe that this really wouldn’t have been a story. In fact, Beto is not the only male candidate to call for a woman VP. Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders have strongly hinted at choosing a woman running mate. Interestingly enough, I didn’t recall there being any backlash. Here are Beto’s full remarks on choosing a woman as his running mate:

"It would be very difficult not to select a woman with so many extraordinary women who are running right now, but first I would have to win and there's-- you know, this is as open as it has ever been."

This is very much the response I expected from Beto. Time and time again, he has openly acknowledged his privilege, even before getting hammered about it on social media. In the Vanity Fair article, he states his stance on lack of representation in Washington:

“The government at all levels is overly represented by white men,” he says. “That’s part of the problem, and I’m a white man. So if I were to run, I think it’s just so important that those who would comprise my team looked like this country. If I were to run, if I were to win, that my administration looks like this country. It’s the only way I know to meet that challenge.”

Furthermore, he is understanding and considerate of the fact that people are craving for diversity.  Here’s what he says:

“But I totally understand people who will make a decision [cast a vote in the primaries] based on the fact that almost every single one of our presidents has been a white man, and they want something different for this country. And I think that’s a very legitimate basis upon which to make a decision. Especially in the fact that there are some really great candidates out there right now.”

I know I don’t speak for all POC or women, but as a WOC myself, I took no issue to his statements. In fact, I appreciate his sensitivity to the issue and the fact that he doesn’t shy away from addressing uncomfortable topics in politics, such as race and representation.

Let’s just be glad he didn’t pull a Hickenlooper…. Jesus.

“Light on policy… but he stands on counters amirite?”

To discuss this point, it’s important to understand Beto’s campaign style. Beto is more like a blank canvass. What he does is first listen to people and their concerns, and then from there, he shapes his policies around that. He feels that this is the best way to serve the people. The point of his road trips and tours was not to lecture people on full fleshed policy proposals. There is debate on whether or not this is an effective strategy, and I do understand that people do like to know exactly what they’re signing up for before casting a vote. That’s why some people will more likely gravitate toward candidates like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who have been consistent in their messaging. However, I also think people underestimate the power of simply listening. Take these comments that a potential voter made concerning Beto’s ability to listen during his stop in South Carolina for example:

"I think if he keeps talking to the people and being able to listen, and not talk at the African-American voters. Talk to us. Listen to what we have to say… As long as you listen and then actually put forward ideas that are legitimate ideas to do things, then he will be fine.”

 While policy specifics are important, this is still the early stages of Beto’s campaign. Specifics, of course, will have to come at some point, especially when debates come around. Another critique I hear is Beto not having any policy proposals on his website yet. He’s not alone though.  Several candidates who have been running longer than he has don’t either. It’s also important to note that while people in the race most likely have been mulling a presidential run for several months or years, this has been something that came around to Beto as recent as November 2018. Stuff like this takes time. I think he has potential, however, in this area. For instance, as I mentioned earlier, he has put out a 10-point proposal on immigration. He also has a brief 5-point plan regarding criminal justice reform and legalization of marijuana. (Fun fact, he even coauthored a book concerning the legalization of weed.)  And it’s not like he hasn’t taken stances on issues ever either… I mean, he has a whole congressional record, and his townhalls give you an idea of where he stands on key issues. 

Oh... and about the countertops. Ugh. The fact that this really sparked outrage is comical. I’ve seen all sorts of takes on this from asserting his male dominance to throwing his youth in Bernie and Biden’s faces (lmao). At a campaign stop, the owner of the coffee shop that he was at asked him to stand on the countertop because people complained that they weren’t able to see Beto amongst the crowds and camera equipment (despite him being 6’4’’, ha). So then it just became a thing since. And he’s respectful about it in case anyone was wondering, lol. But there’s one thing I think both the Beto detractors and I can agree on: why tf is this getting media coverage? I do agree that there should be more coverage for other candidates concerning the real issues. However, the response shouldn’t be to go after Beto or chastise him for doing harmless acts during his campaign stops… Talk that up with the media. The ironic thing about this is that some of the media pundits complain about giving Beto so much coverage… all while giving Beto more coverage about the coverage he’s receiving… 🙄

So if you made it to the end of this extremely long effortpost, thank you. I actually had tons more to discuss but I’m not trying to make this into a novel. Anyways, I’ll say one last thing: 

Before going along with groupthink or engaging in the toxic political echo chamber that is Twitter, I implore you all to take a step back and actually get to know these candidates. Seek after local news outlets when candidates visit to get a feel of the vibes from locals. Go to Beto’s Facebook page and watch a town hall or two. You may come home with a different impression than what is portrayed in mainstream media. I can tell you that when I did this, the difference was night and day.  We have such an amazing field of contenders to choose from, and I’d hate for misinformation or bad-faith arguments to warp perceptions.   

#beto o'rourke #2020 #democratic primary #2020 election #politics

[antoine-roquentin]

Thus far, the media coverage of Mueller’s indictment has fixated on how all this could have happened, and probed whether the Trump campaign was involved. The answers to these questions will all emerge in time. The more troubling question is why it was so easy to make fools out of so many Americans.

Consider two things. First: While the Russians created fake accounts to pose as Americans on social media and buy ads, the technologies they deployed are all commonplace in the digital-marketing industry—this was no 007-style spycraft. Second: These days, Americans live in divisive, partisan information environments, chock-full of incendiary rhetoric. They have very low standards about the sources they accept as accurate, and yet aren’t great at parsing fact from fiction on the Internet. Even “digital natives”— young people most at home in an online information environment—have proven inept at judging credibility. In other words, when the Russians set out to poison American politics, they were pushing on an open door.

How does a ready-made toolbox for digital manipulation already exist? For that, we have the digital-advertising industry to thank.

In a recent study on the digital-advertising industry that we published with New America and Harvard’s Shorenstein Center, we analyzed how the tools of digital marketing can be readily repurposed by agents of disinformation. The basic idea is for advertisers to micro-target digital advertising at very specific demographic slices of social-media users to see how they respond. A disinformation operator could test hundreds of different messages, often aimed at thousands of different permutations of demographic groups on the advertising platforms of the most widely used social-media companies.

For example: A political advertiser (or communicator) might test a message about immigration in different cities across the country, or it might compare responses to that message based on age, income, ethnicity, education-level, or political preference. Because digital-media companies like Facebook collect vast amounts of data on their users, advertisers can parse based on age, income, ethnicity, political affiliation, location, education level, and many other consumer preferences that indicate political interests. Once the ad buys indicate what messages get the biggest response from particular groups, the operator can organize its entire social-media campaign to reach those people and build out bigger and bigger audiences.

This is digital marketing 101. Start with a product to sell and test a variety of messages until the best one rises to the surface.

In the election-interference case, the “products” for Russian trolls were divisive political messages about issues like, say, religion. But just as with any other product, the ads ginning up fear and outrage about Islam in America benefited from Google and Facebook’s machine-learning algorithms, which scan vast amounts of data and conduct tests on multitudes of political messages to determine the best way to find and engage an audience. Everybody makes more money if the ads work well—that is to say, if people click on them. The economic interests of advertisers and social media companies are essentially aligned. And while Facebook, Google, and Twitter are now taking steps to identify and block ads purchased by foreign agents and shut down these attempts to push fabricated news, the underlying machine of the ad tech market will, theoretically, accelerate users’ consumption of all but the most egregious content.

When political advertisers—including purveyors of disinformation—get into the mix, the economics of audience segmentation and micro-targeted advertising start to produce what is known as a “negative externality” in the market, or an unintended outcome that harms the public. The system naturally organizes people into homogenous groups and feeds them more of what they want—typically, information that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs—and then ups the sensation-factor in order to hold people’s interest for longer stretches of time.

A recent analysis of YouTube, for instance, showed that the videos in the “next up” queue were fed by an algorithm that prioritized keeping eyeballs glued on videos. The results predictably fed users content that matched previous preferences, or, failing that, just increased the level of sensationalism. In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, users who watched at least one YouTube video questioning whether the shooting actually happened were then recommended more videos of the same sort—a dangerous example of how social-media algorithms can perpetuate and promote propaganda.

Today, even though hundreds of millions of people get their news and information from Google, Facebook, and Twitter, they are fragmented and polarized into a variety of isolated communities, ranging from the staunchly conservative to the hard left. In such an information environment, it’s common for everyday users of social media to circulate incendiary content from dubious sources. So when the Russians inject streams of content suggesting that NATO is showering chemicals across Poland or that a Ukrainian policeman proudly donned a Nazi uniform, it doesn’t seem so extraordinary for most of the audience.

it’s virtually guaranteed that the vast majority of the world’s nations undertake these tactics. but would the people getting mad about russia doing this get made about the uk? qatar? bolivia? what about corporations that spend on political advertising, both directly and through proxies? where is the line drawn? what countries and corporations have a green light to manipulate us? that’s why i can’t believe that the fact that the focus is on russia is simply because media people care about the manipulation of american politics by different actors. rather, it seems like a targeted campaign to raise fear over russia and stoke the embers of a new cold war, which would inevitably involve massive weapons and intelligence spending, among other things.

[patriotsnet]

What Is The Percentage Of Democrats And Republicans

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-is-the-percentage-of-democrats-and-republicans/

What Is The Percentage Of Democrats And Republicans

The Role Of The Supreme Court

Gravitas: US Election 2020 | How Republicans & Democrats are wooing Indian Americans

President Donald Trumps two appointments to the Supreme Court, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, gave Republican-appointed justices a majority on the nations highest court.

Anti-abortion advocates see the courts makeup as a chance to weaken or overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 court ruling that legalized abortion.

They want to make hay while the sun shines and pass as much of their pet legislation as they can while they have the opportunity, said Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University in Des Moines.

Some state lawmakers and activists have said theyve specifically written legislation to spark a legal challenge that will end up before the Supreme Court.

Anti-abortion marchers rally at the Supreme Court during the 46th annual March for Life in Washington, on January 18, 2019. Some state lawmakers have said the bills they are pushing aim to ultimately overturn Roe v. Wade. Photo by Joshua Roberts/Reuters

The current focus on overturning Roe v. Wade has parallels to the early 1990s, when the court had eight justices who were appointed by Republican presidents. In 1992, the court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade in the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which questioned a Pennsylvania law that implemented a number of restrictions on abortions. The court upheld most of the provisions but also established that state rules cannot impose an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.

Forty Percent Of Young Americans Expect Their Lives To Be Better As A Result Of The Biden Administration; Many More Feel A Part Of Bidens America Than Trumps

By a margin of 2:1, young Americans expect their lives to become better under the Biden administration, rather than worse ; 25% tell us that they dont expect much of a difference. We found significant differences based on race and ethnicity.

Whites: 30% better, 28% worse

Blacks: 54% better, 4% worse

Hispanics: 51% better, 10% worse

Forty-six percent of young Americans agreed that they feel included in Bidens America, 24% disagreed . With the exception of young people living in rural America, at least a plurality indicated they felt included. This stands in contrast to Trumps America. Forty-eight percent reported that they did not feel included in Trumps America, while 27% indicated that they felt included . The only major subgroup where a plurality or more felt included in Trumps America were rural Americans.;

39% of Whites feel included in Bidens America, 32% do not ; 35% of Whites feel included in Trumps America, 41% do not .

61% of Blacks feel included in Bidens America, 13% do not ; 16% of Blacks feel included in Trumps America, 60% do not .

51% of Hispanics feel included in Bidens America, 12% do not ; 17% of Hispanics feel included in Trumps America, 55% do not .

Gender And Marital Status

The Democratic Party has a significant advantage with women. Thirty-seven percent of women affiliate with the Democratic Party, giving them a sizable advantage over the 24 percent who identify as Republicans. Marriage tends to have a significant impact on how a woman votes. Unmarried women vote Democrat about 62 percent of the time, while married women tend to be evenly split between the parties.

Exactly 27 percent of men affiliate with each party, with 43 percent declaring themselves Independent. Gays, lesbians and bisexuals support Democratic candidates around 70 percent of the time.

You May Like: When Did The Democrats And Republicans Switch Platforms

Voter Turnout In 2020 And Beyond

The new census data makes plain that the 2020 election was record-breaking in terms of the magnitude of its voter turnout. Yet there are two aspects of this turnout which need to be emphasized. One is the sharp rise in the turnout among white non-college votersa group that has strongly favored Republicans. The other is the accentuated turnout among young people and people of colorrepresenting the increasing influence of voters who heavily lean toward Democratic presidential candidates.

Both of these groups exerted countervailing forces on the results of the 2020 election, leading to close popular vote totals in a handful of states. However, the underlying demographics of the nations voter population show that Democratic-leaning voter populations are on the rise in both fast-growing and slow-growing parts of the country.

This raises the question as to whether even greater turnout among white non-college voter groupsor Republican efforts to alter voting requirements in their favorwill be enough to counter the influence of young voters and voters of color in future presidential elections.

Black Hispanic And Asian Voters Remain Overwhelmingly Democratic

There are sizable and long-standing racial and ethnic differences in partisan affiliation, and they have shifted only modestly in recent years.

White voters continue to be somewhat more likely to affiliate with or lean toward the Republican Party than the Democratic Party .

Since 2010, white voters have been more likely to align with the GOP than with the Democrats. However, the share of whites identifying as Democrats or leaning Democratic has edged upward . This growth is attributable to a slight increase in Democratic-leaning independents, rather than a rise in Democratic affiliation.

While black voters remain solidly Democratic, identification with the Democratic Party has declined modestly in recent years: About two-thirds of African Americans have identified as Democrats in the last several years, down slightly from the first half of Barack Obamas presidency, when about three-quarters affiliated with the Democratic Party.

There is a similar balance of partisanship among Asian American registered voters: 65% identify with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, compared with 27% who identify as or lean Republican.

In 1998 , 53% of Asians identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party and 33% identified with or leaned toward the Republican Party. .

A gender gap in partisan affiliation and leaning is seen across racial and ethnic groups.

Recommended Reading: Did Trump Say Republicans Are Dumb

Republican Women And Abortion

EmbedEmbed

An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll finds that men and women hold similar views on abortion overall, but Republican women are more opposed to abortion rights than Republican men.

SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

A majority of Americans support keeping Roe v. Wade in place. Thats the finding of a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll on abortion. And most favor allowing abortion in at least some situations. But there is one group that stands out for opposing abortion Republican women. NPRs national correspondent Sarah McCammon joins us. Sarah, thanks so much for being with us.

SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: Youre welcome.

SIMON: We certainly have had a lot of demonstration about the heavy partisanship on the abortion issue. Tell us about how gender comes into this discussion.

MCCAMMON: Well, its not in the way that a lot of people might think. Theres often a lot of rhetoric about a so-called Republican war on women in the context of abortion debates, or we hear the idea that efforts to restrict abortion rights are about men trying to control womens bodies. But when it comes to public opinion, many polls bear out the idea that men and women actually have very similar views on abortion. In our poll, 60% of women and 54% of men describe themselves as pro-choice. And I talked to Barbara Carvalho, the director of the Marist Poll. She says thats a pretty insignificant difference.

SIMON: Sarah, what do you think accounts for the difference between Republican men and women on this issue?

Supported Members Of Congress

This section does not cite any . Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

The organization has quoted the Republican Partys Statement of Principles, suggesting that this encompasses the option to choose abortion: the Party wants n America with a smaller less burdensome government that trusts its people to decide what is best for them n America where freedom of expression, individual conscience, and personal privacy are cherished and respected.

It has called for the Human Life Amendment to be removed from the abortion plank and that the platform reflect real policy that represents a common ground approach where both sides of the GOP can work together to make abortion unnecessary without taking away womens rights.

RFC has successfully gotten language into the platform that encourages Republicans to follow their conscience on this and other divisive issues. They do not ask those who disagree with them to leave the GOP but rather to join with them to return to the real core Republican values that call for smaller government and protecting personal freedom. They believe this should extend to both men and women. Ultimately they believe in a GOP that helps get the government out of the boardroom and the bedroom.

In that light, Republicans for Choice has suggested changes to the Republican National Platform with regard to societal attitudes towards gay and lesbian issues.

Don’t Miss: What Caused Republicans To Gain Power In Congress In 1938

California Voter And Party Profiles

NOTES: Likely voters are registered voters meeting criteria on interest in politics, attention to issues, voting behavior, and intention to vote. For a full description of these criteria and regional definitions, visit www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/SurveyMethodology.pdf. For race and ethnicity, results are presented for Latinos, non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic Asian Americans, non-Hispanic African Americans, and non-Hispanic other race and multiracial adults.

Sources: Seven PPIC Statewide Surveys from September 2019 to July 2020, including 11,725 adults and 7,243 likely voters. California Secretary of State, Report of Registration, August 2020. US Census Bureau, 20142018 American Community Survey.

Related Content

With The Population Diversifying Non

In Battleground States, Newly Registered Democrats Are Outnumbering Newly Registered Republicans

The voter population for presidential elections continues to change in its demographic makeup. This relates both to turnout and to the changing shifts in the nations overall population. Because of the rising growth rates of nonwhite race and ethnic groups nationally and the increased educational attainment of younger voters, the share of all voters identifying as non-college white continues to shrink. Thus, for the first time in a presidential election, white voters without college degrees comprised less than two-fifths of the voter population.

These changes look quite different from 2004, when non-college white voters comprised more than half of the voter population and nonwhite minorities comprised only one-fifth. Since then, the formers share dropped to 39.7%; the share of white college-educated voters increased modestly, from 27.7% to 31.3%.; and the share of nonwhite voters rose to 29%, almost equaling that of white college graduates.

The shift in the race-ethnic makeup of the populationespecially the younger populationis evident when looking at voters in the past five presidential elections. During this period, younger generations of voting-age citizens have become more racially diverse. In 2020, for the first time, at least 10% of the total voter population identified as Latino or Hispanic, as did 15% of voters below age 40. The white share of the under-age-40 voter population declined by 10 points from 2004 to 2020, to 64% .

Back to top

Read Also: Who Is Right Republicans Or Democrats

Which Political Party Is The Most Successful In Usa

In the United States, there has usually only been two main political parties. Since the 1860s, these two main parties have been the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has the most seats in the House of Representatives while the Republicans and Democrats split the Senate at 50 Senators each.

A Plurality Believe History Will Judge Trump As A The Worst President Ever; Less Than A Quarter Of Young Americans Want Trump To Play A Key Role In The Future Of Republican Politics; Young Republicans Are Divided

Thirty percent of young Americans believe that history will judge Donald Trump as the worst president ever. Overall, 26% give the 45th president positive marks , while 54% give Trump negative marks ; 11% believe he will go down as an average president.

Twenty-two percent of young Americans surveyed agree with the statement, I want Donald Trump to play a key role in the future of Republican politics, 58% disagreed, and 19% neither agreed nor disagreed. Among young Republicans, 56% agreed while 22% disagreed, and 21% were neutral. Only 61% of those who voted for Trump in the 2020 general indicated their desire for him to remain active in the GOP.

If they had to choose, 42% of young Republicans consider themselves supporters of the Republican party, and not Donald Trump. A quarter indicated they are Trump supporters first, 24% said they support both.

You May Like: What Witnesses Did The Republicans Want To Call

Ies See Big Demographic Changes Despite Overall Static Split

WASHINGTON The last decade was one of the most politically consequential in recent memory, one in which partisan divisions dominated. But under the surface, an enormous churn is redefining and re-sorting the two major parties.

A look at the numbers helps explain the larger story.

By events alone, the decade was tumultuous from the Republican tsunami in 2010 to the rise of Donald Trump in 2016 and the Democratic correction in 2018. And yet, when you look at the percentage of voters who identify at a Democrat or Republican, the picture is one of stability.

In 2010, the NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that 42 percent of registered voters identified as Democrats, while 37 percent identified as Republicans. At the end of 2019, the figures showed 42 percent were Democrats and 37 percent were Republicans. Unchanged.

In other words, Barack Obama and Donald Trump may each be transformative presidents in their own ways, but viewed from 30,000 feet, the net effect of their time in office on the political landscape has been negligible.

Look a little closer, however, and the picture is much more fluid.

Start with education. The last decade has seen noteworthy shifts among voters with and without a college degree.

Those are dramatic swings among big parts of the electorate that have impacts across the country. Its a big part of the reason Democrats have increased their margins in highly educated urban areas.

Gallup: Percentage Of Pro

A new Gallup survey out today finds the percentage of Americans who identify them selves as supporting legalized abortion has dropped to a record low.

The 41% of Americans who now identify themselves as pro-choice is down from 47% last July and is one percentage point below the previous record low in Gallup trends, recorded in May 2009, the polling firm noted. On the other hand, 51 percent of Americans call themselves pro-life, one percentage point away from the record high.

The percentage of Americans identifying themselves as pro-life has trended higher since 1995, when the partial-birth abortion debate began in earnest and ultrasound technology made it so pictures of unborn children were the first baby pictures most parents saw. Gallup has found the pro-life position significantly ahead on two occasions, once in May 2009 and again today and the number of pro-abortion Americans has steadily dropped.

Gallup says the decline in Americans self-identification as pro-choice is seen across the three U.S. political groups with Republicans increasingly becoming pro-life.

Since 2001, the majority of Republicans have consistently taken the pro-life position, but by a gradually increasing margin over pro-choice. That gap expanded further this year, with the percentage of Republicans identifying as pro-life increasing to 72% from 68% last May, and those identifying as pro-choice dropping to 22% from 28%, Gallup noted.

Don’t Miss: What Are The Chances Of The Republicans Winning The House

Mellman: The Rise Of The Pro

Cold War babies like me were taught to abhor communism as children.

My earliest memory of such instruction came from a teacher who raged against what she claimed was communisms demand that people inform on family, friends and neighbors, turning them over to the secret police for actions or views critical of the regime.;;

I shudder to think what those now deceased teachers would say about Republicans in Texas, and elsewhere, encouraging citizens to intervene in their neighbors most intimate decisions by suing them for giving a friend a ride to an abortion clinic or being a woman who received one.

Joe BidenSocial media making political polarization worse: reportBiden and UKs Johnson to meet for talks this month: reportToyota, Honda knock union-made EV incentive in Dems spending packageMORE called it vigilantism. In my youth, it wouldve seemed a form of creeping totalitarianism.;

This disastrous policy, designed to outlaw abortion while enabling recent Republican Supreme Court justices to parry well-founded accusations of perjury in their confirmation hearings, is a dagger pointed at the political heart of the GOP.

Though it was never counted as one of the most important problems facing the country , abortion played a lead role as culture developed into our central line of political cleavage.;

In recent years, two facts emerged clearly: First, the vast majority of Americans are what the political class would call pro-choice .

Public opinion is clear.;;

Start Your Day With National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Reprinted with permission from DC Report

The overwhelming failure in the recall of California Gov. Gavin Newsom should send a powerful message to those Republicans who think their future lies with Donald Trump and Trumpism. It doesn’t.

That’s better than the record margin by which Newsom won in 2018. He won that race with just under 62 percent of the vote. It also equals the share of California votes for Biden against Trump in 2020.

The recall vote is a clear repudiation of the Trumpian tactic of trying to disrupt and delegitimize government when anyone but a Trumper wins the popular vote. Havoc will continue, but it can be defeated always if enough sensible Americans cast ballots.

Trumpism isn’t dead, not yet. But it’s not attracting new adherents, either. That’s because all it offers is anger, the lethal rejection of medical science and cultish devotion to a deeply disturbed con artist who just makes stuff up like his very recent delusional claim of being rescued on 9/11 by two firefighters.

Trumpism is not an ideology, just political masturbation.

And no one in America is more captured by self-love than Donald Trump.

In spring, it looked like Newsom could become the third governor in American history to be recalled because rank-and-file Democrats weren’t paying attention. Neither were the independents, whose numbers equal those of Republicans in California.

Also Check: Did Republicans Riot When Obama Won

[oldguardaudio]

Critical Race Theory Will Destroy Our Military

Critical Race Theory Will Destroy Our Military

Jun 16th, 2021

By: Dakota Wood

Senior Research Fellow, Defense Programs

Dakota L. Wood, who served America for two decades in the U.S. Marine Corps, is the Senior Research Fellow for Defense Programs.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Success in combat depends on the cohesion and competence of the forces involved.

Critical race theory and identity politics seeks to impose on our military a manufactured victimization that is inherently divisive.

All Americans should demand that the Biden administration put an end to indoctrination of our military with critical race theory.

  As a young Marine Corps first lieutenant assigned to an infantry battalion in the late 1980s, I had charge of the unit transport section of operators, mechanics, and supervisors tasked with taking care of our fleet of combat vehicles.

This group of Marines, like all with whom I served over a 20-year military career, was a wonderful cross section of America representing all walks of life.

My maintenance and operations chiefs were American Samoan and an African American, respectively. Our collection of more junior Marines included blacks, whites, and Latinos, young men from Texas, New Jersey, California, and West Virginia, among others.

They came from the city and the country, from poor and middle-class families. Some were Catholic, others Protestant, and some had no strong affiliation with any organized religion.

In the maintenance bay, on the equipment lot, or in the field, we would hear a musical mix of country, rock ’n’ roll, heavy metal, and rap.

Everyone pitched in to accomplish the mission during unit fitness runs, shop clean-up, preparing for inspections, embarking equipment for deployments to Japan and South Korea, and supporting battalion operations during training and exercise events.

Everything just worked and worked well. Why?

Because they were all Marines, wearing the same uniform, supporting the same combat organization, serving the same country. They all had been through the same training. They had to measure up to the same standards. They had to make the same cutoff scores for promotion.

They humped the same combat loads, ate the same field rations, fired the same qualifications at the rifle range, suffered the same annual refresher training for proper use of gas masks. They worked the same long hours in hot and sweaty, cold and damp, sunbaked or frigid or windblown field conditions, tolerated the same irritating micromanagement, and enjoyed the same positive leadership interventions from higher headquarters.

They were a team, committed to each other and expecting the same high levels of performance irrespective of skin color, ethnicity, economic or social background, accent, or taste in music. Each shared in the accomplishments of his fellow Marines, and each was quick to take to task any teammate who fell short of standard.

It was wonderful.

I can’t help but wonder what it would have been like if each person in that section had been pitted against each other, assessing his fellow Marine’s trustworthiness or reliability or capability based on the color of his skin.

What if the black Marines judged the white Marines from the perspective of oppressed and oppressor? What if the white Marines viewed the black Marines as having achieved their rank or position by virtue of tokenism, or the black Marines assumed that the white Marines held their positions because the “system” was structured to ensure white dominance?

What if the Latino Marines viewed everyone with suspicion, presuming that they were to be treated as an inherently separate group that spoke a different language among themselves and therefore were not to be trusted? And what was with the Samoan and his completely different childhood, body type, food preferences, and speech peculiarities?

How could this group of Marines have operated as a team, especially when stressed in a combat situation?

But this is what class-warfare ideologies such as critical race theory and identity politics seek to impose on our military: perspectives and identities and manufactured victimization that are inherently divisive, inherently anti-team, and inherently anti-American.

Each of those young Marines had the same opportunity to excel, to reenlist, to be promoted based on merit, to take advantage of education programs, and to prove he had what it takes to be a Marine—again, regardless of where he came from or what he looked like.

That unit was the finest representation of the American idea just as every crew of a Navy ship; every company, battalion, and brigade of the Army; every squadron within the Air Force; and delta within the Space Force.

America’s military draws young men and women from all backgrounds and all walks of life, integrating them into teams united in common identity and shared purpose, to serve our country. What are they to think when they are told that the country they have sworn to serve is structurally prejudiced to favor one group over another?

How is anyone to have credibility if he or she is viewed as having gained a position not from hard work, competence, and meeting or exceeding standards but because of race or gender?

How is the chain of command in any military organization to retain its legitimacy and authority if those more senior in command second-guess how their directives might be viewed through the personal lenses of those in their charge, or those who are junior question the legitimacy of the hierarchy above them?

Yet these very problems are now emerging as a result of such training being imposed on our troops, evidenced by hundreds of personal complaints registered by personnel on a whistleblower website established by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, both military combat veterans.

Success in combat depends on the cohesion and competence of the forces involved. These, in turn, derive from teamwork and standards, which are built on trust, mutual respect, merit, shared experience, and a belief in service to a higher purpose. Critical race theory and other such divisive concepts would destroy all this.

The U.S. military is the epitome of opportunity, shared purpose, and constructive idealism—the very things America was built on and that have driven it to become the best example of what is possible. This is why so many people from around the world have flocked to our shores since our founding, to participate in our ongoing great experiment.

Critical race theory is as great an insult to our men and women in uniform as their shared service and identity is the best example of what it means to be an American. The leaders of our military, both uniformed and civilian, must not lose sight of this.

All Americans should demand that the Biden administration put an end to indoctrination of our military with critical race theory.

Check out my new Podcast | Audio episode!

#Podcast #politics #news