#Lying American politicians | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mostlysignssomeportents · 4 months

Text

How the NYPD defeated bodycams

Anything that can't go on forever will eventually stop. When American patience for racial profiling in traffic stops reached a breaking point, cops rolled out dashcams. Dashcam footage went AWOL, or just recorded lots of racist, pretextual stops. Racial profiling continued.

Tasers and pepper spray were supposed to curb the undue use of force by giving cops an alternative to shooting dangerous-seeming people. Instead, we got cops who tasered and sprayed unarmed people and then shot them to pieces.

Next came bodycams: by indelibly recording cops' interactions with the public, body-worn cameras were pitched as a way to bring accountability to American law-enforcement. Finally, police leadership would be able to sort officers' claims from eyewitness accounts and figure out who was lying. Bad cops could be disciplined. Repeat offenders could be fired.

Police boosters insist that police violence and corruption are the result of "a few bad apples." As the saying goes, "a few bad apples spoil the bushel." If you think there are just a few bad cops on the force, then you should want to get rid of them before they wreck the whole institution. Bodycams could empirically identify the bad apples, right?

Well, hypothetically. But what if police leadership don't want to get rid of the bad apples? What if the reason that dashcams, tasers, and pepper spray failed is that police leadership are fine with them? If that were the case, then bodycams would turn into just another expensive prop for an off-Broadway accountability theater.

What if?

In "How Police Have Undermined the Promise of Body Cameras," Propublica's Eric Umansky and Umar Farooq deliver a characteristically thorough, deep, and fascinating account of the failure of NYPD bodycams to create the accountability that New York's political and police leadership promised:

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-police-undermined-promise-body-cameras

Topline: NYPD's bodycam rollout was sabotaged by police leadership and top NYC politicians. Rather than turning over bodycam footage to oversight boards following violent incidents, the NYPD suppresses it. When overseers are allowed to see the footage, they get fragmentary access. When those fragments reveal misconduct, they are forbidden to speak of it. When the revealed misconduct is separate from the main incident, it can't be used to discipline officers. When footage is made available to the public, it is selectively edited to omit evidence of misconduct.

NYPD policy contains loopholes that allow them to withhold footage. Where those loopholes don't apply, the NYPD routinely suppresses footage anyway, violating its own policies. When the NYPD violates its policies, it faces no consequences. When overseers complain, they are fired.

Bodycams could be a source of accountability for cops, but for that to be true, control over bodycams would have to vest with institutions that want to improve policing. If control over bodycams is given to institutions that want to shield cops from accountability, that's exactly what will happen. There is nothing about bodycams that makes them more resistant to capture than dashcams, tasers or pepper spray.

This is a problem across multiple police departments. Minneapolis, for example, has policies from before and after the George Floyd uprisings that require bodycam disclosure, and those policies are routinely flouted. Derek Chauvin, George Floyd's murderer, was a repeat offender and had been caught on bodycam kneeling on other Black peoples' necks. Chauvin once clubbed a 14 year old child into unconsciousness and then knelt on his neck for 15 minutes as his mother begged for her child's life. Chauvin faced no discipline for this and the footage was suppressed.

In Montgomery, Alabama, it took five years of hard wrangling to get access to bodycam footage after an officer sicced his attack dog on an unarmed Black man without warning. The dog severed the man's femoral artery and he died. Montgomery PD suppressed the footage, citing the risk of officers facing "embarrassment."

In Memphis, the notoriously racist police department was able to suppress bodycam disclosures until the murder of Tyre Nichols. The behavior of the officers who beat Nichols to death are a testament to their belief in their own impunity. Some officers illegally switched off their cameras; others participated in the beating in full view of the cameras, fearing no consequences.

In South Carolina, the police murder of Walter Scott was captured on a bystander's phone camera. That footage made it clear that Scott's uniformed killers lied, prompting then-governor Nikki Haley to sign a law giving the public access to bodycam footage. But the law contained a glaring loophole: it made bodycam footage "not a public record subject to disclosure." Nothing changed.

Bodycam footage does often reveal that killer cops lie about their actions. When a Cincinnati cop killed a Black man during a 2015 traffic-stop, his bodycam footage revealed that the officer lied about his victim "lunging at him" before he shot. Last summer, a Philadelphia cop was caught lying about the circumstances that led to him murdering a member of the public. Again, the officer claimed the man had "lunged at him." The cop's camera showed the man sitting peacefully in his own car.

Police departments across the country struggle with violent, lying officers, but few can rival the NYPD for corruption, violence, scale and impunity. The NYPD has its own "goon squad," the Strategic Response Group, whose leaked manual reveals how the secret unit spends about $100m/year training and deploying ultraviolent, illegal tactics:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/07/cruelty-by-design/#blam-blam-blam

The NYPD's disciplinary records – published despite a panicked scramble to suppress them – reveal the NYPD's infestation with criminal cops who repeatedly break the law in meting out violence against the public:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/27/ip/#nypd-who

These cops are the proverbial bad apples, and they do indeed spoil the barrel. A 2019 empirical analysis of police disciplinary records show that corruption is contagious: when crooked cops are paired with partners who have clean disciplinary records, those partners become crooked, too, and the effect lasts even after the partnership ends:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023119879798

Despite the risk of harboring criminals in police ranks, the NYPD goes to extreme lengths to keep its worst officers on the street. New York City's police "union"'s deal with the city requires NYC to divert millions to a (once) secret slushfund used to pay high-priced lawyers to defend cops whose conduct is so egregious that the city's own attorneys refuse to defend them:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/03/26/overfitness-factor/#heads-you-lose-tails-they-win

This is a good place for your periodic reminder that police unions are not unions:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/28/afterland/#selective-solidarity

Indeed, despite rhetoric to the contrary, policing is a relatively safe occupation, with death rates well below the risks to roofers, loggers, or pizza delivery drivers:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/01/27/extraordinary-popular-delusions/#onshore-havana-syndrome

The biggest risk to police officers – the single factor that significantly increased death rates among cops – is police unions themselves. Police unions successfully pressured cities across American to reject covid risk mitigation, from masking to vaccinations, leading to a wave of police deaths. "Suicide by cop" is very rare, but US officers committed "mass suicide by cop union":

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/12/us/police-covid-vaccines.html

But the story that policing is much more dangerous than it really is a useful one. It has a business-model. Military contractors who turn local Barney Fifes into Judge Dredd cosplayers with assault rifles, tanks and other "excess" military gear make billions from the tale:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/10/flintstone-delano-roosevelt/#1033-1022

It's not just beltway bandits who love this story. For cops to be shielded from consequences for murdering the public, they need to tell themselves and the rest of us that they are a "thin blue line," and not mere armed bureaucrats. The myth that cops are in constant danger from the public justifies hair-trigger killings.

Consider the use of "civilian" to describe the public. Police are civilians. The only kind of police officer who isn't a civilian is a military policeman. Places where "civilians" interact with non-civilian law enforcement are, by definition, under military occupation. Calling the public "civilians" is a cheap rhetorical trick that converts a police officer to a patrolling soldier in hostile territory. Calling us "civilians" justifies killing us, because if we're civilians, then they are soldiers and we are at war.

The NYPD clearly conceives of itself as an occupying force and considers its "civilian" oversight to be the enemy. When New York's Civilian Complaint Review Board gained independence in 1993, thousands of off-duty cops joined Rudy Giuliani in a mass protest at City Hall and an occupation of the Brooklyn Bridge. This mass freakout is a measure of police intolerance for oversight – after all, the CCRB isn't even allowed to discipline officers, only make (routinely ignored) recommendations.

Kerry Sweet was the NYPD lawyer who oversaw the department's bodycam rollout. He once joked that the NYPD missed a chance to "bomb the room" where the NYPD's CCRB was meeting (when Propublica asked him to confirm this, he said he couldn't remember those remarks, but "on reflection, it should have been an airstrike").

Obvious defects in the NYPD's bodycam policy go beyond the ability to suppress disclosure of the footage. The department has no official tracking system for its bodycam files. They aren't geotagged, only marked by officer badge-number and name. So if a member of the public comes forward to complain that an unknown officer committed a crime at a specific place and time, there's no way to retrieve that footage. Even where footage can be found, the NYPD often hides the ball: in 20% of cases where the Department told the CCRB footage didn't exist, they were lying.

Figuring out how to make bodycam footage work better is complex, but there are some obvious first steps. Other cities have no problem geotagging their footage. In Chicago, the CCRB can directly access the servers where bodycam footage is stored (when the NYPD CCRB members proposed this, they were fired).

Meanwhile, the NYPD keeps protecting its killers. The Propublica story opens with the police killing of Miguel Richards. Richards' parents hadn't heard from him in a while, so they asked his Bronx landlord to check on him (the Richards live in Jamaica). The landlord called the cops. The cops killed Richards.

The cops claimed he had a gun and they were acting in self-defense. They released a highly edited reel of bodycam footage to support that claim. When the full video was eventually extracted, it revealed that Richards had a tiny plastic toy guy and a small folding knife. The officers involved believed he was suffering an acute mental health incident and stated that policy demanded that they close his bedroom door and wait for specialists. Instead, they barked orders at him and then fired 16 rounds at him. Seven hit him. One ruptured his aorta. As he lay dying on his bedroom floor, one officer roughly tossed him around and cuffed him. He died.

New York's Police Benevolent Association – the largest police "union" in NYC – awarded the officers involved its "Finest of the Finest" prize for their conduct in the killing.

This isn't an isolated incident. A month after the NYPD decided not to punish the cops who killed Richards, NYPD officers murdered Kawaski Trawick in his Bronx apartment:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/12/04/kawaski-trawick/#Kawaski-Trawick

The officers lied about it, suppressed release of the bodycam footage that would reveal their lies, and then escaped any justice when the footage and the lies were revealed.

None of this means that bodycams are useless. It just means that bodycams will only help bring accountability to police forces when they are directed by parties who have the will and power to make the police accountable.

When police leaders and city governments support police corruption, adding bodycams won't change that fact.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/13/i-want-a-roof-over-my-head/#and-bread-on-the-table

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

Tony Webster, modified https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Minneapolis_Police_Officer_Body_Camera_%2848968390892%29.jpg

CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en

#pluralistic #impunity #ccrb #nypd #abolish the police #acab #police #corruption #bodycams #body-worn cameras #propublica

3K notes · View notes

itssideria · 3 months

Note

Genuine question, really not sure what to do/who to vote for- uh do you have any suggestions? Protesting yes, but what now- today's like endless bad news

hey, anon.

i'm assuming you're referring to my post on the 'vote blue no matter what' gang — i wrote that in a complete (and justified) fit of anger. i should start by saying i am not american, or palestinian — i am an arab who grew up in an arab country, though, and all of us have long since grown sickened and enraged with american imperialism.

my honest answer? i don't know. i'm not american. i'm not a politician. maybe i'm some horrifically idealistic piece of shit but i just think that brazenly funding a genocide, lying about it, and then bombing the only country that tries to prevent it should earn you the death penalty, but oh well.

@/fairuzfan has posted a lot about this — she's a palestinian in the states. not tagging her bc we aren't mutuals. she has stated that she won't vote in the presidential elections at all, but rather at local levels and congress. one person has stated that they are engaging in activism more than ever, forming communities, movements, working their way up. other people will be voting for a third party candidate they agree with, such as Cornel West or Claudia de la Cruz — you can read up on their stances for yourself, i'm not active in US politics. some will threaten to withhold their vote from Biden, whether they are serious of pretending, as that may scare him into changing his tactics.

none of these are foolproof. most of them prevent nothing. i am aware that for americans this shit feels like life and death — it's what all of you say, every four years.

however, and i cannot state this enough, i am so past the point of caring. my entire region has been fucking devastated by your nation. egypt can't threaten suez access because it'll get invaded. yemen and syria and iraq are dealing with past and current bombing. the entire fucking gulf sucks your country's dick to get oil money to build vanity projects and hire more slave labour. and palestine? palestinian blood will run thick with the weight of the crimes the us committed against them.

for once in their stable, unaffected fucking lives, i want americans to pretend—pretend!—the rest of the world exists. for ONCE, i want americans to say "fuck this, he committed genocide, i will never write his name on my ballot". for ONCE, i want americans to sacrifice something, ANYTHING—you barely live under a democracy as is. poc americans report no improvement under biden compared to trump. white queer people think they'll be protected and so shout at the need to throw the developing world under the bus.

there are no good options. but dear God, just don't put the name of the man funding a genocide on your fucking ballot. it didn't save anyone four years ago. it won't now.

#asks #anon #hope this does. anything tbh #palestine #gaza #israel palestine conflict #gaza strip #free palestine #israel

362 notes · View notes

graceshouldwrite · 6 months

Text

How to Write Political Intrigue (with book recs)

POLITICAL INTRIGUE! Intrigue in general! What is it?

For the purposes of this post (as well as how it's usually used in the writing/reading community), think: scheming. Plotting. Conspiracies in the shadows, bids for power and survival, secret plans, masterful illusions, all of that stuff.

It could be on any scale that you'd like, from a duel of wits (think Light's and L's game of cat and mouse in Death Note)

...to a large-scale plot involving entire countries and their people (like any espionage networks during any major wars, such as the American Revolutionary War to World War II, and so many more)

...or even medium-sized conflicts (families, like in The Godfather, or smaller national disturbances like the Watergate scandal).

Below are 4 core tips on how you can successfully write (political) intrigue plots:

1. Read + Research

Despite how hard it may sound, it's actually pretty easy to craft a realistic yet thrilling intrigue plot—with so many examples in real life and fiction, you can easily base your plot on an existing one and just change a few things like the characters, setting, and maybe a few plot points.

History and current events are always great places to look to, but here are some books that are chock-full of great politics + intrigue:

Leviathan (Thomas Hobbes): one of the most famous treatises of politics + human nature and their intersection. The book is an in-depth exploration of human nature, government, politics, and all of the root causes of why they exist. While it does take a specific philosophical angle (you might not agree with Hobbes' ideas), they are detailed explanations of how things work + why they are required from one perspective.

48 Laws of Power (Robert Greene): GREAT BOOK for helping you plan out the means by which you want the intrigue to happen. There are lots of simplified rules that tell you why people plan and scheme (e.g. "control the options; get others to play the cards you deal," or "pose as a friend, work as a spy"). There are LOTS of really great small stories of when a rule is applied in real life that are also general plot inspo!

The Godfather (Mario Puzo): very very good, intricate, and more emotional because it deals with the intrigue surrounding families

Joseph Fouché: Portrait of a Politician (Stefan Zweig) (biography): Fouché is absolutely insane. A genius at political intrigue. His life is literally one of the craziest stories of scheming, betrayals, survival, and a general vying for power, especially behind the scenes.

The Prince (Machiavelli): obviously, I can't leave out the original tips + tricks book with explanations of WHY intrigue matters as a means, especially in terms of protecting your power.

Trust Me, I'm Lying (Ryan Holladay): a large part of intrigue plots (you need to cover up the actual game you're playing) is the manipulation of information, creating illusions and spectacles for other people to believe. This book goes in-depth about media manipulation and information wars.

Empire of Pain (Patrick Raden Keefe): takes a rather different angle, through the personal/corporate manipulation of government, as well as how wealth dynasties (especially within families) are established. Remember the opioid crisis? This book explores the generational politics of money and power that led up to that.

Prince of Thorns (Mark Lawrence): Look! Fiction! Anyway, I'm biased because it's one of my favourite works of fiction of all time, but it explores political intrigue not only through an actor participating in it, but through the lens of the common folk. I.e., the consequences all that power play has on the populace due to a lack of actual good governance...

A Song of Ice and Fire (George R. R. Martin): I haven't personally read/watched anything GoT, but it's pretty much obligatory to put this series down in a post about political intrigue. It's famous for doing it well.

2. Plan. Like, meticulously

First of all, decide what scale you want your intrigue to be on: large-scale government/international affairs type, a corporation thing, something between two people, or even within a family? There are so many possibilities.

Intrigue plots are like mysteries; they must be tightly logical to be satisfying. One of the best ways of ensuring this is through analyzing each involved party—the actors.

Each actor has their own motivations, goals, and psychologies. After you establish what they want OUT of their intrigue, think about how they'd go about achieving it: a naturally hot-headed person might try to intimidate their way into getting what they want, or they might learn through the course of the story to cool down a bit.

A naturally imaginative and analytical person might come up with all sorts of scarily genius plans, and near-flawless execution. Of course, they would also react in different ways, depending on personality. Character consistency alone will make your plot seem that much more logical.

However, cracks in logic will happen because humans are inherently imperfect and not always rational. These cracks must be DELIBERATE and realistic and must seem planned out; they can't seem more like the author forgot a detail, or didn't know how to explain something (e.g. something happened and the writer never included the consequence of it because they forgot). It must be clear that it is a flaw on the character's part.

3. Never write intrigue for the sake of the intrigue

The incentive of all scheming comes down to mainly two things: gaining power and keeping it. Of course, you could choose to explore more unusual things, such as characters exercising intrigue to satisfy boredom... (think Light and Ryuk from Death Note).

But, the bids for power, security, and survival can be used to highlight things about human nature. Themes to explore include ambition, sacrifice, the pursuit of happiness, the corruption of character, the preservation of innocence in a cruel system, etc.

4. Explore through a narrow lens

Most intrigue plots are full of complex motivations, characters, goals, and the means they use to achieve said goals.

You should gradually let your intrigue plot unfold through the POV of a few characters, preferably one or two. An omniscient narrator for this type of story is INCREDIBLY difficult to pull off without confusing the reader.

However, more POVs work if you use all of them to focus on ONE or a few intrigue plots only—it can provide a multi-layered effect, exploring the same line of action and consequence through different perspectives. But, if everyone has their own intrigue plot, it's too easy to create a tangled mess where readers can barely delineate one plot from the next.

∘₊✧────── ☾☼☽ ──────✧₊∘

instagram: @ grace_should_write

Sorry for the massive hiatus—I have officially started college!! I've been pre-occupied with settling in, classes starting, a social life, extracurriculars etc. etc...life has been super busy, but great :)

I've started working on my books as well as poetry more recently, and I'm glad I'm getting into a new workflow/lifestyle. It certainly is different, but I'm starting to enjoy it.

Anyway, I'm surprised it took me this long to do a post about this topic, considering the fact that it's basically my writergram niche and my entire personality IRL, but I think it was mainly because I was trying to find a good angle to approach this massive topic. But, stay tuned for (probably) a part 2 because there's SO MUCH MORE to cover.

Hope this was helpful, and let me know if you have any questions by commenting, re-blogging, or DMing me on IG. Any and all engagement is appreciated :)

Happy writing, and have a great day!

- grace <3

199 notes · View notes

dosesofcommonsense · 4 months

Text

From BioClandestine on Telegram

If Trump wins 2024, he will halt all funding for Ukraine, negotiate an end to conflict with Putin, thus preventing WW3.

The reason Biden and the Deep State cannot negotiate with Putin, is because Putin wants their heads for crimes against humanity, namely for manufacturing C19.

This is not speculation on my part. Russian MIL literally listed Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and George Soros, as being the main ideologists behind the plot to manufacture coronavirus strains in Ukraine, with US DoD funding, and there is an open source paper trail to back it up. You can debate on whether or not you believe them, but the reality is, Putin wants the “Western Elites” and Xi agrees with him.

It’s not hyperbolic to say that this is life or death for the Deep State actors. If Trump wins and negotiates a settlement with Putin, Russian MIL have already been demanding for activation of Articles V and VI of the Biological Weapons Treaty, which would result in a Security Council investigation and international military tribunals. That’s what Russian MIL have been demanding at the UN for nearly 2 years now. And that’s just the biological stuff, not even accounting for the whole 2014 coup, shelling the Donbas, funding and supporting Ukraine in 2022, Nord Stream, etc.

What do you think Trump is going to say? No? Trump wants to prosecute the exact same people for crimes against humanity! Putin is literally demanding that all of Trump’s enemies trying to imprison him, must be prosecuted by military tribunal… How could Trump say no to that?! He’d be killing multiple birds with one stone. And Trump’s DOJ wouldn’t have to do the prosecuting. It would be a coalition of military judges from different countries around the world. It would be far more legitimate and no way could the Dems cry “partisanship”. It’s international law.

Y’all might think it’s crazy, but this is the trajectory we are headed on if Trump wins, which is why the Biden regime are going to do everything in their power to prevent Trump from winning. If they fail, they will be treated as international war criminals, and will face the ultimate penalty.

Extinction Level Event (for the deep state, for globalism, for all their synvophants in levels of government and the MSM).

Let’s say Russia and China are lying, and the US did not manufacture C19.

Then why would Fauci, Collins, and the US government, put so much effort into covering up the lab origins?

Why are the US and their allies the only ones NOT interested in who caused a global pandemic?

Why did government health agencies and Big Tech censor scientists and journalists who pointed out its lab origins? If someone else created this virus, why are the US government so invested in covering up who is responsible? Over a million Americans died, shouldn’t they be tirelessly trying to find out who killed all those people?

Who benefited from the pandemic? American Pharmaceutical companies, that began the vaccine development BEFORE the pandemic. Who funds the MSM and Deep State politicians? Big Pharma.

If Russia and China are lying, why is it that the US veto every request at the UN Security Council for a joint investigation into the origins of C19?

There are two options. Elements within the US are responsible, or, a different entity is responsible and the US government went out of their way to cover it up.

The paper trail confirms it’s the former, but either way, heads must roll.

#truth #common sense #msm is the enemy #globalist playbook #BioClandestine #donald trump #big pharma #putin #vaccine #deep state

114 notes · View notes

robertreich · 10 months

Video

youtube

The GOP’s Attack on LGBTQ Americans, Revealed

Republicans don’t seem to care that Ronald Reagan once starred in a film that featured a prominent drag scene or that Rudy Giuliani did a skit in drag with Donald Trump.

Suddenly, they’re trying to ban or restrict drag performances in at least 15 states, with bills so broadly worded that advocates warn they could be used not only to prosecute drag performers, but also transgender people who dare to simply exist in public.

These bans are part of a cynical campaign to demonize the LGBTQ+ community. MAGA politicians are stoking fear over imaginary dangers to distract from how their policies only help themselves and their wealthy donors.

In the first half of 2023 alone, Republicans across the nation introduced a record number of bills to strip away freedoms and civil rights from LGBTQ+ Americans, largely targeting transgender and gender-nonconforming people.

By banning gender affirming care for minors, GOP lawmakers are effectively practicing medicine without a license — overruling the guidance of doctors, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. And they’re lying about what gender affirming care even is.

Genital surgery, for instance, is rarely, if ever, done under the age of 18. It’s not even all that common for adults. Politicians like Ron DeSantis are lying about it to scare people.

And the Republican presidential frontrunner has made it clear that trans people have no place in his vision of America.

MAGA lawmakers and pundits falsely claim trans people and drag performers are a danger to children and the public at large, when there is no evidence at all to support that. None. Trans people are in fact four times more likely to be the victims of violent crime.

These scare tactics are dangerous. Recent analysis found a 70% increase in hate crimes against LGBTQ+ Americans between 2020 and 2021, as the surge of these bills began. And that’s only counting hate crimes that get reported. 2020 and 2021 each set a new record for the number of trans people murdered in America.

The cruelest irony is that these Republican bills pretending to protect children actually put some of the most vulnerable children at greater risk. LGBTQ+ kids are more than four times as likely to attempt suicide, especially transgender children. Gender-affirming care reduces that risk. That is why it is life-saving.

Don’t Say Gay laws strip away potentially life-saving support. A teacher discussing sexual orientation and gender identity won’t turn a straight kid gay. But it will make an LGBTQ+ student 23% less likely to attempt suicide.

The tragic truth is that Don’t Say Gay Laws and health care bans will cause more young lives to be needlessly lost.

If Republicans really cared about protecting kids, they’d focus on gun violence, now the leading cause of death for American children. If they were really worried about children undergoing life-altering medical procedures, they wouldn’t pass abortion bans that force teens to give birth or risk back-alley procedures.

What the GOP’s vendetta against the LGBTQ+ community really is, is a classic authoritarian tactic to vilify already marginalized people. They’re trying to stoke so much paranoia and hatred that we don’t notice how they are consolidating power and wealth into the hands of a ruling few.

We need to see this attack on LGBTQ+ Americans for what it is: a threat to all of our human rights.

#youtube #video #videos #pride #LGBTQ+#Politics #Republicans #Government #equality #Trans Rights

344 notes · View notes

contemplatingoutlander · 2 months

Text

As The New Republic reports, “Alito is complaining that people who oppose homosexuality were being unfairly branded as bigots, despite that being a dictionary definition of bigotry.” On Tuesday, agreeing the Court should not take a case, Alito wrote he is “concerned” that a lower court’s reasoning “may spread.” He notes that the lower court “reasoned that a person who still holds traditional religious views on questions of sexual morality is presumptively unfit to serve on a jury in a case involving a party who is a lesbian.” In that case, several jurors who acknowledged they held anti-LGBTQ views were released from serving on the trial. “That holding exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in 'Obergefell v. Hodges' … namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be ‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government.'” Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern writes, “Alito suggests that a trial court violates the free exercise and equal protection clauses when it allows an attorney who represents a gay client to strike potential jurors because they express overt bigotry against gay people.” [...] Attorney Max Kennerly posits, “If we followed Alito’s reasoning that religious beliefs can never serve as a basis to strike a juror, we’d instantly run into a collision with jurors who believe, on religious grounds, the death penalty is wrong. Any guesses how Alito would rule on that? Yeah, exactly.”

Why the condemnation of homosexual behavior by some (NOT all) religious conservatives might legitimately raise questions of bigotry

It seems to me that Alito is acting as if "traditional religious views" about homosexuality are uniform.

Alito doesn't seem to acknowledge (or perhaps is not fully aware) that there are some interpretations of scripture that do not support the condemnation of homosexual behavior or even of same-sex unions. In fact there are some mainstream Christian denominations that allow for blessings of same-sex couples (including recently the very "traditional" Roman Catholic Church). Furthermore, Reconstructionist, Reform and Conservative Jewish sects also allow the blessing of same-sex unions.

Given all of the above, one might reasonably wonder why some (not all) conservative Christians or Jews seem to prefer to accept anti-LGBTQ+ translations/ interpretations of scripture, when other translations/ interpretations that are more sympathetic to homosexual behavior are available.

Of course the primary group of religious people in the U.S. that condemns homosexual behavior consists of some (not all) right-wing "Christians" from various denominations. But one also might wonder why these same right-wing "Christians" DON'T seem to want to pass laws banning divorce, adultery, usury, lying, etc., but they DO want to pass anti-LGBTQ+ legislation? After all, behaviors like divorce, adultery, usury, and lying are clearly condemned in various parts of the Bible.

One might also ask, why do some of these same right-wing "Christians" who think it is okay to condemn the LGBTQ+ community, not also condemn a prominent politician like Trump, who has been divorced multiple times, committed adultery multiple times, and who lies almost every time he opens his mouth?

It is the picking and choosing of what to condemn, and the hyperfocus on using the law to allow those with certain "religious views" to deny the rights of the LGBTQ+ community (while not choosing to deny the rights of other kinds of so-called "sinners"--NOT that I support that either) that suggests it might be legitimate to question whether some on the religious right use religion as an excuse to hold bigoted beliefs about and/or to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community.

[edited]

#samuel alito #right-wing religious views #right-wing christians #anti-lgbtq+ religious beliefs #bigotry #lgbtq+ rights #the new civil rights movement #the new republic

59 notes · View notes

quasi-normalcy · 4 months

Text

I'm going to be honest, I watched HBomberGuy's Tommy Tallarico video and my immediate impression was: This guy reminds me of Donald Trump. Not just in the sheer quantity of lies that he told, or the defrauding of investors or anything else like that, but just. That pathological need to appear like the awesomest, most successful, winning-est person ever. Lying about appearing on MTV's Cribs and then, when someone asks if you had a Cribs appearance, claiming that you had "a couple of them," even though you have none. Paying Guinness to give you three bullshit "world record" awards, and then running off extra copies so it looks like you have seven. Slagging off a game in a review and then, when it becomes a runaway hit, claiming that you composed for it. Like it goes beyond mere shameless self-promotion, to the point of seeming like a mentally unhealthy obsession with what other people think of you.

And then I thought about my ex's stepfather, who was very much a man in this mold. A crummy businessman and failed politician who met defeat in every endeavour, but still somehow managing to be a raging egomaniac, literally sending out Christmas cards talking about how awesome he was (he got to write their family's Christmas cards because he was convinced, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that he was a good writer). And at the time (this was many years before Trump entered politics), I just assumed that he was a singularity. Like, I wanted to study him under a microscope because I'd honestly never met someone like that.

But then Trump ran for president and was elected, and I suddenly realised that there must be millions of Americans exactly like that. I think that a hyper-individualistic culture where celebrity is all must breed them.

#malignant individualism

75 notes · View notes

maaruin · 5 months

Note

can you explain the bin laden thing and answer the questions you posted that should be "attached" to the letter? im kind of ashamed to admit how little i know about bin laden, but i was also only born in 2001... id appreciate some context on why people are into his letter, why leftists are latching onto it, and how this connects to what's going on in gaza. i'll read as much as you wanna write. thanks so much.

in reference to my previous post Yes, I can do that. Thank you for the ask. And I can assure you, many people who lived through 9/11 as adults don't really understand Bin Laden's motivations all that well either. If you want to read the letter yourself, you can find it here on WikiSource.

First for the questions: 1. Are bin Laden’s descriptions of political events and relations in this letter accurate? What could he have misunderstood? What could he be lying about?

When bin Laden lays out his reasons for attacking America, he says America attacked first and then claims that America is responsible for basically every bad thing that his happening to Muslims (in his view) anywhere. So America is not only responsible for its interventions in the Middle East and military aid to Israel, but also for the Russian suppression of the Chechnyan attempt at independence, Indian control of Kashmir, the Philippine government fighting Islamist rebels, and governments in the Islamic world not implementing Sharia. He implies hostility towards Islam is the reason for America's actions, for example, he thinks American soldiers in Saudi-Arabia were stationed there so that the mere presence of non-Muslims in the country with Islams most holy sites will humiliate Muslims. (When in fact they were stationed there in 1991 at the request of the Saudi government to protect it against a possible invasion from Iraq after Iraq had already invaded Kuwait.) This is classical conspiracy-theory-thinking: Assuming that behind all the bad things that happen to your group there must be a plan by someone (often a particular group) to hurt your group and that the motivation is hatred towards you. You will find bin Laden parroting conspiracy theorist talking points in the later sections of the letter as well, for example that America created AIDS, or that Jews are secretly controlling American politicians. The problem with conspiracy theories is very simple: they tend to be wrong. For example, if you want to explain the actions of the Russian military in Chechnya around 2000, don't look at America, look at Putin's ruling ideology. If you want to explain why Muslim governments don't implement Sharia, think about if it would help or hurt their ability to stay in power. Many problems all around the world start from local conditions, not because there is an evil mastermind behind them. I don't think bin Laden is lying very much in this letter, except maybe to himself. He is just falling to his own pattern matching bias that wants to ascribe all bad thing that happen to Muslims to a single cause - America. (Probably because that would mean if you could just defeat America, all the problems in the Islamic world would go away.) 2. Are bin Laden’s goals outlined in the letter worthwhile? Should Americans implement his suggestions? The latter has bin Laden's requests for Americans. Some are goals that an American may support as well, like stop military interventions in the Islamic world or ending support for countries that oppress Muslims. Though even there he sees American support where there wasn't really support, like the Russian operation in Chechnya. The US government did in fact condemn Russian actions. So this goal is not worthwhile because it is based on false assumptions about reality - the conspiracy theory about American Influence listed above. The hugest chunk of requests however is the demand for America to convert to Islam, end the separation of religion and state, and adopt social conservative policies (ban alcohol, ban sex work, ban homosexuality, ban interest on loans, stop employing women in service industry jobs where they serve man, etc - but he also mentiones that he wants the US to sign the Kyoto protocol, so it isn't 100% identical to what US conservatives want). Arguments for or against social conservatism would make this post far too long, but I doubt many left leaning Americans would be on board for these policies. Right leaning Americans might support some of these policies, but they would certainly not want America to make Islam the state religion.

3. Were the 9/11 attacks and similar operations by al-Qaeda an effective way to achieve his goals? Did the terrorist attack on American civilians lead to Americans wanting to convert to Islam - NO, it made Americans hate Islam. Did it make America withdraw from Islamic countries - NO, it made America invade Afghanistan and Iraq. I have read a bit of context on Bin Laden's goals in the past. During the Lebanese Civil War, a number of US soldiers were killed in a suicide bombing (iirc) and after that the US withdrew its soldiers. Bin Laden misjudged this and thought that an even larger attack on American civilians within the borders of the US would have the same effect on a larger scale. He was wrong and caused the opposite reaction. Killing American troops that are deployed in/are occupying another country does make Americans sour on the war if you can keep it up over time. But attacking civilians, especially in their home country, tends to increases the will to fight in the West (with few exception - spain pulled out its troops from Iraq after a terrorist attack on trains in Madrid). In the last decade the Taliban managed to make the US retreat and took over Afghanistan again by limiting their attacks these way, constantly killing US soldiers and their allies, but leaving civilians in America alone. The Islamic State on the other hand got the whole world into uniting against it by its display of cruelties like the beheading of journalists and aid workers and by its terrorist attacks in France and other countries. So even within his own values Bin Laden made the wrong choice when he initiated the 9/11 attacks. Context on why the letter may have had a sudden spike in popularity recently

The more immediate reason is that the letter talks quite a bit about American support for Israeli oppression of Palestinians. And that is one of the statements in the letter that are based at least somewhat in truth - yes, Israel does oppress Palestinians and yes, the US government generally supports Israel. It is somewhat doubtful if America withdrawing support would make Israel oppress Palestinians less. (In fact, it might make Israel more aggressive because it felt more threatened, but that also isn't for certain.) This is, I suppose, the reason why people ended up reading the letter. But the reason for them saying things like "I now realize he was right" is a specific kind of leftist gullibility/refusal to think. Leftists are opposed to oppression. They see that the United States is the most powerful country in the world and is involved, directly and indirectly, in a number of cases in which people are oppressed around the world. And then they think "If oppression is bad and the US oppresses people, people who fight against the US must be good." But the world of international politics cannot just be divided into good and evil. There are in fact things like better and worse. Bin Laden's letter overestimates the influence the US has and that its ability to change things, his vision for the world is worse than the world looks under US hegemony, and the means he chose to pursue his goals did not even help him achieve these goals - instead it just caused a number of bloody wars that got many Muslims (including himself) killed.

And I just wish leftists would think such things (statements like "Bin Laden was right") through. This isn't the first time. During the protests of 2020 after the murder of George Floyd the statement "Abolish the Police" gained tractions. Probably brought into the protest by some anarchists, other leftists thought "well, if the police oppresses people, abolishing it is the obvious solution". Without considering a) how much support by less ideologically committed people it cost them (it was an extremely unrealistic goal) and b) the risk of institutions arising in the vacuum left by the police could be worse (would private security beholden to cooperations be better than the police?, would a mafia that demanded protection money from you be better than the police?). And right now with Gaza we see the same thing: Does calling the 7/10 massacres "decolonization" make people likely to support decolonization? - NO Does Hamas have a shot at conquering Israel and restoring a Palestine "from river to sea" and did the attack further this goal? - NO If Hamas controlled all of current Israel, would the situation be better for the people who live there or would return there, even if you only consider Palestinians ? - DOUBTFUL

I think some leftists latch on to this letter because they have the same conspiracy-theory-thinking bin Laden had and saying "bin Laden was right" sounds really really radical and that makes them feel good. Their politics are very emotion driven with insufficient though put into it. Well, I hope my long post helped to a better understanding.

38 notes · View notes

kp777 · 1 year

Text

By Thom Hartmann

Common Dreams

March 31, 2023

The Republican Party's most dangerous grift today has been their embrace of the lie that America is not a democracy but instead is a theocratic republic that should be ruled exclusively by armed Christian white men. It's leading us straight into the jaws of fascism.

Nobody ever accused Republicans of not knowing how to make a buck or BS-ing somebody into voting for them. Lying to people for economic or political gain is the very definition of a grift.

Whenever there’s another mass- or school-shooting, Republican politicians hustle out fundraising emails about how “Democrats are coming to take your guns!” The result is a measurable and profitable spike in gun sales after every new slaughter of our families and children, followed by a fresh burst of campaign cash to GOP lawmakers.

But the GOP’s ability to exploit any opportunity that comes along — regardless of its impact on America or American citizens — goes way beyond just fundraising hustles.

When Jared Kushner was underwater and nearly bankrupt because he overpaid for 666 Fifth Avenue and needed a billion-dollar bailout to cover his mortgage, his buddies in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia and the UAE) blockaded American ally (and host to the Fifth Fleet) Qatar until that country relented and laundered the money to Jared through a Canadian investment company.

Just this week, after Trump deregulated toxic trains leading to a horrible crash and the contamination of East Palestine, Ohio, Steve Bannon — already charged with multiple fraud-related crimes and then pardoned by Trump — showed up this week to hustle $300+ water filters to the people of that town.

The grift is at the core of the GOP’s existence, and has been since Nixon blew up LBJ’s peace talks with the Vietnamese in 1968 and then took cash bribes from the Milk Lobby and Jimmy Hoffa in the White House while having his mafia-connected “plumbers” wiretap the DNC’s offices at the Watergate.

— Republicans successfully fought the ability of Medicare to negotiate drug prices for decades; in turn, Big Pharma pours millions into their campaign coffers and personal pockets (legalized by 5 Republicans on the Supreme Court).

— Republicans beat back Democratic efforts to stop insurance giants from ripping off seniors and our government with George W. Bush’s Medicare Advantage privatization scam; in turn, the insurance companies rain cash on them like an Indian monsoon.

— Republicans oppose any effort to replace fossil fuels with green energy sources that don’t destroy our environment; in turn, the fossil fuel industry jacked up the price of gasoline into the stratosphere just in time for the 2022 election (and you can expect them to try it again in 2024).

— Republicans stopped enforcement of a century’s worth of anti-trust laws in 1983, wiping out America’s small businesses and turning rural city centers into ghost towns while pushing profits and prices through the ceiling; in turn massive corporate PACs fund ads supporting Republican candidates every election cycle.

— Republicans authored legislation letting billionaires own thousands of newspapers, radio stations, and TV outlets; in turn the vast majority of those papers (now half of all local papers are owned by a handful of rightwing New York hedge funds) and stations all run daily news and editorials attacking Democrats and supporting the GOP.

— Republicans Trump and Pai killed net neutrality so giant tech companies can legally spy on you and me, recording every website we visit and selling that information for billions; in turn, major social media sites amplify rightwing voices while giant search engines stopped spidering progressive news sites.

Newspeak — George Orwell’s term for the grift where politicians use fancy phrases that mean the opposite of what people think they mean — has been the GOP’s go-to strategy for a half-century.

Richard Nixon, for example, promised to crack down on drugs, but instead used that as an excuse to crack down on anti-war liberals and Black people. Instead of an economic grift, it was a political grift.

As Nixon‘s right hand man, John Ehrlichman, told reporter Dan Baum:

“You want to know what this was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and Black people. Do you understand what I’m saying? “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. “We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. “Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.“

The grift is a recurrent theme through Republican presidencies in the modern era.

Ronald Reagan told us if we just destroyed America’s unions and moved our manufacturing to China and Mexico, great job opportunities would fill the nation.

He followed that up by promising if we just cut taxes on the morbidly rich, prosperity would trickle-down to the rest of us.

Reagan even assured us that raising the Social Security retirement age to 67 and taxing Social Security benefits would mean seniors could retire with greater ease.

All, of course, were grifter’s lies. Republican presidents since Reagan have continued the tradition.

George W. Bush called his program to make it easier to clear-cut America’s forests and rip roads through wilderness areas the “Healthy Forests Initiative.”

His program to legalize more pollution from coal-fired power plants and immunize them from community lawsuits (leading to tens of thousands of additional lung- and heart-disease deaths in the years since) was named the “Clean Air Act.”

Bush’s scam to “strengthen” Medicare — “Medicare Advantage” — was a thinly disguised plan to privatize that program that is today draining Medicare’s coffers while making insurance executives richer than Midas.

Donald Trump told Americans he had the coronavirus pandemic under control while he was actually making the situation far worse: America had more deaths per capita from the disease than any other developed country in the world, with The Lancet estimating a half-million Americans died needlessly because of Trump’s grift.

Jared and Ivanka cashed in on their time in the White House to the tune of billions, while Trump squeezed hundreds of millions out of foreign governments, encouraging them to illegally pay him through rentals in his properties around the world.

Other Trump grifts — most leading to grateful industries or billionaires helping him and the GOP out — included:

— Making workplaces less safe — Boosting religious schools at the expense of public schools — Cutting relief for students defrauded by student loan sharks — Shrinking the safety net by cutting $60 billion out of food stamps — Forcing workers to put in overtime without getting paid extra for it — Pouring more pollution from fossil fuels into our fragile atmosphere — Gutting the EPA’s science operation — Rescinding rules that protected workers at federal contract sites — Dialing back car air pollution emissions standards — Reducing legal immigration of skilled workers into the US from “shithole countries” — Blocking regulation of toxic chemicals — Rolling back rules on banks, setting up the crisis of 2023 — Defenestrating rules against racially segregated housing

While Nixon was simply corrupt — a crook, to use his own term — in 1978 when five Republicans on the Supreme Court signed off on the Bellotti decision authored by Lewis Powell himself, giving corporations the legal right to bribe American politicians, the GOP went all in.

Ever since then, the GOP has purely been the party of billionaires and giant corporations, although their most successful political grift has been to throw an occasional bone to racists, gun-nuts, fascists, homophobes, and woman-haters to get votes.

Democrats at that time were largely funded by the unions, so it wasn’t until the 1990s, after Reagan had destroyed about half of America’s union jobs and gutted the unions’ ability to fund campaigns, that the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton was forced to make a big turn toward taking corporate cash.

Since Barack Obama showed how online fundraising could replace corporate cash, however, about half of the nation’s Democratic politicians have aligned with the Progressive Caucus and eschewed corporate money, returning much of the Party to its FDR and Great Society base.

The GOP, in contrast, has never wavered from lapping up corporate money in exchange for tax cuts, deregulation, and corporate socialism.

Their most dangerous grift today, though, has been their embrace of the lie that America is not a democracy but instead is a theocratic republic that should be ruled exclusively by armed Christian white men. It’s leading us straight into the jaws of fascism.

Bannon’s grift in East Palestine is the smallest of the small, after his being busted for a multi-million-dollar fraud in the “Build the Wall” scheme and others, but is still emblematic of the Republican strategy at governance.

When all you have to offer the people is a hustle, then at the very least, Republicans figure, you should be able to make a buck or gain/keep political power while doing it.

#republicans #gop #grift #common dreams

91 notes · View notes

luminalunii97 · 2 years

Text

Why is Iran's current regime dangerous for not only Iranians but the world (why you should care and be our voice)

Someone in Iran made an interesting argument about how Iranian politicians don't know or don't respect political ethics in international affairs and it got me thinking... As you know the united nations conference was just held in New York where all UN leaders were invited, including our current president, Ebrahim Raisi. Even though he has a criminal record due to his involvement in the mass murder in 1988 (He was one of the four people on the prosecution committee that sentenced thousands of people to death, among them innocent men and women: link) he still got a safe pass (I am critical of this, I'd be very happy if he got captured there but the message here is that they promised him a safe pass and they held up their end of it).

But If the role was reversed and if it was say Biden who had to travel to Iran there would be no safe travel for him. Islamic republic plays dirtier than western politicians. Lying and deceiving is how they kept ruling Iran for such a long time.

A western politician wouldn't be safe in Iran and they know it. Hell, a western citizen won't be safe in Iran and by that, I don't mean "they don't like American tourists and they will give them a hard time". What I mean is that the Islamic republic has been kidnapping, jailing, and torturing western tourists and holding them for ransom for a long time now. Here's the list of all those poor souls who came to visit Iran but ended up going through the worst trauma of their lives: link.

The Islamic republic also has a history of direct terroristic operations in other countries. And let's not talk about their known support for some terroristic organizations. This is beyond my point but I thought I add this as an honorary mention: link.

So next time you or someone you know though Iran's situation is not my business, consider these facts.

P. S. As I was writing this I realized the side stories I used to support my point were more horrifying than the actual point. So you must check those links for this post to be fully understood. Spread the word.

#iran #help iran #iran protests #iran news #islamic republic of iran #islamic republic vs iran #mahsa amini #jîna emînî #united nations #united states #tumblr #politics #human rights #woman #life #freedom

232 notes · View notes

iamumbra195 · 2 months

Text

I will never get over the fact that Shiratori Ninzaburō's english dub name is NICHOLAS SANTOS

THIS GUY

has the same name as this dude

I don't know why but this is ridiculously funny to me.

At first I was like, Santos is the name of that one politician that was exposed for lying a lot a few months ago.

Then I was like no... I've heard the name Nicholas Santos before and it turns he has the same name as the American Record Holder in Long Course for swimming that I learned about grade 11 physics because my teacher was obsessed with sports.

ALSO HOW DID YOU GET NICHOLAS SANTOS FROM SHIRATORI NINZABURO FUNIMATION???

This is the funniest thing ever lmao XD

#detective conan #case closed #dcmk #ninzaburo shiratori #nicholas santos #this shit is so funny #I feel like this loser would try to flirt with Kobayashi-sensei more by using these fact only for the detective boys to tear his ego apart #like they always do #he deserves it for being a weird suspicious dude in like #every one of the earlier movies #still love him tho

16 notes · View notes

hit-song-showdown · 1 year

Text

Year-End Poll #23: 1972

[Image description: a collage of photos of the 10 musicians and musical groups featured in this poll. In order from left to right, top to bottom: Roberta Flack, Gilbert O'Sullivan, Don McLean, Harry Nilsson, Sammy Davis Jr., Joe Tex, Bill Withers, Mac Davis, Melanie, Wayne Newton. End description]

More information about this blog here

I mentioned in a previous poll how fast culture changed in the 1970s, and that doesn't feel like an exaggeration. This was the final year of the draft and more American troops were being taken out of Vietnam. As American troops were coming home, The Today Show aired a "while you were away" segment to go over how the culture has shifted while they were overseas. Most, if not all, of this segment was a joke, but it shows that even at the time people were aware that something was changing and it was changing fast. To paraphrase historian Rick Perlstein, they left a country where The Sound of Music was the most popular movie, and they came home to a country where the most popular movie was Last Tango in Paris.

To get back to the music, it feels wrong not to shine the spotlight on Don McLean's American Pie. For one, I probably could have used the lyrics as the blurb for one of the 60's polls and saved myself a lot of time. The lyrics themselves show this changing cultural shift as well, reflecting on how aimless this new generation felt. It's hard not to put a 2020s lens on everything. But looking back at a time that was rife with political scandals and politicians not seeming to care about the rising bodycounts affecting their citizens, I'd be lying if I said the sentiment doesn't hit home. "A generation lost in space" indeed.

However, in addition to the longest song on this poll, I also want to highlight one of the shorter ones. Specifically, Joe Tex's I Gotcha. Funk music is going to continue to grow in popularity this decade, even though the full extent of that cultural movement won't always be seen on the top of the charts. But the reason I wanted to highlight this song specifically is to use it as a prelude to what's coming next. If you listen to the song, pay attention to the chorus when the rest of the instruments drop out to put more emphasis on the percussion and how Joe Tex's rhythmic vocals play against the beat.

And for my third highlight, if the artist behind the tenth song sounds familiar, that's because the song was by Mr. Las Vegas himself. Or, if any Fallout fans follow this blog (and judging by the results on some of the 50's-60's polls, I know you're here), Mr. New Vegas. Speaking of gamers, Pong debuted this year as well.

I've rewritten this section multiple times, because I don't want to gloss over a specific moment in history, but it also feels jarring to bring it up in a poll with mostly unpolitical songs. After spending a few polls talking about how the war affected the American psyche, it feels important to reinforce that the people of Vietnam didn't have to be soldiers or reporters to see the war before their eyes instead of on a television set. 1972 also marks the year of the Christmas Bombings, one of the most horrific 12-day stretches in an already horrific war. Even though I don't go over every historic moment in these descriptions, it felt wrong not to bring this up. Even as this event would result in the general population's mistrust towards Nixon and the government growing even more rapidly, it wouldn't be enough.

Nixon no longer had to worry about reelection and it felt like the entire country was holding its breath before something major happened.

#billboard poll #billboard music #1970s #1970s music #1972 #roberta flack #gilbert o'sullivan #don mclean #harry nilsson #sammy davis jr #joe tex #bill withers #mac davis #melanie #wayne newton

57 notes · View notes