#like yes it's been 30 years they cannot be in a perpetual state of issues that keep them apart even more than the deadly powers | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

whereareroo · 3 years

Text

CLUB RULES

WF THOUGHTS (1/28/21).

On January 5th, two Democrats won the U.S. Senate seats in Georgia. Those seats had been occupied by Republicans. The shift was a big deal. The two new seats for the Democrats created a 50-50 tie in the Senate. The Vice President, in her role as president of the Senate, casts the tiebreaking vote in the Senate. Because Kamala Harris is a Democrat, the Democrats effectively have a 51-50 "majority" in the Senate and they are deemed to be the "majority party" in control of the Senate.

Starting on January 20th, Inauguration Day, the Democrats controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House.

You might think that the new power structure would give the Democrats complete power to pass the laws that they wish to enact. Everybody knows that a law becomes binding if it is passed by both bodies in Congress and signed by the President. Well, it's not that easy.

The Senate is like a little club. It's like your Condominium Association or the Parent Teacher Organization at your neighborhood school. All little clubs have the power to make their own operational rules. The Senate has an operational rule, reaching back to 1806, that I call the "Sixty Vote Rule." Others call it the Filibuster Rule. It's not in the Constitution. It's not part of Federal Law. It's simply an operational rule that has existed in the Senate for a long time.

Today, I'm going to talk to you about some issues related to the Senate. I'm going to give you an overly simplified analysis. My topics are important, but I don't want you to fall asleep.

The Senate has 100 seats. For a law to be enacted in the Senate, common sense would dictate that the law receive at least 51 votes. That's a numerical majority. Despite that math, and excluding limited exceptions that I won't discuss here today, the Sixty Vote Rule requires that a law get 60 votes to pass in the Senate. It sounds absurd, but it's a fact. The Sixty Vote Rule has a long history. I'll skip that history and simply tell you that the basic purpose was to make sure that--if neither party controls more than 60 votes and the Senate is divided in the vicinity of 50/50--the minority party would at least have some minimal input into laws enacted by the Senate.

For a very long time, the Senate was a very civil and collegial club. The Sixty Vote Rule wasn't a regular problem because Senators made the necessary compromises to accumulate 60 votes. From 1917 through 1970, there were only 60 filibusters in total. After 1970, Senators started to get more hostile towards each other and the number of filibusters started to climb. From 1970 through 2000, there were roughly 20 filibusters every year. From 2000 through 2015, there were about 50 filibusters a year. A new record was set in 2013-2014, when the Senate was paralyzed with 218 filibusters. We currently average about 100 filibusters a year. Many years, the Senate does not pass any legislation unless that bill falls under one of the exceptions to the Sixty Vote Rule. Is that how government is supposed to work?

You now have enough background to understand why there's suddenly so much chatter about the Filibuster Rule (a/k/a the Sixty Vote Rule) and exceptions to the rule like the Budget Reconciliation exception. By controlling 50 seats in the Senate, even though the Democrats effectively have 51 votes due to the tiebreaking vote from the Vice President, it's likely that the Republicans will seek to use the Sixty Vote Rule to block all legislation designed to advance the agenda of the Democrats. In particular, the Republicans are saying that they'll block President Biden's big Covid Relief Package. Should it be that way if the voters gave the Democrats the White House, the House of Representatives, and a one vote "majority" in the Senate?

There's talk about revoking the Sixty Vote Rule. There's talk about weakening the Rule by allowing bills to proceed with only 52 or 55 votes. There's talk about making more exceptions to the Rule. I'm not going to get into all of the related technical details. You're not interested, and that's fine.

You do, however, need to understand the underlying "big picture." The Senate is broken. The operation of the Senate has become undemocratic. That's a big problem. The will of the majority of Americans is regularly blocked by the minority. That's a dangerous situation. If nothing is done to restore democracy, at some point the majority will overthrow the system. Overthrows are ugly, and it's impossible to predict what will emerge in lieu of the overthrown system. It's crazy that we're reaching the tipping point because of an internal operating rule--not created by law or the Constitution--that exists in the U.S. Senate.

As a concerned citizen, you need to know the facts about how undemocratic the Senate has become. That's the only way you can appreciate the genesis and importance of the current debates about the Filibuster Rule. America has changed a great deal since the humble beginnings of the Sixty Vote Rule in 1806. Should we risk the overthrow of our whole system to protect an ancient rule that now operates in an extremely undemocratic manner?

Here are some facts that highlight the problem:

▪Right now, 42 Republican Senators from 21 states, predominantly states will small populations, control 42 votes in the Senate. Those 42 Senators represent slightly less than 25% of our population. Nonetheless, if they vote as a group (and they usually do), those 42 Senators can use the Sixty Vote Rule to block almost every piece of legislation that's presented in the Senate. Yes, the representatives of 25% of the population can block legislation that is supported by the representatives of 75% of the population. Can you see the problem?

▪If the lack of democracy in the Senate is not fixed, the problem will become much bigger over the next two decades. The year 2040 is not that far away. If current population trends continue, by 2040 about 70% of our population will live in 15 states. Those 15 states--traditionally Democratic states--will have 30 Senators (two per state), and control 30 votes in the Senate. The remaining votes in the Senate will be held by 70 Senators--largely from traditionally Republican states--who only represent 30% of the population. Unless things change in the Senate, by rules changes or more radical changes imposed by the majority of the American people, this population allocation will give permanent veto power to the states will the smallest populations. It's very easy to imagine a scenario that would let the Senators who represent 20% of the population regularly block legislation that is supported by the Senators who represent 80% of the population. My guess is that the system will probably break down before we get to that point. We might not like the looks of the new system.

▪Let me give you a final factual example that crystallizes the current problem. Right now there are 15 Republican states, representing a combined population of 38 million Americans, that get 30 votes in the Senate. California, a Democratic state with a population of 40 million, gets 2 votes. The imbalance is wrong and unsustainable. The Sixty Vote Rule exacerbates the problem.

Please don't dismiss the current filibuster debate as unimportant bickering between the Democrats and Republicans. Our democracy is at stake. The roadblocks have become unfair, and our government cannot withstand perpetual roadblocks. If the politicians can't fix their system, the American people will find a way to impose a new system. Again, we might not like the looks of the new system.

In closing, let me say that I'm 100% in favor of giving the less populous states a strong voice in Washington. The Constitution does that by giving every state, regardless of size, two votes in the Senate. The 40 million people of California are represented by two Senators and the 600,000 people of Wyoming are represented by two Senators. It was wise for the Founding Fathers to create that imbalance in the Senate. Under the Constitution, 26 small states can form an alliance and block all legislation in the Senate. That's OK with me. If any group can accumulate 51 votes to stop a bill in the Senate, that's "democratic" in broad terms. I can live with the fact that, by giving every state 2 Senators regardless of state population, the Constitution gives the small states an unfair advantage with respect to accumulating 51 votes to block legislation. Without the unfair allocation of Senate seats, the less populous states might get steamrolled by the states with big populations. I'm satisfied that the Constitution creates a fair balance of power.

The problem is that, by creating the Sixty Vote Rule as an internal rule for the "club," the Senate substantially magnified the power that was given to the less populous states. The Sixty Vote Rule allows 20 small states, representing a small portion of our population, to block all legislation in the Senate. It's amazing that the Sixty Vote Rule has lasted for so long. The Senators from days of old should be commended for finding ways to pass laws under the Sixty Vote Rule. Sadly, those days are gone. There is no collegiality in the Senate today. The spirit of compromise is gone. The Sixty Vote Rule has created years of legislative paralysis, and we're at a breaking point. Paralysis ultimately results in death.

Please don't tune out when you hear talk about the Filibuster Rule. This is a really big deal. Our democracy is at stake. We're at a critical point in history. Pay attention. Personally, I'm worried about how this is going to shake out. Let's hope for the best. I'll keep you informed.

0 notes

stillevann · 3 years

Text

Gluttony: Sin of Lust and Greed (Part One)

Martin G. Collins

A Realty Times magazine article, "Gluttony . . . Sheer Gluttony: Tyson's Connecticut City—uh, home—goes on the market," tells of how prizefighter Mike Tyson bought a Farmington, Connecticut, estate for $3 million and made some "modest" upgrades: a 3,500 square-foot nightclub designed for 1,000 people, and a 1,500 square-foot exercise facility. The house has 18 bedrooms, 24 full bathrooms, 14 half-baths, an indoor racquetball court, 7 kitchens, a theater, an elevator, a 3-story foyer, and 50 skylights. Tyson has admitted to Prime Time Live that he has probably visited it only five times, yet after a year, he grew tired of his 56,000 square-foot pastime, putting it up for sale for $25 million!

Although Tyson has invested millions upgrading the estate, Connecticut realtors believe he will not get much beyond the initial $3 million for it since $250,000-500,000 homes surround it. What a waste—millions of dollars squandered in gluttonous spending.

With human reasoning being what it is, it is not surprising to see our present society deeply against self-responsibility. Most people today have convinced themselves that they are not personally responsible for their actions, and this applies to gluttony. They reason, "It must be genetic," or "I have a disease." Gluttony is considered merely socially unpleasant rather than a sin. Few in this society know what it is or why it is wrong.

What is gluttony? Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: Tenth Edition defines a glutton as "one given habitually to greedy and voracious eating and drinking." Voracious is "having a huge appetite: ravenous; excessively eager: insatiable." Synonyms for "gluttony" are greed, avarice, gorge, epicure, cram, stuff and guzzle. Children who eat voraciously are said to "eat us out of house and home," and an adult who eats often "plays a good knife and fork."

We associate gluttony most often with overeating, but it can occur in many other forms such as drinking, smoking, gambling, sex, accumulating material things, or even too much studying and researching of a narrowly defined subject in theology, health, genealogy—the list is endless. The key term, however, is "too much." Signs of gluttony are too soon, too eagerly, too quickly.

Gluttony Is Destructive

The Bible ascribes a great deal of destructive power to gluttony, as in Proverbs 30:21-22: "For three things the earth is perturbed, yes, for four it cannot bear up: . . . A fool when he is filled with food. . . ." Physically, what is so harmful about it?

An old English proverb says, "Gluttony kills more than the sword." Another maintains, "There are more gluttons than alcoholics in the grave." This certainly seems true today. In the last five years, sales of oversized coffins at the nation's largest casket company are up 20 percent. Why? The November 8, 1999, issue of U.S. News and World Report answers this in an informative article entitled, Why We're Fat:

Both men and women are getting fat in epidemic proportions. Well over half of all American adults—about 63 percent of men and 55 percent of women age 25 and older—are overweight. Last week in a special issue devoted entirely to obesity, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported new statistics that are nothing short of astonishing for a nation seemingly so obsessed with health and fitness: The rate of obesity—18 percent—has soared from 12 percent just seven years ago, making the United States now secure in its position as the fattest nation in the developed world.

"The rate is shocking," says Jeffery Koplan, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "and it means that we have a huge public health problem." Indeed, depending on weight and age, obesity significantly increases the risk of high blood pressure and high cholesterol, diabetes, and gallbladder disease.

Gluttony is sheer defiance of reasonable and balanced behavior. Benjamin Franklin says of man's proclivity to overeat, "In general, mankind, since the improvement of cookery, eats twice as much as nature requires." Each person must determine what is necessary to sustain him, measuring his indulgence in eating and drinking to ensure it is healthy for him.

Obese men risk serious health problems, as Why We're Fat relates:

The potbelly that men often grow in their middle years is not just unattractive, it's dangerous. . . . The midlife paunch, which doctors call "visceral fat," poses a risk because it surrounds the internal organs. It releases fatty acids that make their way into the liver, diminishing the organ's ability to process the hormone insulin, eventually causing diabetes. The fat also affects how the kidneys process insulin, a factor that scientists say may lead to high blood pressure. For every 10 percent increase over normal weight, men and women have about a 20 percent jump in risk for heart disease. [See the inset, "Body Mass Index," to see how health officials determine obesity.]

Obesity is a terrible problem, and unlike other epidemics like a flu epidemic, it will not go away on its own. Some would have us believe that there is nothing wrong with being fat—that people just find it distasteful and assume it is unhealthy. Actually, doctors say fat is unhealthy because a multitude of studies for decades has shown it to be so. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop says, "We know that excessive weight fosters everything from diabetes and heart disease to breast cancer, colorectal cancer and osteoarthritis." Prostate, gallbladder, cervical and ovarian cancers have also been linked to obesity.

Gluttony Is Sin

When we use food or drink in a way that injures our health or impairs our mind, we are guilty of the sin of gluttony. King Solomon, a man familiar with feasting and abundance, advises, "Blessed are you, O land, when your king is the son of nobles, and your princes feast at the proper time—for strength and not for drunkenness!" (Ecclesiastes 10:17). We should eat food primarily at meal times and for strength, not satiation.

Although we all enjoy snacks occasionally, they are most often of poor quality, well known as "fat foods" or "junk foods" for their ability to fatten us up with little or no nutritional value. While adults consume plenty of junk food, teenagers eat it voraciously, one factor in why so many of our youth are overweight (adolescent obesity has jumped 40 percent in a little over a decade). The cycle of gluttony does not end once they reach adulthood.

Perhaps not so surprising to those who are observant, teens ingest an average of 9 percent of their calories from soft drinks. Food and drink proportions have inflated to the point that marketers need a new vocabulary to describe them. Selections no longer stop at "large"—they are now "jumbo" or "supreme." The original Coca-Cola came in a statuesque 6.5-ounce bottle, and in Europe it is still about 8 ounces. In America, however, machines now dispense 20-ounce soda bottles, while convenience stores sell 64-ounce buckets of drink—10 times the original serving size!

Eating disorders such as bulimia nervosa and anorexia are commonly associated with gluttony. As an affluent nation, we binge and starve and binge again, swinging from food-related anxiety to depression and guilt to pursuing sensory pleasure in food "addiction." For instance, bulimia is characterized by self-perpetuating and self-defeating cycles of gluttonous binge-eating and purging. During a "binge," the person consumes large amounts of food in a rapid, automatic and helpless fashion. Though this may repress hunger, anger and other feelings, it eventually creates physical discomfort and anxiety about weight gain. So the person "purges" the food eaten, usually by inducing vomiting and resorting to some combination of restrictive dieting, excessive exercising, laxatives and diuretics.

According to the World Health Organization, 300,000 Americans die prematurely each year because of obesity. Among lifestyle-related illnesses, only cigarette smoking (at approximately 400,000 deaths) has a higher toll. But smoking deaths are declining, while obesity deaths will continue to climb as long as obesity does.

Of course, eating is not a sin, but if one eats in a manner that is unhealthy, it is sin. Poor eating habits, such as binge eating, constant eating for satiation and junk food inhalation, slowly destroy the human body.

Lust and Greed

How do lust and greed relate to gluttony? Basically, lust is an intense longing or excessive craving for something—anything—and greed is excessive or insatiable desire to accumulate things. Lust and greed are never satisfied, as James 4:1-2 says: "Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain." Too much of even a good thing can be bad. Among other afflictions, too much eating can cause obesity and gout, and too much drinking, cirrhosis of the liver and depression.

In Numbers 11, the Israelites in the wilderness, inclined to be excessive, let lust and greed rule them. Their gluttony exposes other sins hidden below the surface: ingratitude, wastefulness, lust, greed, covetousness and licentiousness. The chapter begins with some of them complaining of being tired of eating only God-given manna. Displeased with them, God burns up some of the complainers in the outskirts of the camp as a warning (verse 1). Still, many give into their desire for other types of food, especially meat. "Now the mixed multitude who were among them yielded to intense craving; so the children of Israel also wept again and said, ‘Who will give us meat to eat?'" (verse 4).

Moses, tired of the Israelites complaining about not having meat, complains to God about the complaining Israelites (verses 10-15)! God, although not pleased with the Israelites, tells him that He would provide the entire nation with meat (verses 16-20). Moses immediately assumes it would come from the flocks and herds (verses 21-22), but God performs a miracle to further show His providence: Quail flutter just above the ground near the camp for about a day's journey in all directions!

And the people stayed up all that day, all that night, and all the next day, and gathered the quail (he who gathered least gathered ten homers [about ten donkey loads]); and they spread them out for themselves all around the camp. But while the meat was still between their teeth, before it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was aroused against the people, and the LORD struck the people with a very great plague. So he called the name of that place Kibroth Hattaavah [Graves of Craving], because there they buried the people who had yielded to craving. (verses 32-34)

God is furious when we yield to intense craving—lust—because it controls our will. Self-control is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, and without it a person cannot produce other fruits of the Spirit. The Israelites, devoid of self-control, could not conform to God's will.

In Psalm 78, the psalmist describes God's care of Israel in the wilderness and how the people reacted to His will. He includes a description of the event in Numbers 11:

But they sinned even more against Him by rebelling against the Most High in the wilderness. And they tested God in their heart by asking for the food of their fancy. Yes, they spoke against God: They said, "Can God prepare a table in the wilderness? Behold He struck the rock, so that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed. Can He give bread also? Can He provide meat for His people?"

Therefore the LORD heard this and was furious; so a fire was kindled against Jacob, and anger also came up against Israel, because they did not believe in God, and did not trust in His salvation. Yet He had commanded the clouds above, and opened the doors of heaven, had rained down manna on them to eat, and given them the bread of heaven. Men ate angels' food; He sent them food to the full [satiation, margin].

He caused an east wind to blow in the heavens; and by His power He brought in the south wind. He also rained meat on them like the dust, feathered fowl like the sand of the seas; and He let them fall in the midst of their camp, all around their habitations. So they ate and were filled, for He gave them their own desire. They were not deprived of their craving; but while their food was still in their mouths, the wrath of God came against them, and slew the stoutest of them, and struck down the choice men of Israel.

In spite of this they still sinned, and did not believe in His wondrous works. Therefore their days He consumed in futility, and their years in fear. (verses 17-33)

The Israelites lost control of themselves by yielding to their cravings. Despite all God had provided for them, they quickly forgot and gave their will to the god of appetite. The result was futility, destruction and death.

Wisdom's Children

Matthew 11:18-19 provides a principle to determine if our actions are gluttonous. Responding to accusations of extremes in eating and drinking against John the Baptist and Himself, Jesus remarks:

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, "He has a demon." The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, "Look, a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!" But wisdom is justified by her children.

What are the children of wisdom? Good works and good fruit. Whether what we do is wise or foolish is seen in the fruit we bear and in what we accomplish. An alcoholic produces sorrow for himself and his family, battered wives and children, poor health and a shorter life. A glutton produces a bad example for his family and his brethren, poverty, poor health and eventually death. We must control our desires because excess desire is the driving force behind gluttony. When we lose control of it, we sin, feeding the god that is in our belly, the god of excess, the god of too much, too fast, too eagerly.

Another interpretation of "wisdom is justified by her children" is that those who follow the wisdom from above recognize and live their lives based on truth. By their example in living wisely and righteously, they justify, prove, that it is the right and reasonable way to live. The way the wise live destroys the credibility of false accusations. Avoiding gluttony is one way to show that we are living in wisdom. The foolish—the opposite of the wise—tend toward gluttony.

The Institute of Medicine thinks the problem "must lie in the powerful social and cultural forces that promote an energy-rich diet and a sedentary lifestyle." But the problem is deeper than that! It is rooted in human nature, which we must overcome and can only be overcome with the help of God's Holy Spirit. When we nurture lust and greed, gluttony is a byproduct, a sign that something of a spiritual nature is eating us.

#gluttony #food #obesity #lust #desire #covet #covetousness #sin #longing #idolatry #idol #greed #selfishness #me me me #selfish #ego

0 notes

armeniaitn · 4 years

Text

“There will be no big war between Armenia and Azerbaijan — no one needs it”

New Post has been published on https://armenia.in-the.news/politics/there-will-be-no-big-war-between-armenia-and-azerbaijan-no-one-needs-it-39988-28-07-2020/

“There will be no big war between Armenia and Azerbaijan — no one needs it”

Aleksey Malashenko about the next escalation in Transcaucasia, Erdogan’s ambitiousness and the fundamental unsolvability of the Karabakh issue

Photo: Gorchakov Fund

In July, the relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan have again deteriorated — this time not in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, but on the border, where four Armenian and 12 Azerbaijani soldiers (including the general of the army) were killed in clashes involving drones and artillery fire. The reasons for the conflict in July 2020 are still unclear: Azerbaijani soldiers are reported to have “accidentally entered” the territory of Armenia, and although the border between the Tavush region of Armenia and the Tovuz region of Azerbaijan is now a little quieter, there are still skirmishes in this area. Orientalist Aleksey Malashenko told Realnoe Vremya about how events are going to develop.

“This conflict will continue for the next generations, it is eternal”

Mr Malashenko, can the current clashes on the border of Armenia and Azerbaijan be called “normal” or has the picture become more complicated this time?

No, in general, this is an absolutely standard situation that we have seen in this region since 1991. The conflict continues, although various solutions have been proposed over the years. And it will continue for the next generations because it is unsolvable, eternal.

What surprised me about today’s events on the border of Armenia and Azerbaijan is the activity of the Turks, who sent six attacking drones to Azerbaijan. In this way, the Turks remind us that they support Azerbaijan, and in addition, they show that they can become an important factor in this conflict. The activity of the Turks has also been mentioned before, but it did not come to the point, and now, given how Turkey is acting in Syria and Libya, this may create problems in the region. Of course, this can’t lead to any big war, but there is a lot of talk about Turkish activity in the Azerbaijani direction.

The thing is that Europe is de facto for the Armenians, and the Turks are for the Azerbaijanis. Of course, no one will recognise this, and everyone will say that the conflict needs to be resolved diplomatically, but everyone understands perfectly well that no diplomatic route can solve this problem. The problem of the conflict between the two countries, as I said, is eternal, and historical circumstances play an important role here. They have been talking about Karabakh for a very long time: I once spoke with academician Ziya Buniyatov, who brought me books and proved that Karabakh is the land of Azerbaijan, and then my Armenian colleagues showed me numerous materials that this territory has been Armenian since the middle ages. And I conclude that such problems cannot be solved.

Photo: Armenian Defense Ministry Press Service / PanPhoto / AP

Yes, there has been a conflict again and three tanks of the Azerbaijani army were shot down, soldiers and the Azerbaijani General were killed, and the sides seem to be talking about peace, but again they blame each other, but this will continue

The Karabakh problem is often compared to the Yugoslav problem, the split of the Sudan, or something else, but in those cases everything was obvious in terms of solving the problem, but here it is not. The independence of Karabakh is impossible for Azerbaijanis, the entry of Karabakh into Azerbaijan on any special conditions is also impossible, and the entry of Karabakh into Armenia is also not politically necessary for anyone — neither for Karabakh itself, nor for the Armenians. Besides, we should not forget that a million refugees affect the atmosphere in Armenia, and only recently people from Karabakh were in power in this country. So the situation is very complex, and no one is interested in solving it.

Nevertheless, to put it cynically, the interested party is Russia. It is very difficult for our country in this region, since Russian weapons are being supplied to both Armenia and Azerbaijan, but it is present as a mediator and an important factor in the negotiations. But I do not see people in the Russian elite who would offer any compromise on this issue. So everything will remain as it is. Yes, there has been a conflict again and three tanks of the Azerbaijani army were shot down, soldiers and the Azerbaijani General were killed, and the sides seem to be talking about peace, but again they blame each other, but this will continue. And there will never be a big war. They won’t let it in because no one wants it.

“Yes, Armenia is a member of the CSTO. So what?”

Has there been any serious aspect of the active conflict over 30 years? Maybe chauvinism, rabid nationalism has gone?

Of course, the nationalism that was in the late 1980s and 1990s is no longer there. First, the nationalist line is fading, albeit slowly. Second, both Baku and Yerevan are already getting used to this conflict. And third, there is fatigue from it, and here it causes irritation in both states, and it is enough for some minimal pretext to resume everything in this conflict. This problem will last for generations. Yes, it’s been 30 years, but I think it will take another 50-60 years for people in Armenia and Azerbaijan to get the following into their heads: yes, all this is wrong, bad, but it can’t be changed, so the situation with Karabakh should only be a background.

But here’s something else to pay attention to. After 1945, we got used to the idea that borders, like the bipolar world, are eternal, but it turned out that there is no such eternity. There is no Soviet Union, there is no Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Sudan, there are Transnistria, Abkhazia, Crimea as part of Russia. The borders change, so the Azerbaijanis still have “what if Karabakh returns?” in their subconscious, while the Armenians have the opposite. And this is part not only of political psychology but also of personal psychology. There is the concept such as “historical memory”. Is it a myth or not? Academician Valery Tishkov believes that this is a myth, it is not serious, but it is also a memory. Look at how it is always present in politics. One time we celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of Kulikovo, then many people are obsessed with the Great Patriotic War. And all this affects the psychology, which means that such things quite contribute to the perpetuation of the conflict around Karabakh. We shouldn’t also forget that relations between the Armenian and Azerbaijani ethnic groups have always been tense. Therefore, a large set of factors prevents the conflict from being resolved.

Photo: facebook.com/poghosyan.vahram

The borders change, so the Azerbaijanis still have “what if Karabakh returns?” in their subconscious, while the Armenians have the opposite. And this is part not only of political psychology but also of personal psychology

I personally do not blame anyone for this conflict. Why? Let’s take another example — Georgia and Abkhazia. Abkhazia under the Soviet regime always wanted to be part of the RSFSR, and I saw with my own eyes how anti-Georgian demonstrations took place in Sukhumi, and this under the Communists! Therefore, the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan will continue. Yes, they are killing people, but nothing will change in the coming decades: there were negotiations and agreements in Bishkek in 1994, then there were Minsk and Madrid, since 1999 the presidents of the two countries have been meeting with each other, the American side took part in the negotiations, not to mention Moscow — and what? There is no movement, and it is impossible. Well, in 1994 in Bishkek, the parties agreed that, they say, we were not at war, but you saw what happened at the border.

If people in both countries will live better, wealthier, it will probably contribute to a peaceful attitude to the problem?

Azerbaijan is a rich country because it has oil, gas, and a lot of money, and people live very well there, if we compare their lives with those of other countries from the former Soviet space. Against this background, Armenia is poor, of course, but has the growing rich Azerbaijan become calmer towards Karabakh? No. Moreover, in Azerbaijan back in the 1990s, it was believed that Armenians were good soldiers, but Azerbaijanis are worse, but now Azerbaijan has a great army with good weapons. Yes, Armenia is a member of the CSTO — so what? By the way, about the CSTO. Armenia believes that if it is attacked, the CSTO should unite against Azerbaijan. Is it possible? Of course not.

“For Erdogan, this is another opportunity to show that he acts correctly in the Middle East”

At the beginning of the conversation, you mentioned the inclusion of Turkey in this conflict. What does its activity indicate?

First of all, of course, it is the ambitions of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. But don’t forget how much the Turks “love” the Armenians, and how much the Armenians “love” the Turks. Besides, there is also pan-Turkist solidarity, and this is to Erdogan’s advantage — he can’t abandon the fraternal Turkic country, especially if Azerbaijan complains that it was attacked by Armenians. This is advantageous for Erdogan, it is an additional opportunity to show that Turkey acts correctly in the Middle East because pan-Turkist solidarity exists, and the fact that he sent drones to Azerbaijan is normal for him. Note that the tanks of the Azerbaijani army were destroyed by drones! Besides, the Turks sent two multiple rocket launchers to Azerbaijan, and multiple rocket launchers are very serious, as we know from some experience.

So it turns out that Erdogan’s position in Syria and Libya as an international player is strong?

Surely, it’s strong. Erdogan is terribly ambitious, and ambitious in a number of ways: he is certainly one of the Muslim leaders, in addition, he is the head of the state that, in his opinion, looks no lower than Europe — Erdogan behaves on an equal footing with us, with the Americans. If he has interests in Libya, Syria and Africa, will he abandon the Turks in other parts of the world? But the main thing is precisely Erdogan’s ambitiousness. Look at his biography, look at how he has developed up as a politician, and he developed thanks to Islam.

Photo: tccb.gov.tr

Erdogan shows flexibility most often, and he is not a stupid person in this regard. Yes, he is cruel and ambitious, but he knows to what point it is possible to come

Is it impossible to weaken Erdogan?

So far, it turns out that he is playing on equal terms — with the United States, Russia, and France. Theoretically, he could have been ousted in 2016, but it is likely that he could have staged this coup himself. But Erdogan has a strong position in the army, he feels confident in Syria, and most of the Turks treat their president with respect — after all, this is the Turkish leader who is respected around the world.

Do they respect not only Erdogan’s musle flexing but also with his flexibility?

Erdogan shows flexibility most often, and he is not a stupid person in this regard. Yes, he is cruel and ambitious, but he knows to what point it is possible to come. Look, the relations between Russia and Turkey periodically escalate, but then the parties somehow agree, find a common language. Remember the story of the downing of a Russian military plane in 2015. Erdogan apologized because he admitted his mistake, and everything was beautiful, and now Russia and Turkey have peace and so on.

If we talk about limits, what is the limit for Erdogan in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan?

The limit is technical supplies to Azerbaijan. What’s next? Well, you can’t send Turkish troops to Armenia, can you? It will be like a madhouse! Turkish troops are NATO troops!

It is unlikely that he will send troops to Azerbaijan for, let’s say, pan-Turkist assistance. Do you agree?

I have already heard some speculations on this topic, but this is hard to prove: someone suggested that Turkey may be transporting fighters from Syria to Azerbaijan. But do we need militants in Azerbaijan who will fight against Armenians today, and tomorrow we don’t know who they will fight against in Azerbaijan itself? Of course, this is gossip, exaggeration, but if we are talking about manpower, such people may well end up in Azerbaijan. But no one needs this, especially in Azerbaijan itself.

Photo: president.az

Is there any alternative to Aliyev? It was 6-7 years ago — it was Musavat followers, someone else, but whether there is an alternative now, I doubt

“The Aliyev clan is powerful and strong, they have settled everything in the republic”

What is the meaning of that some of the protesters broke into the Azerbaijani parliament building at a rally in Baku that was gathered because of the border clashes? Were they emotions?

Yes, it is emotions. But you understand the thing: Azerbaijan is an authoritarian state, although under the leadership of a MGIMO graduate. Well, people broke into parliament — so what? Yes, Azerbaijanis are emotional people, but this does not mean anything to the authorities. This is not a campaign against Ilham Aliyev.

Yevgeny Satanovsky has recently suggested that Aliyev might be deposed if a war does not start.

Is there any alternative to Aliyev? It was 6-7 years ago — it was Musavat followers, someone else, but whether there is an alternative now, I doubt. Yes, there have been reasons for discontent with Aliyev in recent years, but nothing serious has emerged in the end.

Note that the guys who moved to Azerbaijan from Karabakh did not become a political factor. Both Sunnis and Shiites live in equal numbers in Azerbaijan, and only Allah knows which of them is greater, and this factor also does not play any role for Aliyev. Therefore, I do not see any prerequisites for a change of power. The Aliyev clan is powerful and strong, they have settled everything in the republic. There are dissatisfied with the president in the country, but they are very few.

If nationalism, as you have noticed, is declining, although slowly, then we can say that the nationalist factor does not play a role for Aliyev?

All this ended in Azerbaijan. Today’s Azerbaijan is a cosmopolitan Muslim state. There is no Islamic opposition, they have been crushed. There are not even Democrats there — there were some people in this camp at one time, but they were jailed. As for the regions, no region will go against Baku.

Of course, now we see that residents of certain countries are irritated by the coronavirus — yes, this factor probably exists, people are tired of all sorts of quarantines. But in this case, this is not the main thing, the virus could push to such things, but still did not push. I think that the parties will soon agree.

There don’t seem to be any nationalists in Armenia either.

But Armenia still has a political multipolarity. And compare how many presidents and prime ministers there have been in Armenia and in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is actually a monarchy. But you see, there is a clear position in the Armenian society: Karabakh is not Azerbaijan, that’s all. And how there is and what, these are details, and no one will get away from this position. As soon as someone in Armenia hints that it would be nice to make Karabakh part of Azerbaijan as a confederation, they will simply remove him and he will be crushed as a politician.

Photo: primeminister.am

There is no doubt that Pashinyan, when he came to power, relied on people who advocated improving relations with the United States. And this is understandable — Armenia is the part of the former Soviet Union that is trying to pursue a multi-vector policy. But everything will be decided by Trump

“Pashinyan is not Aliyev or Putin”

What are the positions of the Armenian leader Nikol Pashinyan?

As my colleagues from Yerevan say, they are rather strong than weak. But this is not an authoritarian fortress, Pashinyan is not Aliyev or Putin. Thus, the political situation in Armenia can be quite fluid. Kocharian, Ter-Petrosyan, and Sargsyan can be elected there.

How true is it that Pashinyan is looking for a lot of US support, given Turkey’s joining the game?

How will events develop in the near future?

There is such a moment — since the Turks have already participated in the situation, as the European Union has somehow started to move, as the UN said the worsening conflict fraught with disaster and that it is almost a war, I think that there some kind of international gathering with the participation of all stakeholders. Of course, Russia is also working in this regard, and it has always worked here, but in order to satisfy everyone and show that the world is worried, the agreement must be very broad. The Turks are both the Turkish lobby and the Muslim lobby, but there is also a global Armenian lobby with California and France. By the end of 2020, there should definitely be some broad international event on this issue.

Will there be a war?

That’s impossible.

By Sergey Kochnev

Read original article here.

#Armenia #Armenians #Karabakh #Yerevan #Politics

0 notes

puttingherinhistory · 7 years

Text

The Black Male Privilege Checklist

Leadership & Politics

1. I don't have to choose my race over my sex in political matters.

2. When I read African American History textbooks, I will learn mainly about black men.

3. When I learn about the Civil Rights Movement & the Black Power Movements, most of the leaders that I will learn about will be black men.

4. I can rely on the fact that in the near 100-year history of national civil rights organizations such as the NAACP and the Urban League, virtually all of the executive directors have been male.

5. I will be taken more seriously as a political leader than black women.

6. Despite the substantial role that black women played in the Civil Rights Movement and Black Power Movement, currently there is no black female that is considered a "race leader".

7. I can live my life without ever having read black feminist authors, or knowing about black women's history, or black women's issues.

8. I can be a part of a black liberation organization like the Black Panther Party where an "out" rapist Eldridge Cleaver can assume leadership position.

9. I will make more money than black women at equal levels of education and occupation.

10. Most of the national "opinion framers" in Black America including talk show hosts and politicians are men.

Beauty

11. I have the ability to define black women's beauty by European standards in terms of skin tone, hair, and body size. In comparison, black women rarely define me by European standards of beauty in terms of skin tone, hair, or body size.

12. I do not have to worry about the daily hassles of having my hair conforming to any standard image of beauty the way black women do.

13. I do not have to worry about the daily hassles of being terrorized by the fear of gaining weight. In fact, in many instances bigger is better for my sex.

14. My looks will not be the central standard by which my worth is valued by members of the opposite sex.

Sex & Sexuality

15. I can purchase pornography that typically shows men defile women by the common practice of the "money shot.”

16. I can believe that causing pain during sex is connected with a woman's pleasure without ever asking her.

17. I have the privilege of not wanting to be a virgin, but preferring that my wife or significant other be a virgin.

18. When it comes to sex if I say "No", chances are that it will not be mistaken for “Yes".

19. If I am raped, no one will assume that "I should have known better" or suggest that my being raped had something to do with how I was dressed.

20. I can use sexist language like bonin’, laying the pipe, hittin-it, and banging that convey images of sexual acts based on dominance and performance.

21. I can live in a world where polygamy is still an option for men in the United States as well as around the world.

22. In general, I prefer being involved with younger women socially and sexually

23. In general, the more sexual partners that I have the more stature I receive among my peers.

24. I have easy access to pornography that involves virtually any category of sex where men degrade women, often young women.

25. I have the privilege of being a part of a sex where "purity balls" apply to girls but not to boys.

26. When I consume pornography, I can gain pleasure from images and sounds of men causing women pain.

Popular Culture

27. I come from a tradition of humor that is based largely on insulting and disrespecting women; especially mothers.

28. I have the privilege of not having black women, dress up and play funny characters- often overweight- that are supposed to look like me for the entire nation to laugh.

29. When I go to the movies, I know that most of the leads in black films are men. I also know that all of the action heroes in black film are men.

30. I can easily imagine that most of the artists in Hip Hop are members of my sex.

31. I can easily imagine that most of the women that appear in Hip Hop videos are there solely to please men

32. Most of lyrics I listen to in hip-hop perpetuate the ideas of males dominating women, sexually and socially.

33. I have the privilege of consuming and popularizing the word pimp, which is based on the exploitation of women with virtually no opposition from other men.

34. I can hear and use language bitches and hoes that demean women, with virtually no opposition from men.

35. I can wear a shirt that others and I commonly refer to as a "wife beater" and never have the language challenged.

36. Many of my favorite movies include images of strength that do not include members of the opposite sex and often are based on violence.

37. Many of my favorite genres of films, such as martial arts, are based on violence.

38. I have the privilege of popularizing or consuming the idea of a thug, which is based on the violence and victimization of others with virtually no opposition from other men.

Attitudes/Ideology

39. I have the privilege to define black women as having "an attitude" without referencing the range of attitudes that black women have.

40. I have the privilege of defining black women's attitudes without defining my attitudes as a black man.

41. I can believe that the success of the black family is dependent on returning men to their historical place within the family, rather than in promoting policies that strengthen black women's independence, or that provide social benefits to black children.

42. I have the privilege of believing that a woman cannot raise a son to be a man.

43. I have the privilege of believing that a woman must submit to her man.

44. I have the privilege of believing that before slavery gender relationships between black men and women were perfect.

45. I have the privilege of believing that feminism is anti-black. 46. I have the privilege of believing that the failure of the black family is due to the black matriarchy.

47. I have the privilege of believing that household responsibilities are women's roles.

48. I have the privilege of believing that black women are different sexually than other women and judging them negatively based on this belief.

Sports

49. I will make significantly more money as a professional athlete than members of the opposite sex will.

50. In school, girls are cheerleaders for male athletes, but there is no such role for males to cheerlead for women athletes.

51. My financial success or popularity as a professional athlete will not be associated with my looks.

52. I can talk about sports or spend large portions of the day playing video games while women are most likely involved with household or childcare duties.

53. I can spend endless hours watching sports TV and have it considered natural.

54. I can touch, hug, or be emotionally expressive with other men while watching sports without observers perceiving this behavior as sexual.

55. I know that most sports analysts are male.

56. If I am a coach, I can motivate, punish, or embarrass a player by saying that the player plays like a girl.

57. Most sports talk show hosts that are members of my race are men.

58. I can rest assured that most of the coaches -even in predominately-female sports within my race are male.

59. I am able to play sports outside without my shirt on and it not be considered a problem.

60. I am essentially able to do anything inside or outside without my shirt on, whereas women are always required to cover up.

Diaspora/Global

61. I have the privilege of being a part of a sex where the mutilation and disfigurement of a girl’s genitalia is used to deny her sexual sensations or to protect her virginity for males.

62. I have the privilege of not having rape be used as a primary tactic or tool to terrorize my sex during war and times of conflict.

63. I have the privilege of not being able to name one female leader in Africa or Asia, past or present, that I pay homage to the way I do male leaders in Africa and/or Asia.

64. I have the ability to travel around the world and have access to women in developing countries both sexually and socially.

65. I have the privilege of being a part of the sex that starts wars and that wields control of almost all the existing weapons of war and mass destruction.

College

66. In college, I will have the opportunity to date outside of the race at a much higher rate than black women will.

67. I have the privilege of having the phrase "sewing my wild oats" apply to my sex as if it were natural.

68. I know that the further I go in education the more success I will have with women.

69. In college, black male professors will be involved in interracial marriages at much higher rates than members of the opposite sex will.

70. By the time I enter college, and even through college, I have the privilege of not having to worry whether I will be able to marry a black woman.

71. In college, I will experience a level of status and prestige that is not offered to black women even though black women may outnumber me and out perform me academically.

72. If I go to an HBCU, I will have incredible opportunities to exploit black women

Communication/Language

73. What is defined as "News" in Black America is defined by men.

74. I can choose to be emotionally withdrawn and not communicate in a relationships and it be considered unfortunate but normal.

75. I can dismissively refer to another persons grievances as ^*ing.

76. I have the privilege of not knowing what words and concepts like patriarchy, phallocentric, complicity, colluding, and obfuscation mean.

Relationships

77. I have the privilege of marrying outside of the race at a much higher rate than black women marry.

78. My "strength" as a man is never connected with the failure of the black family, whereas the strength of black women is routinely associated with the failure of the black family.

79. If I am considering a divorce, I know that I have substantially more marriage, and cohabitation options than my spouse.

80. Chances are I will be defined as a "good man" by things I do not do as much as what I do. If I don't beat, cheat, or lie, then I am a considered a "good man". In comparison, women are rarely defined as "good women" based on what they do not do.

81. I have the privilege of not having to assume most of the household or child-care responsibilities.

82. I have the privilege of having not been raised with domestic responsibilities of cooking, cleaning, and washing that takes up disproportionately more time as adults.

Church & Religious Traditions

83. In the Black Church, the majority of the pastoral leadership is male.

84. In the Black Church Tradition, most of the theology has a male point of view. For example, most will assume that the man is the head of household.

Physical Safety

85. I do not have to worry about being considered a traitor to my race if I call the police on a member of the opposite sex.

86. I have the privilege of knowing men who are physically or sexually abusive to women and yet I still call them friends.

87. I can video tape women in public- often without their consent - with male complicity.

88. I can be courteous to a person of the opposite sex that I do not know and say "Hello" or "Hi" and not fear that it will be taken as a come-on or fear being stalked because of it.

89. I can use physical violence or the threat of physical violence to get what I want when other tactics fail in a relationship.

90. If I get into a physical altercation with a person of the opposite sex, I will most likely be able to impose my will physically on that person

91. I can go to parades or other public events and not worry about being physically and sexually molested by persons of the opposite sex.

92. I can touch and physically grope women's bodies in public- often without their consent- with male complicity.

93. In general, I have the freedom to travel in the night without fear.

94. I am able to be out in public without fear of being sexually harassed by individuals or groups of the opposite sex.

Source

#womanism #black patriarchy #feminism #intersectional feminism #intersectionality #intersectional politics #intersectional social justice #intersectional activism

819 notes · View notes

magzoso-tech · 4 years

Photo

New Post has been published on https://magzoso.com/tech/the-silicon-six-spread-propaganda-its-time-to-regulate-social-media-sites/

The 'Silicon Six' Spread Propaganda. It's Time to Regulate Social Media Sites.

I get it: I’m one of the last people you’d expect to hear warning about the danger of conspiracies and lies. I’ve built a career on pushing the limits of propriety and good taste. I portrayed Borat, the first fake news journalist, along with satirical characters such as Ali G, a wannabe gangster, and Bruno, a gay fashion reporter from Austria. Some critics have said my comedy risks reinforcing old racial and religious stereotypes.

I admit that most of my comedy over the years has been pretty juvenile. However, when Borat was able to get an entire bar in Arizona to sing “throw the Jew down the well,” it revealed people’s indifference to anti-Semitism. When, as Bruno, I started kissing a man in a cage fight in Arkansas and nearly started a riot, it showed the violent potential of homophobia. And when, disguised as an ultra-woke developer, I proposed building a mosque in one rural community, prompting a resident to proudly admit, “I am racist, against Muslims,” it showed a wide acceptance of Islamophobia.

The ugliness my jokes help reveal is why I’m so worried about our pluralistic democracies. Demagogues appeal to our worst instincts. Conspiracy theories once confined to the fringe are going mainstream, fueled in part by President Donald Trump, who has spread such paranoid lies more than 1,700 times to his 67 million Twitter followers. It’s as if the Age of Reason – the era of evidential argument – is ending, and now knowledge is delegitimised and scientific consensus is dismissed. Democracy, which depends on shared truths, is in retreat, and autocracy, which thrives on shared lies, is on the march. Hate crimes are surging, as are murderous attacks on religious and ethnic minorities.

All this hate and violence actually has something in common: It’s being facilitated by a handful of Internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history.

Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other social media platforms reach billions of people. The algorithms these platforms depend on deliberately amplify content that keeps users engaged – stories that appeal to our baser instincts and trigger outrage and fear. That’s why fake news outperforms real news on social media; studies show that lies spread faster than truth.

On the Internet, everything can appear equally legitimate. Breitbart resembles the BBC, and the rantings of a lunatic seem as credible as the findings of a Nobel Prize winner. We have lost a shared sense of the basic facts upon which democracy depends.

When I, as Ali G, asked the astronaut Buzz Aldrin, “What woz it like to walk on de sun?” the joke worked, because we, the audience, shared the same facts. If you believe the moon landing was a hoax, the joke was not funny.

When Borat got that bar in Arizona to agree that “Jews control everybody’s money and never give it back,” the joke worked because the rest of us knew that the depiction of Jews as miserly is a conspiracy theory originating in the Middle Ages.

Social media platforms make it easier for people who share the same false premises to find one another, and then the technology acts as an accelerant for toxic thinking. When conspiracies take hold, it’s easier for hate groups to recruit, easier for foreign intelligence agencies to interfere in our elections and easier for a country like Myanmar to commit genocide against the Rohingya.

Yes, social media companies have taken some steps to reduce hate and conspiracies on their platforms. Yet these steps have been mostly superficial, and the next 12 months could be pivotal: British voters will go to the polls next month while online conspiracists promote the despicable theory of “great replacement” that white Christians are being deliberately replaced by Muslim immigrants. Americans will vote for president while trolls and bots perpetuate the disgusting lie of a “Hispanic invasion.” And after years of YouTube videos calling climate change a “hoax,” the United States is on track, a year from now, to formally withdraw from the Paris agreement.

Unfortunately, the executive of these platforms don’t appear interested in a close look at how they’re spreading hate, conspiracies and lies. Look at the speech Facebook founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg delivered last month that warned against new laws and regulations on companies like his.

Zuckerberg tried to portray the issue as one involving “choices” around “free expression.” But freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Facebook alone already counts about a third of the world’s population among its users. Social media platforms should not give bigots and paedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target victims.

Zuckerberg claimed that new limits on social media would “pull back on free expression.” This is utter nonsense. The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law” abridging freedom of speech, but this does not apply to private businesses. If a neo-Nazi comes goose-stepping into a restaurant and starts threatening other customers and saying he wants to kill Jews, would the restaurant owner be required to serve him an elegant eight-course meal? Of course not. The restaurant owner has every legal right, and, indeed, a moral obligation, to kick the Nazi out. So do Internet companies.

Zuckerberg seemed to equate regulation of companies like his to the actions of “the most repressive societies.” This, from one of the six people who run the companies that decide what information so much of the world sees: Zuckerberg at Facebook; Sundar Pichai at Google; Larry Page and Sergey Brin at Google’s parent company, Alphabet; Brin’s ex-sister-in-law, Susan Wojcicki, at YouTube; and Jack Dorsey at Twitter. These super-rich “Silicon Six” care more about boosting their share price than about protecting democracy. This is ideological imperialism – six unelected individuals in Silicon Valley imposing their vision on the rest of the world, unaccountable to any government and acting like they’re above the reach of law. Surely, instead of letting the Silicon Six decide the fate of the world order, our democratically elected representatives should have at least some say.

Zuckerberg speaks of welcoming a “diversity of ideas,” and last year, he gave us an example. He said he found posts denying the Holocaust “deeply offensive,” but he didn’t think Facebook should take them down “because I think there are things that different people get wrong.” This is madness. The Holocaust is a historical fact, and those who deny it aim to encourage another one. There’s no benefit in pretending that “the Holocaust is a hoax” is simply a “thing” that “different people get wrong.” Zuckerberg says that “people should decide what is credible, not tech companies.” But two-thirds of millennials say they haven’t even heard of Auschwitz. How are they supposed to know what’s “credible”? How are they supposed to know that the lie is a lie?

When it comes to removing content, Zuckerberg asked, “where do you draw the line?” Yes, that can be difficult, but here’s what he’s really saying: Removing lies and conspiracies is just too expensive.

Facebook, Google, and Twitter are unthinkably rich, and they have the best engineers in the world. They could fix these problems if they wanted to. Twitter could deploy an algorithm to remove more white supremacist hate speech, but they reportedly haven’t because it would eject some very prominent politicians. Facebook could hire enough monitors to actually monitor, work closely with groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and the NAACP and purge deliberate lies from their platforms.

But they won’t, because their entire business model relies on generating more engagement, and nothing generates more engagement than lies, fear and outrage.

These companies pretend they’re something bigger, or nobler, but what they really are is the largest publishers in history – after all, they make their money on advertising, just like other publishers. They should abide by basic standards and practices just like the ones that apply to newspapers, magazines, television and movies. I’ve had scenes in my movies cut or truncated to abide by those standards. Surely companies that publish material to billions of people should have to abide by basic standards just like film and television studios do.

Zuckerberg said social media companies should “live up to their responsibilities,” but he’s totally silent about what should happen when they don’t. By now, it’s pretty clear that they cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. In other industries, you can be sued for the harm you cause: Publishers can be sued for libel; people can be sued for defamation. I’ve been sued many times. But social media companies are almost completely protected from liability for the content their users post – no matter how indecent – by Section 230 of, get ready for it, the Communications Decency Act.

That immunity has warped their whole worldview. Take political ads. Fortunately, Twitter finally banned them, and Google says it will make changes, too. But if you pay Facebook, it will run any “political” ad you want, even if it’s a lie. It’ll even help you micro-target those lies to users for maximum effect. Under this twisted logic, if Facebook were around in the 1930s, it would have allowed Adolf Hitler to post 30-second ads on his “solution” to the “Jewish problem.” Here’s a good way for Facebook to “live up to” its responsibilities: Start fact-checking political ads before running them, stop micro-targeted lies immediately, and when ads are false, don’t publish them.

Section 230 was amended last year so that tech companies can be held responsible for paedophiles who use their sites to target children. Let’s also hold them responsible for users who advocate for the mass murder of children because of their race or religion. And maybe fines are not enough. Maybe it’s time for Congress to tell Zuckerberg and his fellow CEOs: You already allowed one foreign power to interfere in US elections; you already facilitated one genocide; do it again and you go to prison.

In the end, we have to decide what kind of world we want. Zuckerberg claims his main goal is to “uphold as wide a definition of freedom of expression as possible.” Yet our freedoms are not only an end in themselves, but they’re also a means to another end – to our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And today these rights are threatened by hate, conspiracies and lies.

A pluralistic democratic society should make sure that people are not targeted, not harassed and not murdered because of who they are, where they come from, who they love or how they pray. If we do that – if we prioritize truth over lies, tolerance over prejudice, empathy over indifference and experts over ignoramuses – maybe we have a chance of stopping the greatest propaganda machine in history. We can save democracy. We can still have a place for free speech and free expression.

And, most important, my jokes will still work.

#Miscellaneous

0 notes

jf3co · 6 years

Text

Ok - so this one comes with a bit of preamble, duly noting I am usually the first one to say “no disclaimers” when someone begins to prattle on making apologies or priming the audience before they begin to read. I do so, in this case, not because I feel I need to make an apology or level-set in any way, but that I think you need to be clued in on the circumstances as to why this story was conceived. There was playwriting group in Philadelphia who used to host this thing called a “Bake Off” where you have to include a series of ‘ingredients’ in a writing. The ingredients that need to be ‘baked’ into the play are not released until a few days before the play is due. So you have, in essence, less than a week to write a complete play. Now here is the best part – they HAVE to perform the play. They set a day aside with some stage actors and perform each and every submission. I was out with some friends when I heard about this group and drunkenly threw down the gauntlet by stating that I will write the stupidest and most-uncomfortable short play to perform... ever! The following, my friends, is the result.

Instructions: To be submitted for the 2010 “Bake Off”, the following ingredients MUST be included: 1) LUCID DREAMING 2) A PIGGY BANK THAT CONTAINS SOMETHING OTHER THAN MONEY 3) A GAME-WINNING HOME RUN MUST AT SOME POINT BE HIT.

THE TRAGIC BALL - by Joe Friend

CHARACTERS:

Betty Ann - Young adolescent. Pale and sickly but graceful.

Frank - Married aloof geneticist. Late 30’s. Fit. Well-groomed.

Lulu - Frank’s wife, also a geneticist. Mid-thirties. Fit. Well-groomed.

Roger - Friendly neighborhood lab animal.

Announcer - Sports announcer’s voice (off stage) bleeding over from the stadium.

Greek Chorus - A 3-15 member traditional Greek chorus to read in tandem, monotonously throughout.

SETTING: A city block of row houses alongside a sports stadium. The block is quaint and well-maintained but contains a few empty lots in varying degree of reconstruction.

TIME: Fall. Evening. The present. The night of the last game of the World Series.

SYNOPSIS of SCENES:

Act 1 / Scene 1 - Parodoi | Omniscient

Act 1 / Scene 2 - Empty lot, scattered construction equipment. | Fall. Evening. The present.

Act 1 / Scene 3 - Omniscient | Omniscient

Act 2 / Scene 1 - Apartment bedroom. | Fall. Evening. The present.

Act 2 / Scene 2 - Omniscient | Omniscient

Act 3 / Scene 1 - End of block, stadium’s edge. | Fall. Evening. The present.

Act 3 / Scene 2 - Exodus | Omniscient

ACT ONE SCENE ONE - The Greek Chorus travels up the sides of the stage from the orchestra pit, evenly distributed, and meets off to the side, lining up just outside the edge of the spotlight.

GREEK CHORUS: And here we look in on the tragic plight of mankind, brought to light before us in the shape of a young girl. The same dark play played out again and again on this fair blue stage. Will mankind ever offer nothing but amusement to the Gods? Will mankind ever transcend the feeble frailty and futility of their destiny? Will we find in our young heroine the strength of conviction; knowing not the ego required for hubris, knowing only the innocent will to survive against insurmountable odds? We are here to represent. We are here to represent and bear witness. We are here to represent and bear witness and observe the fates’ cruel hand.

ACT ONE SCENE TWO - The lighting centers on Betty Ann, in a plain dress, wandering a construction site in an empty lot between the rowhouses. She is stepping carefully and appears to be looking for something. She stands up straight, arches her back and cups her hands to her mouth.

BETTY ANN: Rooooooger?

Betty Ann pauses, listens and rights to call again.

BETTY ANN: Rooooooger! … Roooooger! … Roooooger!

Betty Ann continues to step around carefully, calling occasionally. The focus shifts from her to the chorus. Betty Ann continues the act of calling, merely pantomiming it. Then she stands there, as if in a lucid dream, frozen in time.

ANNOUNCER (offstage, barely audible): And that’s another swing and a miss to bring us to the bottom of the 7th of game 6 of the World Series…

ACT ONE SCENE THREE - The light comes up on the Greek Chorus, now in focus, off to the side.

GREEK CHORUS: A girl afflicted. A girl laden with the future disease of all mankind! A pair of noble researchers determined not to let humankind go down that dark path! Oh, the humanity!

ACT TWO SCENE ONE - A tastefully decorated mid-sized apartment bedroom at sundown. The blinds are drawn and amber light is filtering in through the slats. Frank and Lulu are in bed together; they are fully-engaged in a passionate lovemaking session, could be better defined as hardcore fucking.

LULU (Panting, out of breath): So whattadya got for me, Frank?

FRANK: You can have a hard dick or a punch in the mouth? But seeing how I have a hard dick up in you, maybe a punch in the mouth is more appropriate?

Thrusting mercilessly, Frank cocks his fist back mid-thrust.

LULU: Lay it on me Frankie…

Lulu grins up at him sheepishly in anticipation. Frank delivers a monster overhand to Lulu's forehead. She goes cross-eyed. Frank continues his merciless thrusting. Lulu's eyes come back in focus and she regains her clarity. Frank pauses, out of breath, then makes his way down past her belly button.

LULU: So, I finished up cloning the strain iterations, complete with the reverse codec, based on your most recent isolation sequencing data… and, well, seeing how they all – and I mean all of them – cultivated nicely – quite a promising batch – mind your manners, young man – ummm…. ahhh (!)… I went ahead and matched them directly against Roger’s fluoresced targets. He seemed to tolerate the procedure well-enough. Well, well-enough. Minor problem though…

Lulu pauses speaking. Frank picks his head up. Lulu blushes.

FRANK: Well?

Frank waits with his head between Lulu's legs.

LULU: Well despite all of the hard work and research we put into attempting to cure this disease, Betty Ann’s bouts with lucid dreaming are not only becoming more pronounced but also of a longer duration. If these indicators are any harbinger to the progression of this disease, and if my calculations are correct, we need to administer the experimental cure that we’ve fostered inside of Roger for the last 3 years within a weeks’ time or we risk losing Betty Ann completely to a dream-state brought on by this affliction forever… and, if we lose Betty Ann we risk losing the 3 years of development we put into perfecting this antigen matched specifically to her. I think this puts a serious time-constraint on our ability to cure this disease. Well, for her at least. Roger is indeed Betty Ann’s last hope – his genetics having been altered in utero and spliced to be complimentary to Betty Ann’s and the fact that he is just now reaching maturity… we really only have one chance to save her life before she ultimately succumbs. And that means that, given the rate of the disease proliferation among the general population, another 70% of the infected population will also progress to perpetual lucid dream-state before we have enough retrograde retrovirus matched, cultivated and matured before we can administer the cure. So the cure within Roger will only work for Betty Ann. And Betty Ann does not have enough time for this to not work. And the fate of all of humanity ultimately rests on this genetic splicing test being 100% successful and effective!

FRANK: Yes, well we knew that going in… we took this risk before we picked up and moved here so close to the disease vector. Honey, I hope you’re not holding this one too close to your heart. But I know we can do this! I know it will work!

LULU: Well, Frank, to be honest, it gets worse.

FRANK: How so, darling?

LULU (pauses): That little girl is an asshole. I - don’t - like - her.

FRANK: What?!? How can you say that about a little girl? She’s 10 for Chrissakes!

LULU: Trust me, she’s an asshole, I know. Little miss know-it-all skipping around in her pigtails, innocence incarnate in her immaculate dresses. I’m glad we’re not her parents.

FRANK: Now honey, calm down a minute…

LULU: No Frank, you calm down! You don’t know. I was home one day… in the living room… mopping. She prances up to our porch… looks right in the window (I don’t think she saw me)… then the little bitch proceeded to pick each and every last one of the flowers out of our window box! I honestly don’t even care to save her… if it wasn’t for the hard work, potential fame from our cure, not to mention the financial windfall invested in our little genetic piggy bank, I just as soon watch her rot.

FRANK: That little fucker! The utter nerve… well, once we have our cure, we’ll move far from here and can afford to buy all the flowers you could possibly want.

Frank remounts Lulu and they continue fucking.

LULU: I’m finding it harder and harder to focus though… I would rather plant those flowers on her cold, shallow grave.

Lulu places a palm to her forehead. Frank is coming to a climax.

FRANK (shouts): UNAGI!!!

Frank rolls off, breathless. Lulu looks exasperated possibly a bit annoyed.

LULU: Frank, darling, we are not without our quirks… the peyote weekends, motorcycle trips…

Lulu rolls over onto her belly.

FRANK (interrupts): Our full-on conversations while fucking?

Frank rolls over onto his belly.

LULU: Yes, those and YOUR punching me while we are fucking… these… Frank… these things are to be expected and given leeway in the consideration of and compromise for our unrequited love, devotion, and admiration for each other. But, if there is one thing that I cannot abide any longer, not for an instant, it’s you shouting the Japanese word for freshwater eels as you ejaculate. Damn it, you know I have food consistency issues! I simply cannot abide it.

FRANK: Shit, I’m sorry babe… I just get caught up in the moment. I will get better at this. Will you make fun of my genitals for a little bit? (pauses) Oh and honey, where is Roger anyway?

LULU: You mean he’s not out back?

FRANK: He is not.

LULU: That little bitch let him out of his pen again!

FRANK: Motherfucker!

ACT TWO SCENE TWO - refocus on the Greek Chorus

GREEK CHORUS: Two people, joined of desire, travelling along fates’ worn path, that be it not for their shared love of life and humankind, would surely be ignorantly and blissfully entwined for all of eternity; a paradigm of the Gods’ good graces, the pinnacle of true human spirit and endeavor.

ACT THREE SCENE ONE - The far corner of the empty lot, at the edge of the stadium parking lot. Betty Ann stands rigid in a lucid dream. Roger is rooting in the corner.

BETTY ANN (haltingly, coming to): Roger?

She spots the pig at the edge of the construction site, rooting around the fringe of the stadium parking lot.

BETTY ANN: Roger, You’re a bad little piggy-wiggy, rooting around in the dirt! Come over here this instant.

Betty Ann rushes over to where Roger is foraging. She levels down, nose to snout.

ANNOUNCER: …and Mocha Latte CRUSHES a fast ball to high center field… this one is not stopping folks… and it’s… IT’S… IT’S OUTTA HERE! This World Series is OVER BABY with a colossal game-winning GRAND SLAM HOME RUN! It’s awesome baby!

The fly ball comes down hard, pegging Roger directly in the head, killing the pig instantly. He keels over.

BETTY ANN: Roger! Roger?

Betty Ann suddenly stands rigid, locked in another lucid dream.

ACT THREE SCENE TWO - The light comes up on the Greek Chorus, now in focus, off to the side; will cross slowly to the other side of the stage then exit.

GREEK CHORUS: And so we now depart this scene, played out many times before us, born of iron will, raw desire and ending in tragedy; we retreat back to our place of observation, our omniscient solitude, our, uhhh, our… dude, don’t you think it’s weird that we’re all saying the same thing at the exact same time? Shhhh! Hey wait, check it out, look… Scrapple Daiquiri, Scrapple Daiquiri, Scrapple Daiquiri! Knock it off, Andy… no, I’m serious. Bob, you try! Listen, asshole, you know we’re not supposed to break rank – we could get into a lot of trouble for this. Who is going to punish us? We’re omniscient! Yeah, but still, there needs to be a modicum of restraint applied and, ideally, a level of control… we can’t exactly stroll across the stage all simultaneously shouting “We are Hitler’s youth! We are Hitler’s youth! Rama Llama Ding Dong!” I guess I see your point… anyway, apologies, I tend to get a little over-stimulated. It’s been a while since I had work. Today was a lot of fun. And I mean A LOT of fun. Tons o’fun… oh yes, tons o’fun. We should totally Facebook each other! Yeah, I don’t think so – I’m a bit of a lone wolf myself. You guys, fuck all this noise… the Super Bowl will be on soon – let’s go have a beer… have several beers.

EXIT

#The Tragic Ball #writing #stuff #short stories #author #metafiction #play #playwright #playwriting #theater #stage

1 note · View note

cynicaesura · 7 years

Text

I guess it’s time to weigh in on this Tara Gilesbie discourse

Never thought I’d see the day when My Immortal theorizing got so big so fast it became legitimate discourse

No but seriously the way we all talk about this fic, the way we lie in wait waiting for someone to come forward and tell us the true story of the infamous legend...this is some goddamn religious shit. Like every now and then some new “evidence” arises and some claim that it’s the 2nd coming of Tara and the rest of us skeptics just keep waiting like the Jews for their messiah.

Now we have this new, seemingly far more concrete piece of evidence handed to us. This fuckin relic of a FictionPress account. For a lot of people this accountholder seems to be the Jesus Christ of My Immortal like who new that this whole thing was really a biblical allegory?

I’ll begin by stating my position on My Immortal’s authorship for the past several years:

I don’t think it was a troll fic. Now I haven’t gotten around to reading @thischarmingmothman’s essay on the subject (I’m not even kidding I’ve had it bookmarked for years) but I just don’t think it was fake. As many have stated, it was written before the age of in-depth internet trolling. This of course, doesn’t really mean anything. There have always been hoaxes. There was even the widely popular Ted the Caver story back in 2001 (if you aren’t familiar, this is a creepy story about a guy who discovers this weird shit whilst caving. The author was actually a caver and he kept a journal of what he would find and decided it would be neat to spook his friends and family on his blog so he wrote this really elaborate story. Great read. Highly recommend.) But I can’t think of anything that has ever come close to matching the amount of effort that would need to be put in to perpetuate the character of Tara Gilesbie. Like this is YEARS of slow upkeep on her relationship with Raven, their other social media accounts, her other less popular fics after she abandoned My Immortal. Hoax stories don’t often expand their universes past the site the author posted on. Maybe I’m just stubborn but I cannot believe that this piece is anything but genuine garbage.

Now about this new evidence. I think that it’s shaky at best. Here’s the timeline:

August 2, 2017: “Tara” posts an update on her formerly-unknown FictionPress account

August 3, 2017: someone under the username Fokenprepz posts a comment on the Tara Gilesbie wiki page. The comment is only a link to the FP account. This account was created that day.

August 3, 2017: That same day another user called Arch Wizard Megumin updated the Tara Gilesbie page with the new information about the FP account updating. They have an apparently very active history on this and other wiki sites. They said they saw the comment from Fokenprepz and decided to check it out.

August 27, 2017: The FP account apparently began gaining some traffic. Enough so for the mod to post another short update about getting messages and clearing up questions about authorship and outside accounts.

August 30, 2017: @marauders4evr makes the post that caused everyone on this site to lose their shit. This is where we all discovered the FP account. Popular user in the fandom discovers news of Tara? Yeah that’s going to gain ground FAST. They have stated that they saw the new link on the My Immortal wiki and got excited that there is potentially activity coming from the real author.

August 31, 2017: The FP account makes a “final update” regarding why they were only now posting on FP and never said anything on FF.net or any of the other known accounts.

There’s a lot of elements to this story. A big red flag is that no one had ever heard about or knew of this FictionPress account before this month. It never posted anything other than the original “I’m Tara and I like to cut my wrists” bio. Not a fic. Not a proper bio. Not a complaint about other accounts being hacked. Nothing. The issue is, of course, that first update. That first goddamn update. Actually, you know what? No it’s not a fuckin problem because the bio doesn’t have a datestamp. The only things we know for sure is that the account was made a month after the FF account and it has a username bearing a striking resemblance to all of Tara’s other apparent accounts.

Here’s the thing about that information. It doesn’t mean shit. You know what FictionPress allows you to do? Change your username/url. Yes, I literally created a fucking account on that website just so I could test it (I’d be interested in seeing screenshots of their home page because mine still shows the old username in the corner even though the profile has the new one.) So anyone who had a FP account in 2006 and has been following this story for any menial amount of time could have thought to themself, “Hey, you know what would be funny? If I logged back into my old FP account and changed the bio and url to fuck with the world.” Shit would take about 3 seconds.

The other big flag about all this to me is that the account claims that they had no other accounts outside their FF and FP accounts. I think this is just a convenient way for this new pariah to get out of having to prove their identity through photos/videos matching the images we’ve seen of Tara and Raven on YouTube, Myspace, etc. I don’t think 2 random teenage girls would read My Immortal in 2006 and decide to spend a few years pretending to be the goth-obsessed writers on other websites.

So who did all this? I don’t know. Probably some random one of us who’s been following this story for a while and decided it would be funny to make everyone lose their shit over it again. I’ll give them this, the 11 year old FictionPress account is a good angle, but it’s just not very credible. I think this person went and edited all that stuff and then made an account on the famous wiki to subtly share the link. The fact that there is no explanation for how Fokenprepz found the FP page is heavily suspicious. A lot of people are blaming the other 2 people who brought this information to light, Arch Wizard Megumin and marauders4evr, but I believe these two when they say they just got their info from that comment.

Now the question still remains: Who is Tara Gilesbie? Did she ever really exist? Does she exist still today? Will we ever know the truth?

Personally, I don’t think we’ll ever know. Not to get dark or anything but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if she killed herself in like high school or something. Anyone who’s that stuck in their emo phase doesn’t really survive. There’s a lot of holes to the story. Maybe someday we’ll get conclusive evidence of the fic’s authorship. And maybe, just maybe, we all secretly hope we never do.

#why did i write all this #my immortal #tara gilesbie

9 notes · View notes

go-redgirl · 5 years

Text

Why Are Democrats Trying to Foment More Violence? DB Daily Update ^ | David Blackmon

Everyone needs to understand what this is. – We all need to comprehend and digest the full and utter mendacity of what the Democrats and their toadies in the fake news media are trying to use these very convenient mass shootings to achieve right now. They are attempting to brand the President of the United States and anyone who supports him as “white nationalists” as a means of irreparably damaging his re-election campaign.

Two Democrat contenders, Cory Booker and Julian Castro, through his brother and campaign manager Joaquin Castro, gave up that game yesterday. Booker used his New Hampshire campaign chairman to issue a call for President Trump to cancel all future rallies because they are “a breeding ground for racism and bigotry that inspire white nationalist attacks like the one in El Paso on Saturday.”

This cynical, self-serving demand should surprise no one, since the crowds lining up to attend Trump’s rallies continue to attract more and more citizens as time goes on, and serve as the most effective way I’ve ever seen for a candidate to build and maintain enthusiasm. Those rallies are the centerpiece element for Trump’s campaign, and thus the Democrats have no problem heinously slandering half of the American population in order to try to kill them. It’s despicable, it’s disgusting, it’s disgraceful, it’s the Democrats.

(Excerpt) Read more at dbdailyupdate.com .

TOPICS:

Conspiracy; Humor; Politics; Society

KEYWORDS:

fake news; media bias; trump; trump wins again

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

OPINION: Cory Booker is a weak fool. He wish and pray that our great President would give up his campaigning as if that would really happen. The Democrats are thinking all sorts of things because they can’t bet the President on anything. Its just like a Democrat, trying to move the gold post to their advantage. Not happening Cory Booker, not eve a fifth grader would be stupid enough to do that!

Cory Booker, you’ll not only stupid and weak, you are also a foolish and weak human-being. Go find someone-else to play with, because grown-up are running this country. Something you’ll never, ever get an opportunity to do.

_______________________________________________________________

INDIVIDUALS/COMMENTS/POSTS:

To: EyesOfTX Easy - ANY violence perpetuated by leftists (which was both shooters this last weekend) is painted as being caused by not enough government and requires more control.

This is, again, all part of the communist playbook and egregious attempts to overthrow the country.

2 posted on 8/7/2019, 8:06:33 AM by Skywise ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: EyesOfTX It’s all they have left....they have NOTHING else.

3 posted on 8/7/2019, 8:06:58 AM by lgjhn23 (It's easy to be liberal when you're dumber than a box of rocks.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: Skywise You are so correct.

4 posted on 8/7/2019, 8:09:07 AM by riverrunner ( o the public,) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: EyesOfTX The American Left are a Lynch Mob.

5 posted on 8/7/2019, 8:09:55 AM by DivineMomentsOfTruth ("There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." -GW) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Skywise “This is, again, all part of the communist playbook and egregious attempts to overthrow the country.”

It is, indeed. Recall that many years ago the communist game plan to overthrow the U.S. was made public, and one of the elements called for the communists to infiltrate and take over one of the major American political parties, and that agenda specifically identified the Democrat Party as the best option for that purpose. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

7 posted on 8/7/2019, 8:12:24 AM by ought-six (Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: DivineMomentsOfTruth

The American Left are a Lynch Mob. Antifa MS13 KKK Radical Islam Wonder what they have in their tool box of dirty tricks?

8 posted on 8/7/2019, 8:12:51 AM by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: lgjhn23 I think he left realizes their potential POTUS candidates for ‘20 all suck and are all losers. So they are lashing out.

9 posted on 8/7/2019, 8:13:06 AM by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: EyesOfTX It’s a delusion they have. They actually believe they can get other people to kill us all on their behalf. It may sound incredible but when you have a Brown Shirt Media at your back that can literally transmute metals I wouldn’t bet too heavily against them.

10 posted on 8/7/2019, 8:13:18 AM by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: EyesOfTX

re: “Why Are Democrats Trying to Foment More Violence?”

It is the ‘gut’ instinct of a trapped animal ...

13 posted on 8/7/2019, 8:15:37 AM by _Jim (Save babies) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: mountainlion

You forgot MAD Maxine Waters.........she a racist group all by herself

14 posted on 8/7/2019, 8:18:18 AM by annieokie ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: central_va

After coming out for red flag laws? A government that used the abusive power of the IRS cannot be trusted to blindly enforce equal justice. He just granted the Dems their wildest fantasy, absolute gun control. He made it clear he doesn’t support Constitutional rights. The election won’t matter if he inks this. Frankly speaking, He lost my support forever on this. Obamacare was written long before it’s time... thousands of pages of legislation do not appear that fast. They will pass this so quickly our heads will spin. It will bear the signature of djt.

15 posted on 8/7/2019, 8:24:46 AM by momincombatboots (Do you know anyone who isn’t a socialist after 65? Freedom exchanged cash, a medicare card control.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: ought-six ...one of the elements called for the communists to infiltrate and take over one of the major American political parties, and that agenda specifically identified the Democrat Party as the best option... One hears very little from the American Communist Party these days (if it still exists). Its methods and goals have been fully eclipsed by the Demonrat Party.

16 posted on 8/7/2019, 8:27:39 AM by luvbach1 (I hope Trump runs roughshod over the inevitable obstuctionists, Dems, progs, libs, or RINOs!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: EyesOfTX Because all they have is irrational emotion and no sound logical arguments.

17 posted on 8/7/2019, 8:27:52 AM by tired&retired (Blessings) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: annieokie You forgot MAD Maxine .... George sorros, Epstein, ....

You have to stop some where or you would have a whole list of a political party.

18 posted on 8/7/2019, 8:30:11 AM by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: EyesOfTX because they’re out of argument and nobody is buying their hoaxes anymore either

19 posted on 8/7/2019, 8:32:56 AM by thoughtomator (... this has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: tired&retired

It’s because this is what Communists do in order to take over a country. They foment violence, coalesce around a solution that gives government more power, they blame the existing leaders and say it is time for a change, they get their media and useful idiots to help maximize the awareness and finally after they take power, they kill their opponents.

We have only seen this, how many times in the last 100 years? Unfortunately there is a tipping point where this cannot be reversed and we are fast approaching it. As long as Trump stays in office, we will somehow manage. After that, all bets are off.

20 posted on 8/7/2019, 8:37:36 AM by EQAndyBuzz (Trump is President and CEO of America, Inc.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: EyesOfTX The Communist/Democrat Party is on a steroids push to complete the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic.

They were “this” close in 2016...and have now pulled out all stops to complete their evil & treasonous agenda. Massive voter fraud will occur in 2020 - “by any means necessary” - take control.

For those not paying attention, we are in a HOT Civil War for the literal soul of America as evidenced with the continued leftwing violence.

41 posted on 8/7/2019, 9:30:55 AM by newfreep ("INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - DAVID HOROWITZ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: EyesOfTX Because they are dangerous and evil, Mr. Blog Pimp, sir.

42 posted on 8/7/2019, 9:35:47 AM by chris37 (Monday, March 25 2019 is Maga Day!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: central_va Expect more violence leading up to the election and the media will pin it on the right.

43 posted on 8/7/2019, 9:38:31 AM by JWNM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Skywise Yes, Dems/RINOs/MSM all seem to be colluding with the PRCs, NK and Iran if you ask me as all of the above want America disarmed!

44 posted on 8/7/2019, 10:02:01 AM by Harpotoo (Being a socialist is a lot easier than having to WORK like the rest of US:-)) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: lodi90 Doesn’t seem to be working against average Americans! https://finance.yahoo.com/news/firearms-stocks-rise-mass-shootings-145154194.html

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/08/05/inquiries-into-license-to-carry-classes-up-after-mass-shootings/

45 posted on 8/7/2019, 10:06:48 AM by Harpotoo (Being a socialist is a lot easier than having to WORK like the rest of US:-)) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: momincombatboots I would completely agree with you, except the Democrats will over reach because they think they have the President cornered on this issue. Also, more than anything, they can’t allow him to get “a win”. In spite of themselves, they will block it from happening.

46 posted on 8/7/2019, 10:16:25 AM by JWNM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: EyesOfTX

Booker used his New Hampshire campaign chairman to issue a call for President Trump to cancel all future rallies because they are “a breeding ground for racism and bigotry that inspire white nationalist attacks like the one in El Paso on Saturday.” First we have to challenge their assumptions. Have YOU Eyes OF Texas EVER met a 'white -nationalist' in your REAL off-line life?

One of the tricks democrats use in their war rooms is to write fake letters (similar to fake hate crimes) setting us up to look members of the KKK... Years ago I had a democrat brag to me about how happy they were to have use of the internet to create their fake letters because seeing how flyover Americans phrased things made their letters more convincing.

We have to weight and attack every one of their assumptions. The Jussie Smollett's of the left are many - truth tellers on that side are few and far between.

47 posted on 8/7/2019, 10:31:13 AM by GOPJ (Truth cannot be racist; only evil dishonest reprobates would say otherwise - Mychal Massie) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: EyesOfTX

When the democrats lose this election I wonder what stores the will loot first in the riots gun stores?.

Better lock the crazy ones up now save the country.

48 posted on 8/7/2019, 10:43:24 AM by Vaduz (women and children to be impacIQ of chimpsted the most.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 notes

genesischi · 7 years

Text

30 Days of Autism Acceptance Day 1

#30DaysofAutismAcceptance as started by @30-days-of-autism-acceptance

Day 1 - Make yourself known. Tell the world your name and age. Talk about your diagnosis. Are you self or professionally diagnosed? Do you think self-diagnosis is valid? When did you realize/find out you were autistic? Post a photo of yourself if you’d like.

I'm Rachel, I'm 19. I was professionally diagnosed at sixteen years old with Atypical High-Functioning Autism. I try to think of self-diagnosis as valid, sometimes I cannot help but question when someone self-diagnoses, but I would never say it. It is an issue I know I have and am trying to get better. I recently wrote a piece for my Writing Media portfolio about how my family started to notice my autism, so I'll just post that. Rachel out!

The Autism Conclusion I was diagnosed at sixteen, which has two reactions, one that it was really late, the other being that it was amazing I was diagnosed at all, since I'm a girl – there's an ongoing myth that women can't be autistic, and I seem to be a typical example of why. The first thing that alarmed my family was I couldn't hear them. I was put through the Elizabeth Foundation, Portsmouth's hearing clinic, twice. They put my four year old ears through rigorous testing, but they were fine, they always have been. They could find nothing wrong with my hearing at all, yet it was clear at home, at school, everywhere, that I couldn't hear people. Or as we realised upon my diagnosis, it's not that I cannot hear, it's that I cannot listen. Burton, my stepdad, affectionately calls it "tunnel hearing" because I can hear and understand you when I'm looking at you, my focus is on you, and there are no distractions, but if I'm looking at something else, say the TV, I can't hear a thing. My parents would offer me sweets and any prize a four year old might want, but it didn't work. The next signs came in school where I was bullied, relentlessly, and no-one knew why. I was smart, I was kind, I had 'friends'. Yet the other kids didn't want to play with me, even though it was observed that I created fabulous and imaginative games that people loved to take part in. So what was the problem? Why did the other children avoid, ignore, and outright bully me? Being a chubby child the weight issue was obvious but didn't explain the degree, nor did the glasses when they joined me in Year 8. I did have a lisp, and yes that made understanding me difficult, but the majority of the time people didn't struggle all that much. Even when it was a problem I was just asked for clarification, not mocked. So what was it? Now I know. It was my body language. My tone of voice. My posture and my face betrayed things I didn't even know to lie about. My excitement and joy horrified others, my enthusiasm alienated me. I can think of no worse punishment for a child than to be hated for happiness. But this was my life. When I developed friendships they were desperate and clingy, either lost the moment a symptom showed, or enduring for the duration of our time together, in that class, that school, that college year. As soon as our paths separated, they severed. I do not get to have the lifelong friends my family all flaunt at me. I can only have working friends, classroom friends. Suffer-together friends. How's an autistic girl meant to keep any friend without the other person being forced? It's not as if our interests will ever line up, or even if by some magic they did, you would grow and change – I wouldn't. I am kept still and stagnant, and only flowing rivers find new pebbles. So I fell to books instead. The characters there would linger. I could return to them again and again and find them the same, unchanging, enduring in the state I loved them. I struggle reading new books, they are prone to twists I won't like, revelations I can't endure. It's why I have found refuge in fanfiction and stayed there, safe and sheltered, for I can pick and choose their content, avoid things that upset or scare me. I am safe. I am happy. But I am also lonely. The biggest danger to my wellbeing is not anything physical, it's not even depression or my self-destructive tendencies when frustrated. It is loneliness. Frustration passes, sadness passes, either naturally or with the ending of the cause. But isolation, that cannot be ended, not alone. Sure, sometimes it is harder to be noticed, I can be distracted from it by reading or writing, but it lingers on, insidious. I do not mean to insult the friends or family I have, those who feel lonely too can know you can have good friends and the feeling remain. In my state of perpetually being misunderstood and misinterpreted, my screaming anguish over having to explain myself over and over and reaching no conclusion, my meanings lost and mangled, I have come to the tragic belief that I will never be happy. I will never have people I can speak with and be perfectly interpreted, or if I find these people, I will never get to keep either them, or the illusion of comprehension they provide. Something will break, the facade or the connection, whichever comes first. Whichever occurs, I am left broken and/or alone.

#30DaysofAutismAcceptance #autism #Writing Media module #me #about me

6 notes · View notes

bountyofbeads · 4 years

Text

Lamar Alexander’s yes-he-did-it statement on Trump, annotated(See website for annotations.)

By Aaron Blake | Published January 31 at 9:16 AM EST ¦ Washington Post | Posted January 31, 2020 |

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) late Thursday night announced he’ll be a crucial vote against calling new witnesses or admitting new evidence in President Trump’s impeachment trial. With that decision, it appears Trump will not only be acquitted, but that former national security adviser John Bolton won’t be called to testify. The best Democrats can hope for is a 50-50 tie on witnesses, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. electing to break the tie. Few expect him to do so.

But in making his announcement, Alexander carved out a nuanced position: While the president’s lawyers have said he did nothing wrong, Alexander disagrees. In fact, he says Democratic House impeachment managers proved their case — that Trump withheld aid and a White House meeting for his desired investigations and that it was “inappropriate.” He said he just doesn’t think Trump’s actions are worthy of removal from office.

It’s a statement worth parsing, which is what we’ll do below via annotation. To see an annotation, click on the yellow, highlighted text.

“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.

“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.

“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.

“The Senate has spent nine long days considering this ‘mountain’ of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president’s lawyers, their answers to senators’ questions and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for an impeachable offense.

“The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.

“Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.”

*********

The 7 MOST INTERESTING Q&As FROM THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

The Senate impeachment trial is in a new phase, as the senators spend two days asking President Trump’s legal team and the House impeachment managers questions in writing.

Below are a few of the most interesting exchanges from Wednesday and Thursday. This post will be continually updated.

1. DERSHOWITZ SAYS EVEN IF TRUMP WAS TRYING TO HELP HIS REELECTION BID, THAT’S OKAY

The first question Wednesday came from the all-important triumvirate of Sens. Mitt Romney (Utah), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) — the three most likely GOP votes for new witnesses. It was about what the senators should do if they deduce that Trump had both official and personal motives for his actions regarding Ukraine.

Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin responded with a very broad assertion: that regardless of personal motives, as long as Trump had any official motive, “we think it follows even more clearly that cannot possibly be the basis for an impeachable offense.” Philbin argued that senators would then be put in the position of trying to deduce how much of a motive for a decision was personal vs. official.

Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz later extended the argument in a remarkable way, saying that even a president trying to help his own reelection bid could be construed as working in the public interest.

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” Dershowitz said.

Dershowitz’s comment was the most controversial of the day, with Democrats arguing that it opened the door to presidents doing basically anything they want for their own purposes.

You could also deduce from the question a possible off-ramp for Romney, Collins and Murkowski to vote to acquit Trump: the idea that he may have been trying to help himself, yes, but that he also had official, legitimate motivations.

2. MURKOWSKI WITH A KEY BOLTON QUESTION

As we approached the end of the Q&A session on Thursday night, the big looming question -- as it ever was -- was whether the Senate would vote for John Bolton to testify.

And one key vote asked an interesting question in that regard.

Murkowski, who would seem to be a must-have vote for Bolton’s testimony asked Trump’s defense team, "Why should this body not call in Ambassador Bolton?” And crucially, she included this statement in her question: “This dispute about material facts weighs in favor of calling additional witnesses with direct knowledge.”

Philbin responded that it would set a damaging precedent for the Senate to be forced to do investigative work that the House could do.

“It will do grave damage to this body to say that the proceedings in the House don’t have to really be complete, you don’t have to subpoena the witnesses that you think are necessary to prove your case, you don’t really have to put it all ll together before you bring the package here," Philbin said.

So Murkowski now sounds like a yes on having Bolton testify, and she seemed to at least be giving Trump’s team a chance to tell her why she shouldn’t vote that way.

Of course, she’s a necessary-but-not-sufficient vote. The bigger indicator Thursday night will be Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who told CNN he’d announce his decision the conclusion of Thursday’s session. Alexander, who is retiring, was the fourth GOP senator to say he’d vote for the ability to call witnesses -- and Democrats need four GOP votes -- though he didn’t commit to specific witnesses at the time.

3. SEKULOW WON’T SAY WHO PAYS GIULIANI

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) on Thursday gave both sides a swing at a question many have been asking: Who pays for Trump lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani’s travel and expenses? We know Trump doesn’t pay Giuliani, and some have suggested perhaps he’s monetizing his work for Trump by getting extra business from foreign clients.

Given the chance to address the issue, Trump’s legal team took a pass.

Appearing after lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) addressed the issue, Jay Sekulow — who, like Giuliani, is a personal lawyer to Trump — declined to shed any light on how Giuliani’s travel and expenses are funded. Sekulow instead attacked Schiff and suggested this was a distraction.

Sekulow made a number of accusations about alleged corruption by Hunter Biden in Ukraine, and added, “You’re concerned about what Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, was doing when he was over trying to determine what was going on in Ukraine?”

That was indeed the subject of the question. And Sekulow didn’t answer it.

But it’s not the first time Sekulow has failed to provide such an answer. Back in 2017, he said he didn’t even know who was paying him.

4. PHILBIN SAYS TRADING INFORMATION WITH FOREIGN ACTORS IS ALSO OKAY

Dershowitz was nabbing headlines for much of the day Wednesday for the way he broadened Trump’s defense. But Philbin near the end of Wednesday’s proceedings made another bold claim. He responded to a question from Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) about whether Trump considers foreign interference illegal, and Philbin suggested he didn’t, necessarily.

“Mere information is not something that would violate the campaign finance laws,” Philbin said. “And if there is credible information, credible information of wrongdoing by someone who is running for a public office, it’s not campaign interference for credible information about wrongdoing to be brought to light.”

At the next break, Democratic senators responded in awe that a White House lawyer just suggested this. Receiving “a thing of value” in a campaign from foreign actors is illegal, and House managers brought it up quickly on the floor after that.

“I was stunned to hear that now, apparently, it’s okay for the president to get information from foreign governments in an election,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), one of the House managers. “That’s news to me.”

“We’ve witnessed over the course of the last few days and the long day today, a remarkable lowering of the bar to the point now where everything’s okay as long as the president believes it’s in his reelection interest,” Schiff said.

5. A KEY ADMISSION: GIULIANI WASN’T CONDUCTING FOREIGN POLICY

On Thursday, we got a rare bipartisan question — from Collins, Murkowski and Democratic Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) and Joe Manchin III (W.Va.). It was about whether Trump would prevent private citizens from conducting foreign policy, which is prohibited by the Logan Act.

The unnamed target of the question as obvious Giuliani. (I’ve written about Giuliani and the Logan Act before — albeit with respect to Venezuela.)

Philbin acknowledged the question appeared to be about Giuliani and clarified that “there was no conduct of foreign policy being carried out here by a private person.” He said sometimes presidents use confidants to serve as messengers with foreign governments, pointing to George Washington using Gouverneur Morris to talk to France. (Morris, for what it’s worth, did this prior to the Logan Act’s enactment in 1799.)

Schiff later seized on the answer. "They just undermined their entire argument” that these investigations were about rooting out corruption, he said. If that was the foreign policy goal, after all, and Giuliani was pushing for such investigations, how could he not be conducting foreign policy?

Trump’s legal team has indeed oscillated between arguing Giuliani was acting as Trump’s personal lawyer and that he was furthering official foreign policy goals — depending upon which role has better suited its arguments.

6. TRUMP’S TEAM IS UNAWARE OF ANY EARLY TRUMP CONCERNS ABOUT BIDENS IN UKRAINE

Another interesting exchange Wednesday — perhaps not coincidentally — also began with a question from Collins and Murkowski.

They asked Trump’s legal defense team whether they had any indication Trump was concerned about the Bidens’ actions in Ukraine before former vice president Joe Biden became a candidate for president. Trump’s lawyers had nothing.

“It wasn’t thoroughly pursued in the record,” Philbin said. “So I can’t point to something in the record that shows President Trump at an earlier time mentioning specifically something related to Joe or Hunter Biden.”

Dershowitz added later that even if Trump wasn’t previously interested in the issue, it would be okay. He said that if someone is running “and he has a corrupt son, the fact that he’s announced his candidacy is a very good reason for upping the interest. If he wasn’t running for president, he’s a has-been.”

There has been plenty of evidence that Trump’s interest in corruption is very specific and self-serving; the only two investigations in Ukraine he has called for, for instance, involve his own pet political causes. The answer Collins and Murkowski elicited drove that home.

If we’re reading the tea leaves again here, it also suggests Collins and Murkowski might be skeptical of the argument that Trump wasn’t looking out only for himself with his actions.

7. MANCHIN’S SCORCHING QUESTION FOR DERSHOWITZ

One of the most likely potential crossover votes on the Democratic side is Manchin, who comes from very pro-Trump West Virginia. But Manchin took his turn Wednesday to offer a question of Trump’s legal team that oozed with sarcasm.

After noting the legal consensus that the Constitution’s “high crimes and misdemeanors” clause doesn’t require statutory crimes for removal of a president and that this was the case dating back to English common law, he then turned his focus on Dershowitz.

“Even Mr. Dershowitz said in 1998 that an impeachable offense, quote, certainly doesn’t have to be a crime, end quote,” Manchin wrote, before asking Dershowitz: “What has happened in the past 22 years to change the original intent of the Framers and the historic meaning of the term high crimes and misdemeanors?”

Rather than dwell upon Manchin’s shot, Dershowitz just addressed his own personal evolution on the subject.

“What happened since 1998 is that I studied more, did more research, read more documents and, like any academic, altered my views,” Dershowitz said. “That’s what happens. That’s what professors ought to do.”

The question by itself was something. That it came from Manchin was something more.

*********

4 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE FINAL DAY OF QUESTIONS IN TRUMP’S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

You’re reading an edition of The 5-Minute Fix impeachment newsletter. Get it in your inbox throughout this trial.

Senators spent Thursday asking questions in President Trump’s impeachment trial, and that was apparently enough for two key Republican senators to come down on how they’ll vote Friday on whether to extend the trial by calling witnesses including former national security adviser John Bolton.

BELOW are the takeaways from the day.

1. DEMOCRATS ALMOST CERTAINLY AREN’T GETTING THE FOUR REPUBLICANS THEY NEED TO CALL WITNESSES

The biggest news of the day came at the end of the trial’s question-and-answer session, at nearly 11 p.m. There are only four potential swing votes, and one of them, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), said he won’t vote to call witnesses.

Alexander’s justification: He thinks Trump did what he’s accused of doing, but that doesn’t warrant removal from office.

Another swing vote, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), said Thursday she would vote for witnesses. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said he would “like to hear from Bolton.” That leaves Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who says she’s “going to reflect … and read my notes” and will announce her decision Friday morning.

At this point, it’s possible the Senate is faced with a 50-50 split on whether to call witnesses, one vote shy of a decision. This is uncharted territory for the Senate, and for the Constitution.

It also likely means that after nearly two weeks of arguments and plenty of news outside the courtroom bolstering their case — like that Bolton has written in a book draft that Trump did directly tie Ukraine’s aid to the announcement of investigations — Democrats didn’t sway enough senators to call witnesses.

2. ALL EYES ARE ON JOHN ROBERTS

So what if there is a tie in Friday’s vote for witnesses? Could the chief justice break it by casting the deciding vote? That debate has been bubbling over the course of the Senate trial among academics and pundits. Now it will boil.

For example, law scholar Frank Bowman argued in SCOTUSblog earlier this month that Roberts can cast the tie-breaking vote in this case. He’s the presiding officer of the Senate, and when the vice president performs that function in regular Senate business, they cast a vote.

But there’s not consensus on that. Some legal scholars agree with Senate Republicans that a 50-50 vote simply means the motion failed. It’s not even clear who will get to decide whether Roberts gets to decide: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Roberts in his role as presiding official, or the Senate parliamentarian? Could the Senate vote on whether to allow Roberts to cast a tie vote?

So far Roberts has been deferential to the Senate and reluctant to drag himself — and his court — into such a partisan fight.

3. TRUMP’S DEFENSE STILL HASN’T ANSWERED KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS INTENT

When did Trump first pause the military aid to Ukraine? And when did he start talking to Ukraine about investigations into the Biden family?

Those are two key questions Republican senators asked of Trump’s defense on Wednesday, and Trump’s lawyers had no answer. White House Deputy Counsel Patrick Philbin acknowledged that there is no evidence of Trump having talked with Ukrainian officials about the Bidens before Joe Biden entered the 2020 race.

Understanding when Trump paused the aid and when he first became concerned about the actions of Biden and the former vice president’s son Hunter in Ukraine would go a long way in proving or disproving Democrats’ case that the president abused his power.

After having a day to think about how to address these questions to key votes on witnesses, they didn’t have any new answers.

4. RAND PAUL'S ATTEMPT TO PUBLICLY OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER

This week, Trump’s legal team evolved their defense of the president in the direction of: “So what if he did do it?” As they did, some Trump allies escalated their efforts to undermine House Democrats’ case in ways other than directly disputing the evidence.

On Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) sent a question to the desk of the chief justice, who did not read it out loud. On Thursday, Paul tried again, and again Roberts refused. In the question, Paul mentioned a name that some media outlets have reported is the alleged whistleblower. We know what was in it, because Paul left the trial after his question was batted down and read it in full to a room of reporters.

Eventually, another Republican senator’s question of whether Schiff’s staff engaged with the whistleblower before he filed his complaint was read aloud. Schiff angrily called it a “smear.” (Schiff’s committee did get a heads-up about the existence of a whistleblower complaint before it got filed, but there is no evidence Schiff was working in concert with the whistleblower. Schiff has repeatedly said he has not met the whistleblower.)

“Members of this body used to care about the protection of whistleblower identities,” Schiff said. “They didn’t used to gratuitously attack members of committee staff, but now they do. … I think it’s disgraceful. Whistleblowers are a unique and vital resource for the intelligence community.”

*********

Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow really doesn’t want to talk about who’s paying Rudy Giuliani

For all of the focus on corruption and foreign influence that lingers around the Senate’s impeachment trial of President Trump, there’s a significant potentially overlapping question that remains unanswered: Who’s paying Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney?

In October, Giuliani told The Washington Post that he wasn’t being paid by the president.

“My other clients are paying me for the work I do for them,” Giuliani said. “Nobody is paying me for a single thing I’m doing for Donald J. Trump.”

Since Giuliani isn’t an administration official, he doesn’t need to reveal that information publicly — so he doesn’t. After his associates Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas were arrested that same month, Giuliani admitted that he’d received $500,000 from the pair for his work representing them, money that originally came from a personal injury attorney on Long Island. (After his arrest, Parnas was accused by federal prosecutors of failing to report a separate $1 million payment he’d received from a lawyer working for an oligarch named Dmitry Firtash.)

As the Senate powered through a second day of questions from senators during the impeachment trial on Thursday, a group of Democratic senators — Jack Reed (R.I.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.) and Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) — decided to pose the question of Giuliani’s income to the House impeachment managers and Trump’s legal team.

“It has been reported,” the question read, “that President Trump does not pay Rudy Giuliani, his personal attorney, for his services. Can you explain who has paid for Rudy Giuliani’s legal fees, international travel and other expenses in his capacity as president?”

Lead House impeachment manager Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) went first, taking the opportunity to criticize the president and Giuliani. He, of course, didn’t know the answer to the question.

“I don’t know who’s directly paying the freight for it, but I can tell you the whole country is paying the freight for it,” Schiff said. “Because there are leaders around the world who are watching this, and they’re saying: ‘The American presidency is open for business. This president wants our help. And if we help him, he will be grateful.’ Is that the kind of message we want to send the rest of the world?”

Then it was Trump attorney Jay Sekulow’s turn. He started talking before he even got to the microphone, he was so indignant. Or so he’d have us believe.

“Came out of the manager’s mouth: open for business,” Sekulow said, as soon as the mic started picking him up. “I’ll tell you who was open for business. You want to know who was open for business? When the vice president of the United States was charged by the then-president of the United States with developing policies to avoid and assist in removing corruption from Ukraine — and his son was on the board of a company that was under investigation for Ukraine. And you’re concerned about what Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, was doing when he was over trying to determine what was going on in Ukraine?”

What Sekulow’s doing here is obvious. He’s spinning, in the classic sense, redirecting the question away from Trump’s attorney and back to former vice president Joe Biden.

The case presented by Trump’s legal team, remember, is that Biden’s push to oust then-Ukraine prosecutor general Viktor Shokin was a function of his seeking to defend a company called Burisma Holdings, for which his son Hunter Biden worked. As has been documented repeatedly, Burisma wasn’t under active investigation at the time that Biden targeted Shokin. In fact, Shokin’s failure to act on Burisma may have been one of the reasons that the U.S. government and its allies broadly sought his ouster.

But here we are talking about Biden instead of Giuliani, just as Sekulow would wish. His indignant tagline about wanting to know what Giuliani was up to has an unchanging answer: Yes, it would be nice to know more details about Giuliani’s work.

“And by the way,” Sekulow continued, spinning in a different direction, “it’s a little bit interesting to me — and my colleague, the deputy White House counsel referred to this — it’s a little bit ironic to me that you’re going to be questioning conversations with foreign governments about investigations when three of you, three members of the Senate — Senator Menendez, Senator Leahy and Senator Durbin — sent a letter that read something quickly like this. These were — they wrote the letter to the prosecutor general of Ukraine.”

He then quoted from that May 2018 letter, implying that it was the same sort of quid pro quo of which Trump stands accused: a demand for an investigation into Trump with a buried threat. Others have made the same case before; early in the impeachment inquiry it was a short-lived talking point in the conservative media before it was repeatedly shown to be a straw man.

In other words, this is well-worn ground, but it is worth once again explaining why.

The letter was a response to a New York Times article in which it was reported that Ukraine was balking at aiding the investigation into Russian interference by then-special counsel Robert S. Mueller III out of fear that doing so would irritate Trump. The senators aimed to encourage Ukraine to continue to participate in the Mueller probe. Mueller’s final report, incidentally, indicated that his investigation was hampered by “limits on its ability to access relevant evidence” given that witnesses and documents were held overseas.

It’s not really clear how this letter was even meant to bolster Sekulow’s case. The senators’ incomes are a matter of public record. Their advocacy on Mueller’s behalf was similarly public. The Mueller probe was an official function of the government. Yes, one focus of that probe was Trump’s campaign, but Trump wasn’t the only focus of Mueller’s work.

Giuliani, on the other hand, was poking around on the president’s behalf, seeking information that might impugn a possible 2020 Democratic nominee. He did so outside the public eye, on the dime of unidentified sponsors. He did so with the private blessing of the president and was bolstered by the president’s private advocacy of his investigation.

The two are not equivalent in any sense. Sekulow seems to have raised it mostly because it had just been discussed by another lawyer on his team and therefore was something he could seize on as part of the performative outrage in his speech.

“And you’re asking about whether foreign investigations are appropriate?” Sekulow concluded after discussing the letter. “I think it answers itself.”

It does. Which is why Sekulow was unable to offer another, better answer.

*********

"They will have sacrificed their own oaths to protect their own electoral prospects, and the country and the Constitution will have been saddled with a terrible precedent. The Senate will have told Trump that, indeed, he can do whatever he wants."

George Conway: Don’t let the defense fool you. This impeachment is all about corruption.

By George T. Conway III | Published

January 30 at 6:24 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted Jan 31, 2020 |

George T. Conway III is a lawyer in New York and an adviser to the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump super PAC.

The president’s lawyers this week floated their catch-all impeachment defense, one tailor-made for President Trump. It is, in essence, that a narcissistic president can do no wrong.

Like most of the president’s arguments, it’s erroneous. But no argument could have presented the issue more starkly to Republican senators: Will they follow their oaths to defend the Constitution and to do impartial justice? Or will they once again show fealty to Trump personally, thereby accepting his conflation of his personal interests with those of the nation?

The Trump lawyers’ challenge to the Senate began with their answer to the very first question from senators. Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Mitt Romney (Utah) asked: What if the president had a mixed motive — if he thought he was acting both “in pursuit of a personal political advantage” and in “promotion of national interests”? Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin responded without caveat. That “cannot possibly be the basis for an impeachable offense,” he said.

Leave it to Alan Dershowitz to drive the point home with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. If “a president does something which he believes will get himself elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” Dershowitz contended.

For a president psychologically incapable of distinguishing between his own personal interests and the nation’s, that amounts to the ultimate get-out-of-impeachment-free card. Trump already believes that “I have an Article II” — Article II of the Constitution — “where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” This self-described very stable genius, he of “I alone can fix it,” is convinced that his reelection, achieved by whatever means necessary, serves the interests of the country. In short, anything goes.

But the argument is a lie. It’s another example of how Trump corrupts all around him. Following the lead of the political aides and allies who came before them, during the past two weeks it has been the lawyers who have debased themselves. Defying their own obligations of candor to the tribunals before which they appear, they’ve lied to and misled the court of impeachment about the House proceedings and underlying facts, peddled conspiracy theories about the Russia investigation, and of course about Ukraine and the Bidens.

Their legal position is likewise false. It’s just not true that good motives, when mixed with bad ones, compel acquittal under the law. If a politician takes a bribe to do what he thinks would have been best for the public anyway, he still goes to jail. If he’s president, under a Constitution that refers to impeachment specifically for “bribery,” as well other “high crimes and misdemeanors,” he should still be removed.

It’s also not true that “abuse of power” is not impeachable, or that a statutory crime is necessary for impeachment. And it’s not true, as Dershowitz argued Wednesday, that the Framers’ rejection of “maladministration” as a basis for impeachment means that abuse of power isn’t impeachable. The Framers rejected the word “maladministration” because it covered mistakes and incompetence, not because it also could mean abuse of power. In fact, they swapped “high crimes and misdemeanors” into the final document precisely because it does cover such abuse.

It couldn’t be any other way, if you think about it for even a moment. Trump’s lawyers are right that if a president does what he honestly thinks is simultaneously in his personal electoral and the national interests, that’s not impeachable, in the following sense: If a president cuts taxes because he thinks it will get him reelected and it will create jobs, that’s fine. That’s ordinary electoral politics.

But if he cuts taxes because he has an agreement with a major backer that, in exchange for tax cuts, the backer will fund a huge super PAC to support his reelection, that’s impeachable — because that’s a corrupt quid pro quo for his personal benefit. So, too, if a president conditions another official act — releasing security assistance to a foreign country — on a requirement that the foreign country smear the president’s political opponent. That’s not politics; that’s corruption.

And corruption, for all the Trump lawyers’ attempt to muddy the waters with tortured interpretations of the Constitution, is what this impeachment is all about. Trump acted with corrupt intent to damage a political opponent. Testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton seems certain to underscore that point.

Which is precisely why Republican senators seem so desperate not to hear it and so willing to entertain a false reading of the Constitution that would effectively render the impeachment clause a nullity. Should they do that, they will have sacrificed their own oaths to protect their own electoral prospects, and the country and the Constitution will have been saddled with a terrible precedent. The Senate will have told Trump that, indeed, he can do whatever he wants.

*********

"Insisting that Congress should tolerate a president who uses his office to pressure a vulnerable foreign government to harass the president’s political rivals — this is a last-resort argument. But it is the only one the Trump team has left."

TRUMP’S LAWYERS ONLY HAVE SELF-DEFEATING ARGUMENTS ON THE BOLTON BOMBSHELL

By Stephen Stromberg | Published Jan 28 at 7:04 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted January 31, 2020 |

President Trump’s apparently stunned legal team on Monday ignored the latest fatal evidence against their client: the report that President Trump told his former national security adviser John Bolton that military aid to Ukraine was conditioned explicitly on the country agreeing to conduct investigations of Trump’s domestic political rivals. With Republican senators sending signals that they want to see Bolton testify, the Trump camp’s silence could not continue another day. But how to defend the indefensible?

Self-defeatingly, it turns out.

On Tuesday, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow said the Bolton account stemmed from “an unpublished manuscript” — that is, the book Bolton is writing about his time in the Trump administration, a draft copy of which the New York Times said contains the former national security adviser’s revelations. “Maybe some reporters have an idea of maybe what it says,” Sekulow declared, implying that Times journalists cannot be trusted to properly represent the manuscript’s contents. “If you want to call that evidence — I don’t know what you’d call that — I’d call it inadmissible,” he said. Impeachment, he concluded, “is not a game of leaks and unsourced manuscripts.”

Sekulow’s more comprehensible objection — that some mysterious, unpublished manuscript the Times says it has seen is not admissible evidence at an impeachment trial — is worse for the president. If the Times cannot be trusted or if a draft manuscript is insufficient evidence of presidential wrongdoing, senators can and should get their own live account from Bolton and question the former Trump aide by simply calling him to testify. He could at that time address the administration’s attempts to deny his story. There is only one reason to refuse to call Bolton: to avoid gathering relevant eyewitness evidence. In other words, Sekulow made Democrats’ case that senators should call Bolton before them to get his story in person.

Perhaps anticipating that the Trump team could not sensibly rebut the Bolton allegations or prevent his testimony, Sekulow and his colleagues repeatedly argued on Tuesday that, even if the Bolton account is true, the president still should not be removed from office, because doing so would “lower the bar” for impeachment. In fact, Sekulow would place the bar so high that even extreme abuses of presidential power would go unchecked. The Bolton account bolsters the already strong case that Trump used the leverage of his office to pressure a foreign government to attack one of his political rivals. This may not technically be a crime. (Though one can make a case it is bribery, the Democrats have played down that claim.) But there is no doubt the president betrayed his oath, the nation to which he promised to serve and the Congress that entrusted him to aid Ukraine, an American ally at war, with funds lawmakers designated for the purpose.

Insisting that Congress should tolerate a president who uses his office to pressure a vulnerable foreign government to harass the president’s political rivals — this is a last-resort argument. But it is the only one the Trump team has left.

*********

Trump’s mixed-motive defense is a lousy argument dressed up in plausible legalese

By Harry Littman | Published January 29 at 8:49 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted January 31, 2020 |

The White House lawyers’ answer to the very first question in Wednesday’s Senate trial of President Trump may have removed in some key senators’ minds the need for witnesses and offered a new justification for acquittal.

The question was this: What happens if the president “had more than one motive for his alleged conduct, such as the pursuit of personal political advantage, rooting out corruption and the promotion of national interests?”

And it came from three Republicans senators — Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — who are perhaps the three lawmakers most inclined vote to hear from further witnesses in the case.

That meant that everyone in the chamber moved a little bit forward in their seats as one of president’s lawyers stood to answer the query. And what an answer it was. White House lawyer Patrick Philbin, the most adept and sophisticated of Trump’s advocates, was ready for the gopher pitch.

Said Philbin: If the president had such a mixed motive — part “the public interest, but also some personal interest” — then it “cannot possibly be the basis for an impeachable offense.”

Elected officials, he said, will always “have in mind how their conduct, how their decisions, their policy decisions will affect the next election.” Thus, he argued, removing a president for a mixed motive would put all presidents on the chopping block for many everyday decisions.

It was a key moment: If it’s really true that a mixed motive can’t be the basis for removal, then the senators need only conclude that Trump had, somewhere in his mind, some public interest, perhaps ferreting out corruption generally or forcing other countries to share in the costs of NATO, to justify a vote for acquittal.

Collins and Co. could, by extension, argue that no amount of evidence from the John Boltons and Mick Mulvaneys of the world could alter the supposition that Trump had at least one appropriate motive somewhere in the many chambers of his mind.

Indeed, at one point, Philbin argued that it would be enough if the president might have had such a motive to clear the way for acquittal.

It requires only brief reflection to see that the position is akin to insulating from any constitutional remedy the most vile and abusive presidential conduct. For it will routinely be the case that a president, even in the middle of some desperate or foolish act of law breaking, might also have some more benign motive somewhere in mind.

This kind of squishy thinking would not fly in a real court.

In criminal law, as a general matter, the prosecution need prove only that the defendant commits a proscribed act with a specified mental state. So, for example, murder in the first degree means causing the death of another person with intent to cause the death, or, in the more arcane language of the penal code, with the “conscious object to cause such a result.” It is legally irrelevant if the defendant also believed that the death of the person would result in some good in the world.

But we are not in a court of law. The Senate is a court of politics. And perhaps in the political crucible of an impeachment trial, the president’s lawyers could reasonably argue that other more benign motives excuse the more malign one, and so the Senate should be softer in its judgment. But that is a far cry from Philbin’s submission that a mixed motive means the conduct is not impeachable in the first place.

If Republican senators are persuaded by the mixed-motive argument and use it as a basis for voting against witnesses, they will have been hoodwinked, and perhaps willingly.

But the country, which overwhelmingly wants to hear from former national security adviser John Bolton and other witnesses, will have been cheated of its right to know by another lousy argument dressed up in plausible legalese.

**********

0 notes

rolandfontana · 5 years

Text

Do NOT Teach English in China and Why EVERYONE Should Read This

If you are thinking about taking a job teaching English in China, my strong advice to you is DON’T DO IT. Just don’t. Look for such a job in Vietnam or Thailand or Japan or Spain or the Chezk Republic or really just about anywhere else in the world. I say this becasue teaching English in China has become that corrupt, that horrible, that exploitive, and that risky.

Let me explain….

Our international lawyers have always gotten a steady stream of emails from English teachers in foreign countries who are in trouble or not getting paid. Though these matters are invariably too small for us (or just not the sort of work we handle), we do want to help to the extent we can. That “help” usually consists of an email providing “fly-by” legal or career help or even emotional support. We view helping these teachers as a bit of a public service.

In International Education: The Emails We Get, we explained how our international lawyers have inadvertently found themselves on the front lines with this, even though we have never made a single cent from representing an English teacher anywhere in the world.

A couple years ago we wrote a four part series on establishing an international school in China. In part 1, Establishing International Schools in China: The Basics, we discussed the complications foreign parties typically see when trying to start a school in China. In part 2, Establishing International Schools in China: A Deeper Dive, we focused on what it takes to start a School for the Children of Foreign Workers. In part 3, Establishing International Schools in China: A Deeper Dive (Continued), we discussed Sino-Foreign Cooperative Schools and Chinese Private Schools. In this, my last post in this series, I look at future trends for international schools in China. In Part 4, Establishing International Schools in China – Future Trends, we wrote about some of the distinctive issues foreign schools face in China. We also sometimes write about the legal issues stemming from teaching overseas. See e.g., Teaching English In China: Be Careful.

Many of our lawyers and staff attended international schools or are sons or daughters of teachers or professors. I spent my junior year of high school at Robert College in Istanbul, a year studying Spanish at LAE Madrid, and 8 months studying French at the Institut de Touraine. All three are amazing schools and these were some of the best years of my life. My father taught English Literature at a liberal arts college for 36 years. Our law firm has a long history of representing universities and international schools on their international legal work, ranging from helping them set up in foreign countries to licensing technology they’ve developed to foreign companies.

Our writings and our legal work and our various international school connections mean we get 10-20 emails every month from people teaching around the world, roughly be divided into the following four categories:

Visa issues.

Employment contract issues.

Medical and landlord issues.

Starting a school issues.

We went on to talk about how our international lawyers try to do their best to give responses that contain actionable advice, based on the limited time and information we have and the below reflects how we typically handle the four most common categories of foreign teacher emails.

1. Visa Issues. We almost always have to punt on visa issues because our immigration law expertise is mostly limited to business immigration to the United States, with a smattering of additional knowledge gleaned from the transactional work we do in Asia and in Europe. Since none of us have deep immigration law knowledge relevant for foreign teachers our response is usually to urge them to seek out a local immigration lawyer for assistance. I know from my own experience in other countries that there is a veritable ton of bad and outdated immigration law information on the internet and an hour or two with a lawyer who actually knows this area of law can be invaluable. This is pretty much true of all aspects of international law. See China Law Online: It’s All Wrong.

2. Employment contract issues . The typical email we get will say something like “I am a teacher in China and I have been fired for taking a day off because my sister came to visit. Can my school do this?” Our response to this sort of email will usually be something like the following — changed quite a bit for brevity and for emphasis:

I have no idea whether your school can or cannot and for us to know we would first need to make sure we do not represent the school at which you worked (because if we did, we could not represent you) and then we would need to read your contract and then compare that as against the local laws and the province’s laws and China’s laws and then maybe speak with the local employment authorities as well. If it does turn out that the school illegally terminated you we would then need to figure out exactly what we can do about that. Likely that would be registering a complaint with the appropriate Chinese governmental body and using that to try to pressure your employer to take you back, which is very unlikely to happen. When you are not taken back we would then need to look into suing the school. If we did sue the school and you won, we might get an order saying the school needs to take you back and we might get some really small amount in damages. Then again we might also lose. Your school may or may not abide by the order.

The problem with the above is that at some point your China visa may be revoked and you will need to leave China. And win or lose, you challenging this school may lead to you never getting a job in China again and going through the above will be time consuming and expensive.

3. Medical and landlord issues. These emails often come down to money. “The hospital wants $400” or my “landlord wants to raise rent by $100 a month.” As a father, my responses to these are usually nine parts paternalistic, one part legal.

4. Starting a school issues. The typical email will come from someone who has been teaching English in China or in Vietnam or in Poland or wherever and they now want to know what it will take “to open a school for foreign students in X city in Y country.” We then explain the basics of what setting up a school will require and the estimated costs.

Since relations between China and the West (especially the English speaking West) started going into straight line decline about a year ago, the number of these emails have increased exponetially and the problems have shifted. The problems we are seeing these days generaly fit into the following three categories:

1. English teacher in jail for a fight or for drug possession. Our advice is to have someone close to them reach out to their country’s embassy and work with the embassy in securing a good local criminal lawyer. We urge them to act quickly and, if at all possible, secure financial support from their parents. We urge them not to publicize their case unless and until their retained lawyer suggests that be done, which is rare.

3. Visa issues. We usually suggest the teacher work with their school to try to solve these problems (if they trust/like their school) and/or get a good local immigration lawyer/visa specialist to assist. Occasionally we suggest the teacher leave the country.

4. Non-payment or underpayment. These usually involve the school perpetually underpaying, the school being late with payment, the school not paying promised bonuses, not paying for extra hours, not paying the final month’s paycheck under the contract or not reimbursing or paying for the flight home (as per the contract). Our advice is usually to let it go because finding and hiring and paying for a lawyer will likely be difficult and the teacher (just as with the work related problems mentioned above) may well be better off long-term by not making waves.

Pretty routine stuff right? Yes and no and it is the “no” part that is causing me to write this post. The no part is that in the last three months these issues have gone into warp speed. Speaking just for myself, the number of these emails has gone from one or two a month to four to five a day. I have seen at least a ten-fold increase in prison, visa and payment problems for teachers from China (and nowhere else in the world). It has gotten relentless to the point of being depressing. If the emails we are relentlessly receiving are any indication (and they have to be), the following is happening in China in what feels like every minute:

Teachers are being drug tested using their hair samples. Many are testing for cannabis and being jailed for 30 days or more and then being deported. This is happening to newly arrived teachers who insist they did not consume any cannabis since arriving in China. Listen up everybody, cannabis can show up in hair testings up to (and even sometimes beyond) 90 days after you have consumed it. So if you are going to be teaching in China and you do not want to spend time in jail and get deported, please, please, please go at least four months without consuming ANY cannabis before you go there and please, please, please do not consume any cannabis while there. None. Zero. Zilch. 没有. Aucun. Keiner. PLEASE. Invaribly, the schools use this as a reason not to pay the teacher whatever is owed.

Teachers are being checked (or reported on) for having an improper visa for China. The teachers are then being tossed in jail and then deported or just deported straight away. Invariably, the schools use this as a reason not to pay the teacher whatever is owed. It appears to have become very common (as a cost cutting measure) for schools to have teachers come to China and start their teaching on tourist visas, all the while claiming this is perfectly legal — it isn’t. The teachers believe this until the day they are arrested. Near as I can tell, the schools rarely if ever get in any real trouble for this but the teachers sure do.

Teachers are not getting paid. Just this morning I got an email from one teacher who say that she and another 75+ teachers in her city (from various different schools) have not gotten paid for months. And another email mentioning nine teachers in another city who also have not been paid. Add to this the pretty much daily emails I get from teachers who do not get their last paycheck or the airfare reimbursements or the bonuses they were promised and it has become clear that it is open season right now against foreign teachers in China. The schools clearly believe they can blow off paying their teachers with impuntiy because they are right. When teachers ask me what they should do about getting paid my response is usually to say that they can retain and pay a local Chinese attorney to try to get paid, but the odds of a foreign teacher prevailing on such a claim are not good and pushing at all hard to get paid can have all sorts of negative ramifications. Schools will pull teacher’s work visas or refuse to assist in moving it to a new employer. They may also seek to have you deported so they can be sure to avoid having to pay wages owed and it is not uncommon for schools to make up claims about their teachers and to threaten to “make sure they will never work in China again.” You therefore need to think long and hard about getting bogged down in these sorts of disputes and even how they might harm your long term career prospects.

From beginning to end, the game is rigged against English teachers in China. The China employment relationship is complicated and if done wrong, employees can and do end up in jail. The only relevant portion of a China employment contract is the Chinese portion and so teachers who do not speak Chinese have no clue what their employment contracts say and no clue even whether the English language portion of that contract accurately translates the Chinese portion — I can tell you right now that the odds are about 100 to 1 that it does not. And even if you are able to read the Chinese portion, unless you have a comprehensive knowledge of China’s employment laws in the specific locale in which you are working. Our China employment lawyers consistently represent high-level China employees in their employment contract negotiations but English teachers simply cannot afford such assistance. This makes them incredibly vulnerable from day one and their employers know this and they don’t hesitate to take advantage of it.

I have reached the conclusion that the best thing an English teacher can to do protect themselves from the sorts of things mentioned above is not to take a teaching job in China in the first place. Go elsewhere. And if you are teaching in China now, leave now or just resign yourself to your fate. I wish I could give better advice than this but I cannot. Sorry.

So how is the above relevant for non-teachers. I’ll tell you. The truth is that many Chinese companies prefer to hire foreigners illegally to legally because doing so can save them a ton of money and is usually pretty low risk — at least for them. So what I describe above regarding teachers is not as uncommon as you would think in other industries. The Global Times article, The detention of two Irish women who were working side jobs at an unlicensed school in Beijing shines a spotlight on the illegal English education market in China is about two teachers from Ireland who were detained in prison for more than a week for working illegally in China. Both these teachers had visas that allowed them to work full-time in China, but only with their one employer who secured these visas for them. These two teachers had taken lucrative part-time teaching jobs on the side and it was those jobs that got them arrested.

The Global Times article says the big takeaway from what happened to these two teachers is that “employers have no qualms about hiring foreigners illegally” and “when the illegality is discovered, it is the foreign worker who gets the blame.” It then discusses the following “experiment”:

The article talks about someone who “ran an experiment” by applying for every English language teaching job listed in Beijinger Magazine and clearly stating he could not qualify for a work visa. Only one out of the twenty potential employers declined his application! In other words, 19 out of 20 were happy to have this foreigner work for them illegally. The article notes that under China’s immigration law, foreigners who work illegally in China can be fined 5,000 to 20,000 yuan and detained for between 5-15 days and then deported. “A lot of the burden and blame falls” on the employee who works illegally in China and therefore, as the US Embassy website makes clear, “it is up to each individual to evaluate potential employers before signing a contract.”

And the getting fooled by the English portion of the employment contract happens in all industries too. We discussed this in Dual Language China Contracts: Don’t Get Fooled!

Can’t believe this is still happening, but it does, and in numbers that would likely surprise many people. The “this” to which I am referring is foreign companies signing dual language contracts without knowing exactly what the Chinese language portion of their contract says. This is really risky dangerous and below I explain why.

Many dual language Chinese-English contracts are silent on which language controls. For some unknown reason, foreign companies far too often just assume that the English language portion controls or they just assume that it does not matter because the meaning of both the English and the Chinese portions is exactly the same. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

What language controls when you have a dual-language contract? If both languages say the same one language controls, that one language will control. If both the English language and the Chinese language portions say the Chinese language portion controls, the Chinese language portion will control. Similarly, if both the Chinese language and the English language portions say the English language portion controls, the English language portion will control. These are the easy and safe examples.

It is everything else that so often cause problems for American and European and Australian companies in trouble.

If both your English language and your Chinese language portions are silent as to which portion controls, the Chinese language portion will control in Chinese courts and in China arbitrations. In real life this means that if the English language portion of your joint venture contract says that you get 10 percent of the joint venture’s revenue but the Chinese portion says you get 10 percent of the profits (which will of course be way less than revenues) you will have no legal basis for claiming anything more than 10 percent of the profits. Not surprisingly it is joint venture contracts and licensing agreements where our China lawyers most often see this sort of meaningful dichotomy between the English and the Chinese portions of the contract.

Of the hundreds of dual language contracts proposed by Chinese companies and reviewed by one of my firm’s China attorneys, we’ve never seen a single one where the Chinese portion was less favorable to the Chinese company than the English portion. But we’ve seen plenty where the Chinese portion is better or much better for the Chinese company than the English portion. Chinese companies love using a contract with an English portion that is more favorable to the foreign company than the Chinese portion and then relying on the English speaking company to assume that the English language portion will control.

But what if the English language portion explicitly states that it will control? This works right? Not necessarily. If the Chinese language portion also explicitly states that it will control, the Chinese language portion will control under Chinese law. If the Chinese language portion is silent or says that the English language portion controls, the English language portion will control.

As we noted in China Contracts: Make Them Enforceable Or Don’t Bother, it usually makes sense to draft contracts with Chinese companies in Chinese with an English language translation. But this also requires that if that contract is going to be enforced in China (as should usually be the case), you absolutely positively need to be certain that you know exactly what the Chinese language portion of that contract actually says. No matter what the English language portion of your contract says, it behooves you to know exactly what the Chinese language portion says as well.

In other words, if you are not truly able to read and understand Chinese, you probably do not know what your contact says. And if it is an employment contract that you do not fully understand, you could be putting yourself at serious risk.

Living and working and doing business in China is way more legally complicated than ten years ago and tolerance of foreigners in China (particularly for Americans) is way down. This means that the likelihood of you going astray of Chinese law is considerably higher as well. When you then add in that China’s ability and desire to catch foreign companies and foreigners operating illegally in China is higher now than it has ever been, you can see why it is so critical you make sure that both your company and you are operating in China within the law. If you are not already operating legally, you need to start doing so now and if you cannot, you probably should leave China or not go there at all. This is the new normal for China. See Want to Keep Your Business in China? Do These Things NOW.

If you are not able to know whether you are in compliance in China and thus protected, you (and your company) would be better off not being there at all, English teacher or otherwise.

Do NOT Teach English in China and Why EVERYONE Should Read This syndicated from https://immigrationattorneyto.wordpress.com/

0 notes

thelifeoftuan · 5 years

Text

Wellness

This has been a huge topic in the medical professional lately... or at least I’ve become more attuned to it these days. I think it might have been because of the unfortunate consequence of me becoming chief resident of my program, because ever since then, I’ve felt like my ears have perked up to all of the goings-on about resident wellness. I read an article recently about the state of resident wellness and how much it has become quite the hot button issue in residencies these days. I’m not exactly sure if it has always been an issue or if the conversation has suddenly just gotten really intense... or if it’s really just my own individual program... but I thought that I’d delve a little deeper and maybe offer up some additional thoughts and opinions. Unsolicited of course. But what opinion really comes solicited these days anyway. If you’re interested in reading the article I mentioned (mind you, it was relayed to me by a colleague who I currently hold in contempt and written by someone who is not a resident, which isn’t to say that the article and its contents are invalid at all because it is very well written and really is 100% the truth from someone with a different perspective and who is not a resident), here it is: http://in-housestaff.org/resident-wellness-is-a-lie-part-1-1319. I jumped into residency--no, medical school... actually, no, LIFE--knowing that it was not going to be an easy ride for me. I knew it from the very beginning, even when I was that little sixth grader who decided he wanted to become a pediatrician. I was literally told by my primary care physician as a teenager that I was setting myself up for a tough life and that I should really consider something else. I knew that the path that I had chosen for myself was not going to be a pretty one and it was not going to be one that I would waltz through with ease. I am simple. And to that effect, a simpleton. I struggled through college. And through med school. And for that matter, through residency. Life was not easy for me. Or kind. But it definitely was not cruel. I guess there was a difference. I did at points felt like I was dealt a less than stellar hand... but I worked with what I got. Because I have interacted with people who, when they are not dealt the cards they want, fling it into the air, hoot and holler, and make a stupid ass scene about it until they get what they want. Me? That’s not how I’m wired. Chalk it up to perseverance or resilience or just plain stupidity... but I tried my damnedest and put above 100% of my effort into my endeavors no matter how badly I felt my luck had become. A lot of the times, things did not work out in my favor. And when things did, I always felt like there was still so much more that I needed to accomplish that I simply moved forward. I know what it’s like as a student and as a resident to work those 30-hour shifts, to be degraded and talked down to, to be made to feel like you are inadequate and not worthy of the profession, to be ridiculed and chastised... and even as a resident, as a physician in the field I had worked so hard to become a part of, I am still considered an amateur, not completely worthy, and incompetent at times. I know what it’s like to be completely exhausted, to have to put your entire life further beyond the back burner because you’ve already set so many other things stacked on top of one another on that back burner because of your job. I know what it’s like to have relationships burn up in flames and blow up in your face, to lose friendships, to become distant from your family, to have a fallout with your loved ones because you simply just did not have the time, energy, or patience to explain yourself to them about why you felt the way you did because you were just too tired. I get all of that. I know what burnout feels like because I am charred to the bone because of it. And because of all of that, I am not well. Yes, resident wellness is a sham. It is in fact a lie. Some mystical beast conjured up by the powers that be to make these foot soldier believe, even perhaps for just a second, that it is something remotely achievable. It is some term coined up by disillusioned higher-ups who haven’t the slightest comprehension of what wellness entails these days. It’s really just a check box for them, a measure of compliance to standards set forth by yet more people who are out-of-touch with the realities of medicine and residency in the modern age. I completely agree with this article in the sense that those who set the standards have no idea how to achieve these standards. And those they entrust to see that these standards are kept up with, i.e. program directors, are also unfortunately out-of-touch. The only ones who can really understand and truly motivate the task are, sadly, the ones who have buried themselves too deep in residency to find that motivation. Which brings me to this point I wanted to make about resident wellness. While the article is right, you will not hear one honest resident speak the term “wellness” without even the slightest of sarcasm. The term itself has become somewhat of an oxymoron. And as moronic as the phrase “resident wellness” sounds to my ears... I do have this point to make. ...is it completely these higher-ups’ fault that this sphere of residency has fallen so deep into the shitter that it seemingly cannot be salvaged? I don’t think so. Some of my colleagues would like to place the blame completely on the system “that chews them up and spits them out.” ...but honestly, are we not part of that system, too? Aren’t we as residents part of the problem that is perpetuating this resident unwellness? If you knew the Old Tuan, pre-residency Tuan, troubled and depressed Tuan, you would have feared for his life knowing that he was going to be a doctor. And in that, feared for the patients he was going to take care, because he was not a well person. But I knew that I had to make a change. I knew that these selfish and deprecating emotions were a detriment to my life and the lives of my patients in the present and future. And I will be honest, jumping into residency gave me life. It gave me renewed purpose and drive. It has built up my confidence over the years and has definitely strengthened my resolve and resilience. I owe a lot of my successes to becoming a resident and being a resident. And part of that being a resident is this expectation that, yes, you will have to work. A lot. And very hard. And unfortunately, over the years, I have this strong inkling that people in my generation and the generations that followed and will follow have lost sight of that. Being a doctor is hard work. Hell, being an effing human being sometimes is bitter work. I get it. I GET IT! I totally do. And I am not downplaying the strife that comes with residency one bit. Sometimes, this work is very destructive and demeaning and steals the humanity from you and your loved ones and it truly is like the hand of Midas that seemingly destroys everything it touches. I’ve been there! There were times early on in my residency training where I felt like I had lost everything and had nothing else to live for except residency, which ironically was--again, seemingly--sucking the life out of me. But then I told myself “no more.” I picked myself back up, dusted off the soot, scraped off the burnt parts, and kept trucking forward. And I grinded through the tough hours and grueling work and difficult parents and patients and getting mistreated and I took every opportunity, no matter how harrowing, to be a learning opportunity and a chance for me to prove myself and become a better person, a better physician... because this is my job. This is my duty. And this is what I signed up for. No one else asked for this of me except myself. And so there was a point where I made the affirmation to step up to the challenge and to not complain. To recognize my strengths and qualities and use them to help others as best I could, to test my limits and my stamina and put as much effort as I can possibly muster to do right by my patients and my colleagues... and perhaps even more importantly, to recognize my weaknesses and my limits and to constantly strive to improve on them and, when I am stuck or at a loss, to ask for help when I could not carry on on my own. Residency has not been easy for me. It has been wrought with setbacks and failures and obstacles. There have been a lot of days where I wake up with this dread and this fear, this fear of failure, this fear that exhaustion has finally caught up to me, this nagging despair that lurks in the background ready to pounce and completely burn me out. But still, I push forward. I push forward through all of that and try my hardest to be the absolute best I can be at my job. I do what is asked of me, and a lot of times beyond that. I put in the hours (sometimes more than the next person). I follow the rules. I comply with the regulations. And I don’t complain. Because I know that this is part of the job. When I am no longer a resident, there is no one who is going to check my wellness except for myself. And honestly, for that matter, I realized early on in my residency training that, honestly, there is no one now who is going to check my wellness except for myself. I want so badly to ask my colleagues (the ones who fume and shout about how unwell they are) if they can actually tell the difference within themselves. Are they truly unwell? Are they just tired? Or are they just complaining? I don’t want to say any of this to, again, downplay anyone’s struggles during residency, because believe me, those struggles are there. And yes, resident wellness is definitely an area in residency that has accrued a high profile mainly for its lack of progress over the years. We have students and residents and practicing physicians still suffering from the deadly consequences of physician unwellness to simply just gloss over the topic and toss it aside. But truly, honestly, to those who take one long look at themselves and their work... can you deem yourself truly unwell? Or are you just complaining because you’re not getting what you want? Because I will be honest, I think part of the problem, or at least within my program, is this air of entitlement, this thought that “I deserve better because I am better than everyone else.” The complaints that their work hours are too strenuous, that they have to spend 24-hours at a time away from their family is too much to be asked of them as a physician, that they deserve and demand more days off, that they do not have to comply to the rules of the residency program “because #wellness.” ...it all is quite frankly asinine. I have colleagues who consciously refuse to follow the rules, take more than the allotted vacation days without anyone’s approval (I would know because I am one the chief residents) and expect no consequences from their actions. I have colleagues who simply find it palatable to shirk their resident duties and responsibilities because they feel that that work is beneath them. I have colleagues who complain daily about their work hours when in all reality, they have spent more time at home and on vacation than I have because I was gracious enough to absorb that time into my own schedule so that they may have those days off. I have colleagues who complain about having to work during one holiday, not even an extended period of days during the holiday, but just a 24-hour shift every third day or so, where as I worked an entire 9-day stretch during one holiday break and also worked the next holiday the following month. Would you like to guess which one is the most vocal about how “unwell” they are? I find it the most appalling thing that my colleagues, who are adults, still have this mindset of “me me me,” even when they are in a profession where, news flash, it is not at all about you. The things that these residents say, the vitriol that is spouted from their silver-spoon-fed mouths, all in the sake of “resident wellness” is honestly infuriating to me sometimes. And it honestly undermines the whole conversation about resident wellness, if I am to be quite honest with you. It invalidates the necessity to improve on this standard because all I hear from are these entitled people who think that they shouldn’t have to work as hard as the next person because they think they are better than everyone else. I’m sorry, but does the fact that you’re married or have children put you in a better position to have a better schedule than me? I don’t think so. Why are you implying that you deserve more “wellness” because of these things as opposed to me and some of my other colleagues who do their job and have never complained about their schedule? I don’t get it! Where is the disconnect?! I honestly find it a little insulting to the entire profession and find it a disservice to the field to know that there are physicians like this who still exist. Where exactly does the problem begin and how can it be fixed? No one really knows now, honestly, because the picture is so muddied. And I think that’s why regulating organizations like ACGME lack such control and grasp of the concept of resident wellness is because the picture is so muddied... by entitled residents. Entitlement is one of my pet peeves, and it severely chaps my ass to know that there will be matriculating physicians who will continue to perpetuate this horrible attitude that is not befitting of a physician. And yes, on the flip side, it also severely chaps my ass that there are physicians and programs out there who will also continue to perpetuate this horrible culture of ignoring and mismanaging physician wellness to the point where the product is just as horrible, if not worse. This topic is definitely multifaceted and very complicated. And I liken this topic, honestly, to global warming. There are people “in charge” who don’t think it is a real problem. There are people “in charge” who are mismanaging the hell out of it. There are people regulating it who understanding nothing about it. And then there are those who are the constituents who overexaggerate the problem for their own selfish and personal gains, those who don’t understand fully its consequences, those who understand its consequences but don’t know what to do, those who are apathetic, and those who care too much to the point where they serve as a detriment to the cause. It’s multifaceted and definitely complicated. It’s an issue that will require years and years of--you guessed it--hard work to fix. I don’t know of a solution. I don’t know of a resolve. And I am not sure how this will play out in the future. I guess, truthfully, my whole point of writing this post apart from acknowledging the problem and offering my understanding and what little advice I could give, since I honestly feel like I fall into that group who understand its consequences but does not know what to do, was to say that if you’re an entitled whiny-ass bitch who just doesn’t want to work because you don’t feel like it, check yourself and shut the hell up, do your job and pull your weight. Because here’s news for you, your actions are causing your peers and colleagues more unwellness.

#wellness #resident wellness #entitlement

0 notes