Kategorie: Englisch

  • (RNS) What does the popular new Netflix series, “American Primeval,” get wrong about the Utah War? Just about everything. Utah historian and author Barbara Jones Brown explains why that matters in the below guest column. — JR

    Though highly fictionalized and only loosely based on actual history and geography, popular new Netflix series “American Primeval” is stirring up national interest in a long-forgotten but explosive episode of America’s past.

    As a historian of 19th-century Utah, I’ve been excited to see how the series is generating popular interest in a place, time and people often overlooked. Countless people have been peppering me with questions and asking for book recommendations. Amazon bears out this trend — books about the Mountain Meadows and Bear River Massacres, along with biographies of Brigham Young, “Wild Bill” Hickman and Jim Bridger, are popping up on bestseller lists. 

    While I’m encouraged by people wanting to delve into the actual history, I’m equally concerned about an increase in religious bigotry, including threats against Latter-day Saints, that I’ve seen expressed on social media by some viewers of the series.

    “‘American Primeval’ on Netflix built up hatred for Mormons I didn’t even know I had,” posted one woman. “Them mountain jews are ruthless,” a man posted. Another wrote, “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, something should have been done about the Mormons a long, long time ago.” These posts received a large number of “likes” and are just a few examples of many similar posts and videos.

    These folks don’t seem to understand that the depiction of hood-wearing, sinister Mormons slaughtering emigrants, U.S. Army troops and Shoshone people all within a few days is a sensationalized fabrication intended to “entertain.” 

    To help viewers distinguish between fact and fiction, here are answers to some of the questions people have been asking: 

    What was the Utah War?

    In 1857–58, Latter-day Saint settlers of Utah Territory waged a war of resistance against the federal government when a newly elected U.S. president sent troops to occupy the Salt Lake Valley. Concerned about the Mormons’ expanding theocracy in the West — Brigham Young was not only the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but also Utah’s governor — President James Buchanan’s advisers urged him to replace Young with a new governor, accompanied by an army contingent. Buchanan, who called the Mormons “delusional,” tapped Alfred Cumming of Georgia as Utah’s new ruler — one of the few men willing to take the job.

    Young was willing to allow his replacement and other appointed officials into Utah, but he insisted the U.S. Army troops accompanying them must not enter. Young believed the soldiers were coming to persecute his people and he used violent rhetoric to rile up Latter-day Saints to resist them.

    Young’s fear was not unfounded. Missouri militiamen had massacred a group of Mormon settlers in Missouri in the late 1830s and violently driven the Mormons from that state. In 1844, Young’s predecessor and church founder, Joseph Smith, was taken into government custody, then assassinated by a mob in the Latter-day Saints’ new gathering place in Illinois. After migrating to the Salt Lake Valley beginning in 1847, Young and his people determined to “no more submit to oppression” in 1857.

    How true to life was the geography depicted in the series? 

    Not very. Only three places depicted or mentioned by name in the series were real: Fort Bridger (located in the southwest of what is Wyoming today), the Salt Lake Valley and the Wasatch Mountain range that lay between them. Though most of the events depicted in the series took place not far from Fort Bridger, in reality, Brigham Young lived in Salt Lake City more than 100 miles away. So the scene from “American Primeval” where we see Brigham Young riding around Fort Bridger is wrong; he was nowhere near the U.S. troops as they were approaching.

    Did the Mormons actually purchase and burn down Fort Bridger?

    Yes, though their motivations for doing both were different than those portrayed in “American Primeval.” They purchased the fort in 1855 — two years before any of the events depicted in the series took place. They bought it to be a trailside way station to supply thousands of emigrants making their way to Utah. When Mormon militiamen burned down the fort on Oct. 7, 1857, they did so to thwart the approaching troops during the Utah War. In “American Primeval,” the Mormons purchase and burn down the fort in the last episode. It’s unclear exactly why, but it appears to be because Young doesn’t care for Bridger and the heavy-drinking, riotous crowd that frequents the fort.  

    Did Mormon militiamen really wipe out a contingent of the U.S. Army?

    No. Though tensions ran extremely hot during the 1857–58 Utah War, remarkably, no pitched battles broke out between the two sides. Brigham Young and his advisers developed strategies to keep the troops out and convince Washington, D.C., to pull them back. Mormon militiamen not only burned Fort Bridger, but also army supply wagons and grass along the trail that the army’s draft animals needed to survive. This successfully slowed the troops’ approach until winter snows set in, making trails into the Salt Lake Valley impassable and forcing the troops to spend a miserable winter in a tent city they created outside the burned-out remains of Fort Bridger, more than 100 miles from Salt Lake City. 

    When Congress met in early 1858, it rejected President Buchanan’s proposal to raise additional troops to send to Utah, forcing Buchanan to broker a peace settlement with Mormon leaders instead. In the end, neither side got exactly what it wanted. The troops did enter and remain in the colonized areas of Utah, though they weren’t permitted to occupy cities. Instead they built and lived in an army post they named Camp Floyd, miles outside of Salt Lake City and other settlements.

    Did Mormon militiamen slaughter a camp of Shoshone people?

    No. In reality, U.S. Army troops stationed in Utah in 1863 wiped out a community of more than 400 Shoshone men, women and children on the Bear River in what is today southern Idaho (which, again, is not close to Fort Bridger as it’s portrayed in the series). The atrocity is known today as the Bear River Massacre. 

    Did Mormon militiamen massacre a group of emigrants in a wagon train?

    Yes. Though the Utah War has been called “bloodless,” in reality, Mormon militiamen in southern Utah perpetrated a horrific war atrocity on September 11, 1857, in a valley called the Mountain Meadows (which, again, is some 400 miles southwest of Bridger, not close by as it’s depicted in the series).

    The history is that although Young and his people decried the occupation of Utah Territory by federal troops, they failed to recognize that they, too, were occupiers, having settled on lands the Shoshone, Ute, Goshute, Paiute and Navajo people had inhabited for generations. As part of their strategy to convince Washington to withdraw its troops from Utah, Mormon leaders endeavored to form alliances against the army with these Indigenous peoples, and in some cases, use them as pawns. Playing on racialized 19th-century stereotypes of Indigenous Americans as “savages,” Young warned that if the troops came to Utah, he would no longer “hold the Indians still” when people passing through the territory killed them, “but I will say to them, go and do as you please.”

    While Young publicly blustered this warning, privately his interpreters encouraged and led Indigenous Americans in raiding the cattle of emigrant companies passing through Utah en route to California that summer and fall of 1857. When one such raid went awry at the Mountain Meadows, several civilians in a company of emigrants from Arkansas were killed. The entire company of men, women and children learned that Mormons were involved. In the heat of the war hysteria of 1857, local Mormon militiamen made the horrific decision to wipe out all the witnesses old enough “to tell tales,” in order to protect themselves and their community from the repercussions that would follow if they let those witnesses go.

    Did Mormons wear KKK-like hoods as depicted in the series?

    No. They did not need to, because they massacred all of the emigrants except for 17 children ages six and under. The militiamen blamed the entire massacre on the Paiute men they recruited to participate with them. These Paiute participated to receive cattle, not to receive and own surviving women as claimed in “American Primeval.” No Mormons were in the massacred train, also as fictitiously depicted in the series.

    It should be noted that modern Latter-day Saints decry the Mountain Meadows Massacre and apologize for it, including myself. Not only am I a historian of the massacre, I am a direct descendant of one of its perpetrators

    The history of the Utah War has been thoroughly researched, documented and published in numerous books on the episode. Rather than shedding light on this actual Western history and compelling viewers to learn meaningful lessons from the past, the producers of “American Primeval” ironically chose to revive and perpetuate the very falsehoods and stereotypes that led to the prejudices, fear, divisions and violence of 19th-century America.

    Readers can learn in detail about this period of Utah history in Barbara Jones Brown’s award-winning book, Vengeance Is Mine: The Mountain Meadows Massacre and Its Aftermath (Oxford University Press, 2023), co-authored with Richard E. Turley Jr. Brown holds a master’s degree in American history from the University of Utah.


    Related content:

    Two new books untangle the Mountain Meadows Massacre

    Faithful Mormons won’t be happy with Hulu’s “Under the Banner of Heaven”


    Title: What ‘American Primeval’ gets wrong about Mormon — and American — history
    URL: https://religionnews.com/2025/01/17/what-american-primeval-gets-wrong-about-mormon-and-american-history/
    Source: RNS
    Source URL: https://religionnews.com/
    Date: January 18, 2025 at 04:06AM
    Feedly Board(s): Religion

  • On December 20th, Donald Trump faced Judge Juan Merchan in a sentencing hearing. The hearing addressed crimes he committed in 2016 and into the early part of his presidency. Trump was convicted by a jury of 12 in a New York courtroom on 34 felony counts. The sentence was delayed for months because of the […]

    The post First Felon appeared first on Citizen Jack.


    Title: First Felon
    URL: https://jackhassard.org/first-felon/
    Source: The Art of Teaching Science Blog
    Source URL: https://jackhassard.org/
    Date: January 11, 2025 at 04:29AM
    Feedly Board(s): Schule

  • Lesson Objectives

    1. Understand the historical significance of Greenland in relation to the United States, Europe, and global geopolitics.
    2. Analyze the strategic implications of U.S. interest in Greenland for NATO and Europe.
    3. Evaluate potential outcomes of increased U.S. influence or ownership of Greenland in modern geopolitics.
    4. Develop critical thinking and research skills through exploration of diverse perspectives and historical contexts.

    Materials Needed


    Lesson Plan

    I. Introduction

    1. Hook Activity
      • Show a map of Greenland and surrounding regions, highlighting its size and location relative to the U.S. and Europe.
      • Ask students:
        • “Why do you think a large, icy landmass like Greenland might be important in geopolitics?”
        • “What could the U.S. gain by owning Greenland?”
    2. Provide Context
      • Briefly summarize the CBS News article, emphasizing key points about Greenland’s strategic importance.

    II. Historical Background

    1. Greenland’s History in Brief
      • Discuss the timeline:
        • Early Inuit settlers and Viking exploration.
        • Danish colonization and Greenland’s semi-autonomous status under Denmark.
        • U.S. interest during WWII and the Cold War (Thule Air Base).
          See details below.
    1. Class Discussion Questions
      • “Why might the U.S. have considered purchasing Greenland in the 1940s and in 2019?”
      • “How does Greenland’s history tie it to Europe and the West?”

    III. Strategic Implications

    1. Greenland’s Role in NATO
      • Explain Greenland’s geographical importance for NATO:
        • Proximity to the Arctic. The Hill
        • Strategic location for monitoring Russian activities.
        • Natural resources like rare earth metals.
    2. Possible Implications of U.S. Ownership
      • Break students into small groups to discuss:
        • Benefits to NATO and U.S. global strategy.
        • Potential challenges for Europe, Denmark, and the Greenlandic people.
    3. Class Discussion Questions
      • “How would increased U.S. influence in Greenland affect European security?”
      • “What ethical considerations arise in acquiring territory with Indigenous populations?”

    IV. Analysis and Critical Thinking

    1. Research Activity
      • Provide students with additional links and articles to explore Greenland’s history, NATO strategies, and Arctic geopolitics.
      • Each group will prepare a short presentation on:
        • Historical context.
        • NATO’s strategic interests in the Arctic.
        • How U.S. control of Greenland might reshape Europe’s geopolitical dynamics.
    2. Debate
      • Organize a debate on the topic:
        • “Should the U.S. pursue ownership of Greenland for strategic interests?”

    V. Wrap-Up and Homework

    1. Class Reflection
      • Ask students to write a brief journal entry:
        • “What was the most surprising thing you learned about Greenland today?”
        • “What do you think will happen if the U.S. strengthens its presence in Greenland?”
    2. Homework Assignment
      • Write a one-page essay answering:
        • “What are the long-term implications of Greenland’s geopolitical importance for NATO and Europe?”

    Assessment

    • Participation in discussions and group activities.
    • Quality of group presentations and arguments in the debate.
    • Individual journal entries and homework essays.

    Additional Resources

    1. Geography and Resources of Greenland
    2. Climate and Environmental Concerns
    3. NATO’s Arctic Strategy

    Timeline of Greenland’s History

    Early History

    • ~2500 BCE: The first known settlers, the Paleo-Inuit peoples (e.g., the Saqqaq culture), migrated to Greenland from North America.
    • ~985 CE: Viking explorers, led by Erik the Red, establish settlements in southern Greenland after being exiled from Iceland. These Norse settlements coexisted with Inuit cultures but declined in the 15th century.

    Danish Colonization

    • 1721: Denmark begins formal colonization of Greenland, led by missionary Hans Egede, marking the start of European dominance.
    • 1814: Greenland officially becomes part of the Kingdom of Denmark after the Treaty of Kiel.
    • 1953: Greenland transitions from a colony to an integral part of Denmark and gains representation in the Danish Parliament.

    Greenland’s Semi-Autonomous Status

    • 1979: Greenland attains home rule, allowing for self-governance in domestic matters while Denmark retains control over foreign policy and defense.
    • 2009: Greenland gains additional autonomy through the Self-Government Act, taking control of areas like policing and the legal system while increasing control over natural resources.

    U.S. Interest in Greenland

    • 1941: During World War II, the U.S. establishes airbases in Greenland under a defense agreement with Denmark, which was occupied by Germany at the time.
    • 1946: President Harry Truman’s administration formally offers $100 million in gold to purchase Greenland, recognizing its strategic importance during the early Cold War. Denmark declines the offer, maintaining sovereignty over Greenland.
    • 1951: Thule Air Base is formally established as a strategic Arctic base during the Cold War, providing a critical location for U.S. missile defense and early warning systems.
    • 2019: Renewed U.S. interest emerges under President Donald Trump, who proposes purchasing Greenland for its strategic and resource value, sparking global discussions on geopolitics.

    The post Lesson Plan: U.S. Interest in Greenland – History, Implications for NATO, and Europe first appeared on The digital classroom, transforming the way we learn.


    Title: Lesson Plan: U.S. Interest in Greenland – History, Implications for NATO, and Europe
    URL: https://annmichaelsen.com/2025/01/10/lesson-plan-u-s-interest-in-greenland-history-implications-for-nato-and-europe/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lesson-plan-u-s-interest-in-greenland-history-implications-for-nato-and-europe&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lesson-plan-u-s-interest-in-greenland-history-implications-for-nato-and-europe
    Source: Teaching English using web 2.0
    Source URL: https://annmichaelsen.com
    Date: January 10, 2025 at 08:34AM
    Feedly Board(s): Schule

  • Overview:
    This lesson plan invites students to analyze both global and localized climate-related events, such as the California wildfires in Pacific Palisades, alongside international solutions to climate change. By examining these events, students will explore the interconnectedness of climate challenges, evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation and adaptation strategies, and propose forward-thinking solutions.

    Grade Level: Secondary Education (Grades 9-12)
    Subject Areas: Environmental Science, Geography, Social Studies


    Objectives:

    By the end of this lesson, students will be able to:

    • Identify and discuss local and global climate-related challenges from 2024, including the Pacific Palisades wildfires.
    • Examine causes and consequences of localized events within the broader climate crisis.
    • Analyze solutions implemented globally and evaluate their effectiveness.
    • Develop critical opinions on priority actions for climate change mitigation and adaptation.

    Materials:


    Lesson Activities:

    Understanding the Pacific Palisades Wildfires

    Warm-Up Discussion:

    • Pose the question: “How do local climate events like wildfires connect to the global climate crisis?”
    • Introduce the article on the Pacific Palisades wildfires. Highlight key aspects:
      • Causes of the fires (drought, high winds, urban encroachment, etc.).
      • Immediate and long-term impacts on communities, biodiversity, and the economy.
      • Links to broader climate trends such as increased wildfire frequency and intensity.

    Case Study Exploration:

    • Divide students into small groups. Assign each group one of these topics to analyze from the Pacific Palisades case:
      1. Environmental factors contributing to the fire.
      2. Immediate impacts on the local population and economy.
      3. Efforts to mitigate damage and rebuild communities.
      4. Lessons for future wildfire prevention and response.

    Guided Questions for Groups:

    • What environmental and human factors contributed to the event?
    • How were people and ecosystems affected?
    • What immediate actions were taken to address the crisis?
    • What policies or strategies could prevent such events in the future?

    Each group presents their findings to the class.


    Comparing Local and Global Climate Challenges

    Global-Local Discussion:

    • Facilitate a discussion comparing the Pacific Palisades wildfires to other global climate challenges highlighted in the WRI article.
    • Questions to consider:
      • How do local events like wildfires reflect global climate trends?
      • What are the common challenges across different regions?
      • How can local strategies inform global solutions (and vice versa)?

    Research Activity:
    Assign students to research one of the following topics:

    • Fire management and reforestation efforts in California.
    • Sustainable agriculture initiatives in Brazil.
    • Distributed solar energy projects in sub-Saharan Africa.
    • International climate finance agreements from the UN summit in Baku.

    Presentation Focus:
    Students prepare a brief presentation covering:

    • A summary of their topic.
    • The significance of their topic in addressing climate change.
    • A comparison between their topic and lessons from the Pacific Palisades wildfires.

    Extension Activity:

    Opinion Essay:

    • Topic: “What can local climate events, such as the Pacific Palisades wildfires, teach us about the global fight against climate change?”
    • Encourage students to incorporate lessons from their group discussions, research, and the articles provided.

    Assessment:

    • Quality of group discussions and presentations.
    • Depth and accuracy in research.
    • Clarity, coherence, and originality in the opinion essay.

    Additional Resources:

    The post Lesson Plan: Analyzing Local and Global Climate Challenges in 2024 and Beyond first appeared on The digital classroom, transforming the way we learn.


    Title: Lesson Plan: Analyzing Local and Global Climate Challenges in 2024 and Beyond
    URL: https://annmichaelsen.com/2025/01/08/lesson-plan-analyzing-local-and-global-climate-challenges-in-2024-and-beyond/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lesson-plan-analyzing-local-and-global-climate-challenges-in-2024-and-beyond&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lesson-plan-analyzing-local-and-global-climate-challenges-in-2024-and-beyond
    Source: Teaching English using web 2.0
    Source URL: https://annmichaelsen.com
    Date: January 8, 2025 at 09:49AM
    Feedly Board(s): Schule

  • Der Beitrag Die 10 besten Bücher im Jahr 2024 – laut New York Times von Beatrice Bode erschien zuerst auf BASIC thinking. Über unseren Newsletter bleibst du immer aktuell.

    besten bücher 2024, lesen, bildung, new york times, bestseller, roman, sachbuch, fiktion, forschung

    Welche Bücher sollte man unbedingt gelesen haben? Die Literaturexperten der New York Times küren jedes Jahr die besten literarischen Werke. Von Romanen über Thriller bis hin zu Sachbüchern: In unserem wöchentlichen Ranking zeigen wir dir die zehn besten Bücher aus dem Jahr 2024. 

    Im vergangenen Jahr wurden allein auf dem deutschen Markt 60.000 Bücher veröffentlicht. In den USA wurden Statistiken zufolge wiederum über 760 Millionen Werke verkauft. Ein Buch auszuwählen fällt deshalb sogar eingefleischten Leseratten nicht immer leicht.

    Um ein wenig Licht in die Massen an Neuerscheinungen zu bringen, gibt es verschiedene Plattformen, die Buchempfehlungen herausgeben. Eine der prestigeträchtigsten Bücherlisten ist die der New York Times (NYT).

    Die besten Bücher im Jahr 2024

    Für das Journal „The Book Review“ der NYT arbeiten Literaturexperten, die sich regelmäßig durch die Bücherregale wühlen und Neuerscheinungen bewerten. Kürzlich veröffentlichte das Magazin die Auswertung für das Jahr 2024.

    Von den dort aufgeführten Werken sind bereits etwa die Hälfte auf Deutsch erschienen. Andere existieren bisher nur in der Originalversion. Im folgenden Ranking zeigen wir dir die zehn besten Bücher aus dem Jahr 2024 – laut New York Times.

    Dieser Beitrag enthält Affiliate-Links, für die wir eine kleine Provision erhalten. Das hat jedoch keinen Einfluss auf die inhaltliche Gestaltung unserer Beiträge.

    „Auf allen vieren“ von Miranda July

    Ein Platz in der NYT-Liste der besten Bücher 2024 geht an „Auf allen vieren“ von Miranda July. Der Roman handelt von einer mittelmäßig bekannten Künstlerin, die sich selbst zum 45. Geburtstag einen Trip durch die USA schenkt. Das Ziel: die eigene Komfortzone verlassen.

    Auf ihrer Reise fängt sie unter anderem eine Affäre mit einem jüngeren Angestellten einer Autovermietung an. Sexuell freizügig und mit dem schrägen Humor der Autorin gespickt, wirft das Buch laut NYT am Ende die universellste Frage auf: Was würden Sie riskieren, um Ihr Leben zu ändern?

    25,00 EUR

    Bei Amazon kaufen
    Preis inkl. MwSt., zzgl. Versandkosten

    Der Beitrag Die 10 besten Bücher im Jahr 2024 – laut New York Times von Beatrice Bode erschien zuerst auf BASIC thinking. Folge uns auch auf Google News und Flipboard.


    Title: Die 10 besten Bücher im Jahr 2024 – laut New York Times
    URL: https://www.basicthinking.de/blog/2025/01/05/besten-buecher-2024-2/
    Source: BASIC thinking
    Source URL: https://www.basicthinking.de/blog/
    Date: January 5, 2025 at 08:09PM
    Feedly Board(s): Technologie

  • Deep down, we all knew this was going to happen at some point. From the moment Luke Littler stepped through the doors of Alexandra Palace in 2023 and started throwing darts from the gods, a countdown had begun that would ineluctably, irrevocably end with the Sid Waddell Trophy hoisted aloft in his arms.

    And yet, with the moment potentially hours away, the thought of it still seems somehow unreal, illusory, transgressive. Darts is on the verge of a new age, a tectonic shift in its history and popularity and cultural footprint. Eric Bristow, Phil Taylor, Raymond van Barneveld, Michael van Gerwen: turns out this was the preamble. When the chroniclers of the future come to write the tale of this sport, they will recognise two eras: before Littler, and after.

    It’s not only his talent, although the talent is otherworldly, and it’s not only his youth, although the youth is startling, and it’s not only the speed of his rise, as violent and concussive as this has been. In almost every aspect, this is a player rewriting the traditions and truisms of darts, rejecting everything we thought we knew about it.

    That this a trade and not an art, a skill to be honed and hardened over years, not a kind of fully-formed perfection that emerges like a flawless debut album. That this apprenticeship is typically served in the pub, and very often liberally topped up in the practice room before the start of play.

    That stagecraft – the process of commanding a wild and often hostile crowd – is the last and hardest of all the disciplines to master. That playing to the gallery will inevitably end in embarrassment. That you should really try and avoid leaving double 15 if you can possibly help it. That nobody wins the Premier League, the Grand Slam and the World Championship in their first full season in the sport. That nobody really cares about darts.

    Are we getting ahead of ourselves? Certainly the great Van Gerwen would like to think so, as he tries to align the stars for a fourth world crown, a restoration to the throne that once felt like his by birthright. Van Gerwen refers to Littler as “Wonder Boy” and you wonder if there is a part of him that would relish this triumph more than any of the 47 other major titles he has won to date: an opportunity to stand in the path of the great wave and push it back with his own two hands, just as an aging Taylor did to the emerging Van Gerwen himself in 2013.

    Michael van Gerwen was rock solid as he beat Chris Dobey in the semi-finals at Alexandra Palace. Photograph: Dennis Goodwin/ProSports/REX/Shutterstock

    In order to do so Van Gerwen will have to play better than he has played for years, better than he played in despatching Chris Dobey 6-1 in the evening’s first semi-final, better than the twinkly-eyed Stephen Bunting did in losing by the same scoreline against Littler in the second. Bunting averaged over 100 and could probably argue he deserved better than the thrashing he took. But it was a brutal lesson in vanishing margins, a reminder that against Littler the window of opportunity is so narrow it may as well be a trick of the light.

    And Bunting did have his chances. He had a chance to win the first set by taking out 92, missed two darts at double eight in the second set that allowed Littler to break, missed double 13 in set four that would have given him the darts in the deciding leg. Over the whole match his checkout rate of 36% probably needed to be a good 10 points higher.

    skip past newsletter promotion

    after newsletter promotion

    But the cruellest blow was a dart he could do nothing about. Sitting on double top at the end of the sixth set, and hopeful of reducing the gap to 4-2, Littler pulled out an 84 finish on the bull, celebrating by reeling across the stage, slamming his fists together and basically offering out the entire crowd in the car park afterwards. “It was a good shot,” he said afterwards with his characteristic understatement. “It just had to go.”

    Littler finished with an average of 105 and you could still argue – as in his previous matches – that we’re still yet to see the very best of him. In many ways he has looked more human, more of a teenager, than he ever did 12 months ago. Now everyone expects. Now he does too.

    A storm is coming to the Palace on Friday night. There will be a television audience of millions, people who have never watched darts before, people who may never watch darts again. And of course this is never over until the last arrow is thrown. But Van Gerwen is playing more than an opponent here. How do you stem the tide of history? How do you possibly contain something that has not the slightest sense of its own boundaries?


    Title: Luke Littler sails into blockbuster world darts final with Michael van Gerwen
    URL: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/jan/02/pdc-darts-world-championship-semi-final-report-van-gerwen-littler
    Source: the Guardian
    Source URL:
    Date: January 3, 2025 at 03:02AM
    Feedly Board(s):

  • Each Public Domain Day seems to bring us a richer crop of copyright-liberated books, plays, films, musical compositions, sound recordings, works of art, and other pieces of intellectual property. This year happens to be an especially notable one for connoisseurs of Belgian culture. Among the characters entering the American public domain, we find a certain boy reporter named Tintin, who first appeared — along with his faithful pup Milou, or in English, Snowy — in the January 10th, 1929 issue of Le Petit Vingtième, the children’s supplement of the newspaper Le Vingtième Siècle.

    Now, here in le vingt-et-unième-siècle, that first version of Tintin can be reinvented in any manner one can imagine — at least in the United States. In the European Union, as the Duke Center for the Study of the Public Domain directors Jennifer Jenkins and James Boyle note in their Public Domain Day blog post for this year, that Tintin remains under copyright until 2054, a date based on his creator Hergé having died in 1983. The thoroughly American comic-strip hero Popeye also made his debut in 1929, but as Jenkins and Boyle hasten to add, while that “Popeye 1.0 had superhuman capabilities, he did not derive them from eating spinach until 1931.” Even so, “it appears that the copyright in this 1931 comic strip was not renewed — if this is true, Popeye’s spinach-fueled strength is already in the public domain.”

    This year also brings a development in a similar matter of detail related to no less a cartoon icon than Mickey Mouse: last year freed the first version of Mickey Mouse, his river-navigating, farm-animal-bashing Steamboat Willie incarnation. “In 2025 we welcome a dozen new Mickey Mouse films from 1929,” write Jenkins and Boyle, “Mickey speaks his first words – ‘Hot dogs! Hot dogs!’ – and debuts his familiar white gloves. That version of Mickey is now officially in the public domain.”

    This Public Domain Day also brings us literary works like Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury, Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms, Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own (as well as detective novels from Agatha Christie and the pseudonymous Ellery Queen, once the biggest mystery writer in America); the first sound films by Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, and the Marx Brothers; musical compositions like “Singin’ in the Rain,” Gershwin’s An American in Paris, and Ravel’s Boléro; actual recordings of Rhapsody in Blue and “It Had To Be You”; and Surrealist works of art by Salvador Dalí and — pending further investigation into their copyright status — perhaps even René Magritte, whose L’empire des lumières just sold for a record $121 million. Who knows? 2025 could be the year we all look to Belgium for inspiration.

    For more on what’s entering the public domain today, visit this Duke University website.

    Related Content:

    Hergé Draws Tintin in Vintage Footage (and What Explains the Character’s Enduring Appeal)

    An Introduction to René Magritte, and How the Belgian Artist Used an Ordinary Style to Create Extraordinarily Surreal Paintings

    William Faulkner Reads His Nobel Prize Speech

    Alfred Hitchcock Presents Some of the First Words Ever Spoken on Film .… and They’re Saucy Ones (1929)

    An Early Version of Mickey Mouse Enters the Public Domain on January 1, 2024

    What’s Entering the Public Domain in 2024: Enjoy Classic Works by Virginia Woolf, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, D. H. Lawrence, Bertolt Brecht & More

    Based in Seoul, Colin Marshall writes and broadcasts on cities, language, and culture. His projects include the Substack newsletter Books on Cities and the book The Stateless City: a Walk through 21st-Century Los Angeles. Follow him on the social network formerly known as Twitter at @colinmarshall.


    Title: What’s Entering the Public Domain in 2025: Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms, Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury, Early Hitchcock Films, Tintin and Popeye Cartoons & More
    URL: https://www.openculture.com/2025/01/whats-entering-the-public-domain-in-2025.html
    Source: Open Culture
    Source URL: https://www.openculture.com/
    Date: January 1, 2025 at 11:03AM
    Feedly Board(s): Schule

  • In drei Wochen übernimmt der Republikaner das Weiße Haus – doch schon jetzt tobt ein Bürgerkrieg in seiner »Make America Great Again«-Bewegung. Vor allem Techmilliardär Elon Musk sorgt an der Parteibasis für Ärger.


    Title: USA vor dem Machtwechsel: Die Rückkehr des Chaos durch Donald Trump
    URL: https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/usa-vor-dem-machtwechsel-die-rueckkehr-des-chaos-durch-donald-trump-a-06abbf24-2eac-4064-b2a1-66b8bb2aa7ca
    Source: DER SPIEGEL | Online-Nachrichten
    Source URL:
    Date: January 1, 2025 at 09:43AM
    Feedly Board(s):

  • (RNS) — Amid the many accolades and occasional brickbats now raining down on the late Jimmy Carter, let us note that the most consequential legacy of his one-term presidency is the religious right, the longest-lasting political movement in American history.

    How so?

    Winning the highest office in the land in 1976, Carter represented a mortal threat to the Republican Party’s strategy of making the increasingly populous South the engine of a new, nationwide GOP majority. Raised Southern Baptist on a peanut farm in southwest Georgia, he used religio-regional pride to recall white Southerners to the national Democratic fold. Where the last Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, had lost all five Deep South states from South Carolina to Louisiana 12 years earlier, the former governor of Georgia won every state of the old Confederacy except Virginia.

    Carter’s personal religious identity was more complicated than you might have thought from Newsweek’s famous “Born Again!” cover story, which christened 1976 as “the year of the evangelical.” As described by Jonathan Alter in his fine biography, Carter had no sudden come-to-Jesus moment as a youth, but rather, in middle age, a growth in Christian commitment derived from reading the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, doing mission work and reflecting on his own spiritual state.

    No liberal, the moderately progressive positions Carter took on issues such as abortion and women’s rights were in line with the moderate progressivism of the Southern Baptist Convention of the 1970s. That, however, was about to change.

    In 1979, conservative leaders in the SBC mobilized their forces, electing one of their own as president and setting in motion a full takeover of the denomination. The following year, some of the same leaders joined forces with Republican operatives to mobilize evangelicals against Democrats in general and Jimmy Carter in particular. For if the Southern strategy was to be kept intact, Carter had to be discredited and defeated.

    In June, after being chosen as the conservatives’ second SBC president, Oklahoma pastor Bailey Smith showed up at the White House and denounced Carter as a “secular humanist.” A month after being anointed Republican presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan showed up at Reunion Arena in Dallas and addressed the National Affairs Briefing, a gathering at which one prominent pastor after another summoned evangelical attendees to political engagement. 

    “I know this is a non-partisan gathering, and so I know that you can’t endorse me, but … I want you to know that I endorse you and what you are doing,” Reagan said with a straight face, before urging the crowd to get out and vote for their values.

    In November, Carter went down to defeat, the victim of persistent inflation, the Iranian hostage situation — and of evangelicals turning against one of their own. Returning to Georgia, he established the Carter Center in Atlanta as a place to promote good things around the world, wielded a hammer helping Habitat for Humanity build houses for poor people in America and teaching Sunday school at his small church in Plains. In 2000, he announced he was no longer a member of the SBC.

    As for the religious right, it took off from the Carter years, remaking the Republican Party’s social policy agenda, reconstituting its demographic base and establishing religiosity as a central feature of American political behavior. It largely succeeded in advancing the Southern strategy it was designed to rescue and, having undergone some subtle and some not-so-subtle transformations, persists to this day.

    Whether it would have come into existence in the absence of Jimmy Carter’s presidency is a nice question — one that, like all historical counterfactuals, cannot be conclusively answered. My guess is that something like it would have emerged but that it would have been smaller and weaker, less consequential and less enduring. And the country would be better off.


    Title: How Jimmy Carter created the religious right
    URL: https://religionnews.com/2024/12/30/how-jimmy-carter-created-the-religious-right/
    Source: RNS
    Source URL: https://religionnews.com/
    Date: December 31, 2024 at 12:15AM
    Feedly Board(s): Religion

  • Graphic photo illustration of Donald Trump.
    Donald Trump. | Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photos from Scott Olson, Getty Images

    President-elect Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to let him negotiate a deal to save TikTok from an imminent US ban.

    In an amicus brief filed to the court, Trump says he “seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office,” and that he “alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform.”

    Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments that a bill passed by Congress banning TikTok on national security grounds violates the First Amendment. The bill gives wide latitude to the president to delay its enforcement if there’s progress being made towards a deal that ensures TikTok isn’t fully controlled by its Chinese parent company, ByteDance.

    But the deadline for that determination is January 19th, which is one day before Trump is set to be sworn in.

    In his Supreme Court filing, Trump asks for the bill’s January 19th deadline to be stayed, arguing that the deal he’d negotiate “would obviate the need for this Court to decide the historically challenging First Amendment question presented here on the current, highly expedited basis.”

    He offers no details on what said deal would look like, though it would likely have to involve ByteDance selling a signification portion of its ownership in TikTok to an American company.

    Trump argues that having over 14 million followers on TikTok, along with his ownership of Truth Social, gives him unique ability to “evaluate TikTok’s importance as a unique medium for freedom of expression, including core political speech.” He also cites Brazil’s temporary ban of Elon Musk’s X as an example of “the historic dangers presented” by a government banning a social media platform.

    While Trump pushed aggressively for a TikTok ban during his first term, he changed his tune after his campaign successfully used the video app during the 2024 election. He recently met with TikTok CEO Shou Chew at Mar-a-Lago and told a crowd that “maybe we gotta keep this sucker around for a little while.”

    There’s still plenty of political pressure to enforce a TikTok ban, however. A group of senators and congressmen, including Mitch McConnell and Ro Khanna, filed petitions on Friday, joined by 22 U.S. states and former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, urging the Supreme Court to reject TikTok’s appeal.


    Title: Trump asks the Supreme Court to let him rescue TikTok
    URL: https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/27/24330513/trump-asks-the-supreme-court-to-let-him-rescue-tiktok
    Source: The Verge – All Posts
    Source URL: https://www.theverge.com/
    Date: December 27, 2024 at 11:49PM
    Feedly Board(s): Technologie

  • (RNS) — President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team is reportedly planning an interfaith prayer service the day before his inauguration, where participants can worship alongside the businessman and his wife, Melania.

    But those who want to join need to weigh the price of prayer: Tickets to the service will be awarded only to those who donate at least $100,000 to Trump’s inaugural ceremonies, or who raise $200,000.

    Earlier this month, Axios cited a seven-page prospectus that listed the service alongside several other donor-only events, such as a “cabinet reception” with Trump’s nominees and “candlelight dinner” with Trump and Melania.

    According to the report, if a donor gives $1 million or raises $2 million, they’ll earn six tickets to the suite of inauguration events.



    Officials for Trump’s transition team did not respond to requests to confirm the service. No details about where the event will occur or who will be involved were specified in the prospectus.

    The morning of Trump’s first inauguration in 2017, the president-elect sat for a prayer service at St. John’s Episcopal Church, a historic location across Lafayette Square from the White House. The church, often referred to as the “Church of the Presidents,” later became known as the site where Trump posed with a Bible during the Black Lives Matter demonstrations on June 1, 2020.

    Among the racial justice demonstrators forcibly removed from Lafayette Square and the surrounding area just before Trump’s Bible photo op were a seminarian and an Episcopal priest who, at the behest of the local Episcopal diocese, were handing out water to protesters from St. John’s patio. At the time, the incident prompted outrage from the Rt. Rev. Marianne Budde, who oversees the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, telling Religion News Service she was “horrified” by the events of the day.

    A representative for St. John’s declined to confirm whether they plan to host another inaugural service for Trump. Texas Pastor Robert Jeffress, a longtime Trump supporter who preached the sermon titled titled “When God Chooses a Leader” during Trump’s 2017 inaugural service, told RNS last month he had not yet been asked to do the same this go-round, though he noted he is very “enthusiastic about his election.”

    Trump may well hear from Budde again this year, this time in a worship service at the Washington National Cathedral, which traditionally holds an inaugural prayer service, usually in close partnership with whichever presidential candidate won the election. In 2017, Trump sat for a 70-minute service at the cathedral that featured Budde, as well as a Catholic archbishop of Washington and a local imam, among other religious leaders.

    The decision to host the event in 2017 drew criticism from Episcopalians, including the Rev. Gary Hall, the cathedral’s former dean, who said Trump “violates any possible norm of Christian faith and practice.”

    The Cathedral announced earlier this year it would be holding a “Service for the Nation” on Jan. 21 and that Budde will be preaching, irrespective of who won.

    “This will not be a service for a new administration,” the Very Rev. Randolph Marshall Hollerith, the Cathedral’s current dean, said in a statement released in October. “Rather, whichever party wins, this will be a service for all Americans, for the well-being of our nation, for our democracy and the importance of the core values that must undergird our democracy.”

    The Trump transition team did not respond to repeated requests regarding the president-elect’s plans for the service or whether he plans to attend.

    Meanwhile, other groups are preparing their own worship services. Last week Sean Feucht, an evangelical Christian musician and conservative activist who has advocated for Christian nationalism, revealed in a promotional video plans to host a “Revive in 25” worship service, in which Feucht said “worship is going to pave the way” for Trump’s inauguration.



    But soon after announcing the service’s location at St. Joseph’s, a historic Catholic Church on Capitol Hill, the church’s priest, the Rev. William H. Gurnee, wrote to RNS in an email that he had not granted permission for the use of the church. “While I was asked to host the event, I informed the organizer that I needed more information and it was mistakenly reported that final permission was granted,” Gurnee wrote.

    Gurnee added, “It is my feeling that this event would be better hosted at another location.”

    Feucht seemed to acknowledge the mixup in an X post on Thursday, lamenting “warfare” he insisted was “coming against” him and his team to host the event. In a separate post published Friday, Feucht said the service was still happening but noted in an attached video that the location was “TBD.”


    Title: At Trump’s inauguration, reports of a pay-to-pray
    URL: https://religionnews.com/?p=4181163&preview=true&preview_id=4181163
    Source: RNS
    Source URL: https://religionnews.com/
    Date: December 24, 2024 at 01:39AM
    Feedly Board(s): Religion

  • Donald Trump’s return to the White House is seen as a potential threat to European security. Some think he may abandon Nato – but the organisation’s new secretary general seems convinced he will be persuaded to stay.


    Title: The Global Story: Does Trump’s return threaten the future of Nato?
    URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0kddbg7
    Source: Global News Podcast
    Source URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02nq0gn
    Date: December 22, 2024 at 03:03PM
    Feedly Board(s): Englisch

  • Complaints about the commercial-age corruption of Christmas miss one critical fact: as a mass public celebration, the holiday is a rather recent invention. Whether we credit Charles Dickens, Bing Crosby, or Frank Capra—men not opposed to marketing—we must reckon with Christmas as a product of modernity. That includes the sacred ideas about family, piety, and gratitude we attach to the season.

    The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony “despised Christmas,” notes Boing Boing. They associated it with debauchery: heavy drinking, gluttony, riots, “rowdiness and sinful behavior.” Not only that, but they “saw it as a false holiday with stronger ties to paganism than Christianity,” writes Rebecca Beatrice Brooks at the History of Massachusetts blog, and “they were correct, according to the book The Battle for Christmas.”

    The History Dose video above informs us that in 1659, “the General Court of Massachusetts made it illegal to celebrate Christmas.” Feasting, or even taking off work on December 25th would result in a fine of five shillings. It seems extreme, but the holiday had a carnivalesque reputation at the time. Not only were revelers, at the end of a long year’s work, eager to enjoy the spoils of their labor, but their caroling might even turn into a kind of violent trick-or-treating.

    “On some occasions the carolers would become rowdy and invade wealthy homes demanding food and drink,” Brooks writes. They “would vandalize the home if the owner refused.” The Puritans’ authoritarian streak, and respect for the sanctity of private property, made canceling Christmas the only seemingly logical thing to do, with a ban lasting 22 years. In any case, explicit ban or no, spurning Christmas was common practice for two hundred years of New England’s colonial history.

    In the end, for all its supposed intrusions into the snow globe of Christmas purism, “we can partially thank commercialization for sustaining the domestic brand of Christmas we have today”—the brand, that is, that ensures we can’t stop talking about, reading about, and hearing about Christmas, whatever our beliefs, in the several weeks leading up to December 25th.

    If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newsletter, please find it here. Or follow our posts on Threads, Facebook, BlueSky or Mastodon.

    If you would like to support the mission of Open Culture, consider making a donation to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your contributions will help us continue providing the best free cultural and educational materials to learners everywhere. You can contribute through PayPal, Patreon, and Venmo (@openculture). Thanks!

    Related Content:

    Behold! The Very First Christmas Card (1843)

    John Waters’ Hand-Made, Oddball Christmas Cards: 1964-Present

    Watch Björk, Age 11, Read a Christmas Nativity Story on an Icelandic TV Special (1976)

    Langston Hughes’ Homemade Christmas Cards From 1950

    Josh Jones is a writer and musician based in Durham, NC. Follow him at @jdmagness.


    Title: When Christmas Was Legally Banned for 22 Years by the Puritans in Colonial Massachusetts
    URL: https://www.openculture.com/2024/12/when-christmas-was-legally-banned-for-22-years-by-the-puritans.html
    Source: Open Culture
    Source URL: https://www.openculture.com/
    Date: December 11, 2024 at 08:57AM
    Feedly Board(s): Schule

  • (RNS) — When I turned 65 and became eligible for Medicare, I had to choose a supplemental health insurer. After careful research, I chose UnitedHealthcare.

    Have I been pleased? That would be a strong word. “Satisfied?” More like it. “Resigned to the way the system operates?” Even more accurate.

    Do I love the way some claims have been denied and others delayed? Hardly.

    Would I have wanted any harm to come to its CEO, Brian Thompson, or anyone who works there? Hard “no.”

    I wish this were a universal response to last week’s cold-blooded murder of Brian Thompson on a Manhattan sidewalk. That has not been the case. On Facebook and other social media, we found people saying he deserved to die because of their denied/delayed claims; people talking about his annual salary, refusing to weep crocodile tears over the demise of such a wealthy man; etc. 

    To quote Zeynep Tufecki in The New York Times:

    The somber announcement by UnitedHealth Group that it was “deeply saddened and shocked at the passing of our dear friend and colleague” was met with, as of this writing, 80,000 reactions; 75,000 of them were the “haha” emoji.

    On a prominent Reddit forum for medical professionals, one of the most upvoted comments was a parody rejection letter: After “a careful review of the claim submitted for emergency services on December 4, 2024,” it read, a claim was denied because “you failed to obtain prior authorization before seeking care for the gunshot wound to your chest.”

    Some posted “prior authorization needed before thoughts and prayers.” Others wryly pointed out that the reward for information connected to the murder, $10,000, was less than their annual deductibles. One observer recommended that Thompson be scheduled to see a specialist in a few months, maybe.

    The term for this is “schadenfreude” — taking pleasure in someone else’s misfortune.

    Professor Tufecki goes on to cite historical precedents for this murder — violence during the Gilded Age, as well as political violence in contemporary America.

    A recent Reuters investigation identified at least 300 cases of political violence since the 2021 assault on the Capitol, which it described as “the biggest and most sustained increase in U.S. political violence since the 1970s.” A 2023 poll showed that the number of Americans who agree with the statement “American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save the country” was ticking up alarmingly.

    Here is what sticks in my mind.

    If we are talking about the schadenfreude that accompanies the killing of the rich and the privileged, let’s go back to where this all starts — to the very beginning of modernity in the West — the French Revolution.

    Then, let’s jump to the Communists — to Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Then, to the 1960s and the left’s veneration of the Bolivian-Cuban revolutionary, Che Guevara, who seemed like a dashing romantic hero, but who was really a thug who killed innocent peasants in a failed attempt to recruit them to the Marxist revolution. (Che and Fidel Castro trained members of the PLO, which means that these charmers had Jewish blood on their hands.) Then, the late 1960s and early 1970s, with the violent Weathermen, who bathed themselves and others in what can only be called an ecstasy of rage.

    And, from the right? You have already read Professor Tufecki’s citation of increased political violence in recent years. Let’s just go back to Jan. 6 — whose perpetrators are likely to be pardoned after Trump’s inauguration. These are people who erected a gallows and were prepared to hang Vice President Mike Pence. There are people who wanted to murder Nancy Pelosi. There is every reason to believe such threats of political violence will continue, as Trump vows vengeance on his enemies.

    “It’s sad that Thompson’s murder had to happen, but you need to understand…” “Sorry, not sorry.”

    Where have I heard that before?

    On Oct. 7 — the Hamas attack against Israel — and following. “Yes, it is sad what happened on October 7, but you have to realize that Israel has been committing crimes against the Palestinians for decades.” I am trying to discern what kind of mind rationalizes such acts of violence, mutilation and rape — not to mention the fact that Hamas somehow failed to mention the Palestinians during their rampage; neither was the phrase “two state solution” on their lips — rather, they exulted in killing “yahud” — Jews. 

    In particular, I am thinking about Professor Russell Rickford at Cornell University, who took the occasion of the Oct. 7 attack to announce he was “exhilarated” by it.

    This attitude — not only critical of Israeli policy, not only critical of the existence of the state of Israel, not only critical of Zionism, but pro-Hamas — is very much a “thing.”

    My leftist friends and my anti-capitalist friends and my anti “anyone who makes a crazy big salary” friends and my anti-health-insurance-bureaucracy friends might choose to revel in the murder of an innocent man (whose innocence, of course, they debate). But, just as assuredly as they would condemn the violence of the far right, they should know that once you feed violence into a cultural system, it takes no prisoners. It just contributes to societal chaos, and you will be shocked to see who its victims might be.

    The murder of Brian Thompson was an assassination and an act of terrorism. That it is an act of terrorism against a member of the prosperous, extremely well-paid class hardly mitigates its horror. In such a polarized historical moment, we dare not countenance anything that smacks of a class war, or a war against elites of any kind.

    This is evil. Call it out.


    Title: Brian Thompson’s death was not just murder. It was terrorism.
    URL: https://religionnews.com/2024/12/09/brian-thompsons-death-was-not-just-murder-it-was-terrorism/
    Source: RNS
    Source URL: https://religionnews.com/
    Date: December 9, 2024 at 09:18PM
    Feedly Board(s): Religion


  • President-Elect Donald Trump at the Elysee Palace on Dec. 7, 2024, in Paris. / Credit: Oleg Nikishin/Getty Images

    CNA Staff, Dec 9, 2024 / 17:00 pm (CNA).

    In his first sit-down broadcast network interview since the election, President-elect Donald Trump said that in his first 100 days in office, he would focus on immigration as well as enacting tax cuts and tariffs.

    During the interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” Sunday, the president-elect reaffirmed his support of in vitro fertilization (IVF), a fertility procedure opposed by the Catholic Church because it destroys embryonic life and separates conception from marriage. Trump also said he would “probably” not restrict the abortion pill, though he refused to commit to that, noting that “things do change.” 

    Immigration 

    Trump pledged that the first thing he would do is address the border issue, beginning with criminals who are in the U.S. illegally. He told NBC he would begin “rapidly” with criminals who are here illegally such as Venezuelan gang members and MS-13.

    “We’re starting with the criminals, and we gotta do it,” he said. “And then we’re starting with others and we’re going to see how it goes.” 

    When asked about deporting everyone who has been living in the country illegally for years, he said: “Well, I think you have to do it.”

    “It’s a very tough thing to do, but you have to have rules, regulations, laws; they came in illegally,” Trump said. 

    He noted that this is unfair for people waiting to come into the country legally. 

    “We’re going to make it very easy for people to come in, in terms of, they have to pass the test,” Trump said. “They have to be able to tell you what the Statue of Liberty is. They have to tell you a little bit about our country. They have to love our country.”

    When asked about families with mixed immigration status, Trump said he wouldn’t split up families, saying the families could be deported together if they choose.

    “I don’t want to be breaking up families, so the only way you don’t break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back,” he said. 

    “We have to do our job,” Trump continued. “You have to have a series of standards and a series of laws.” 

    Trump also pledged to end birthright citizenship for children of immigrants.

    When asked whether his plan violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,” Trump said that he may have to turn to “the people,” but “we have to end it.” 

    Trump also pledged to “work with the Democrats on a plan” to help Dreamers (immigrants who came into the country illegally as children) stay in the country, noting that Republicans are “very open” to doing so.

    The U.S. bishops in November urged the American government to reform the immigration system with “fair and humane treatment” of immigrants. The statement called for a system that “provides permanent relief for childhood arrivals, helps families stay together, and welcomes refugees,” while also “keep[ing] our borders safe and secure.” 

    In vitro fertilization

    During his campaign, Trump promised free in vitro fertilization (IVF), either through the government or insurance mandates. In the interview, Trump reaffirmed his support for the treatment, calling himself “the father of IVF in a certain way.”

    Trump cited his involvement in the Alabama IVF controversy earlier this year in which he voiced support for IVF. After the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in February that frozen human embryos constitute children under state statute, the Republican governor of Alabama, Kay Ivey, signed legislation granting clinics immunity when they “damage” or cause the “death” of human embryonic life in the process of providing in vitro fertilization (IVF) fertility treatments to women.

    Trump noted that in response to the court decision he issued “a statement from the Republican party that we are all for IVF.” 

    “The Alabama Legislature met the following day and passed it,” he said. “It was a beautiful thing to see.” 

    But when asked where IVF was on his list of priorities, Trump noted that “we have a lot of other things.”  

    “We’re going to be talking about it,” he said of IVF. “We’ll be submitting in either the first or second package to Congress the extension of the tax cuts. So that might very well be in there, or it’ll come sometime after that.” 

    The Catholic Church has long opposed IVF as “morally unacceptable” because of the rejection of the natural procreative act of husband and wife, the commodification of the human child, and the destruction of embryonic human life, which is very common in the procedure. 

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that though “research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged” (No. 2375), practices such as IVF “disassociate the sexual act from the procreative act” and the act “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists” (No. 2377). 

    Abortion pills 

    Trump reaffirmed that he would not restrict abortion pills, though he refused to commit to the position, noting that things sometimes change.

    When asked if he would restrict abortion pills, Trump said: “I’ll probably stay with exactly what I’ve been saying for the last two years, and the answer is no.” 

    When asked if he committed to that statement, Trump noted that “things do change, but I don’t think it’s going to change at all.” 

    Medical or chemical abortions — abortions procured via a two-pill regimen — made up 70% of abortions in the U.S. in 2022, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

    During the presidential campaign, Trump was criticized by pro-life advocates for his position that abortion law should be left for the states to decide. In June he said he agreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling on the abortion pill saying: “I agree with their decision to have done that, and I will not block it.”

    The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is “gravely contrary to the moral law” and that “life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception” (CCC, No. 2271). 


    Title: Trump discusses 100-day plan, abortion pill, immigration, tax cuts in first interview
    URL: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/260941/trump-discusses-100-day-plan-abortion-pill-immigration-tax-cuts-in-first-interview
    Source: CNA Daily News
    Source URL: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com
    Date: December 9, 2024 at 11:52PM
    Feedly Board(s): Religion

  • Marc A. Thiessen is a columnist for The Post and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Danielle Pletka is a distinguished senior fellow at AEI. They co-host a podcast, “What the Hell Is Going On?

    During his inaugural address, President Joe Biden promised to put his “whole soul” into ending what he called our nation’s “uncivil war” and “bringing America together.” He failed to deliver on that pledge, instead accusing Republicans of supporting “Jim Crow 2.0,” comparing them to George Wallace, Bull Connor and Jefferson Davis, and declaring right before the election that “the only garbage I see floating out there is [Trump’s] supporters.” (He later said, implausibly and without apologizing, that he was referring to the rhetoric displayed at Trump’s Oct. 27 rally at Madison Square Garden.)


    Title: Biden should pardon Trump – The Washington Post
    URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/25/biden-pardon-trump-unity/
    Source: Washington Post
    Source URL:
    Date: November 25, 2024 at 05:10PM
    Feedly Board(s):

  • Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s pick for defense secretary, has written in a book that he could imagine a scenario in which the US armed forces would be used violently in American domestic politics.

    Hegseth, a former elite soldier turned rightwing Fox television personality, is Trump’s choice to lead the Pentagon which controls the gigantic American military – by far the largest armed force in the world.

    In one of his five published books he wrote that in the event of a Democratic election victory in the US there would be a “national divorce” in which “The military and police… will be forced to make a choice” and “Yes, there will be some form of civil war.”

    Hegseth’s 2020 book exhorts conservatives to undertake “an AMERICAN CRUSADE”, to “mock, humiliate, intimidate, and crush our leftist opponents”, to “attack first” in response to a left he identifies with “sedition”, and he writes that the book “lays out the strategy we must employ in order to defeat America’s internal enemies”.

    Hegseth’s rhetoric about perceived “internal” or “domestic enemies”, along with media reports highlighting his tattoo of the crusader motto “Deus Vult”, may ring alarm bells for those concerned by Donald Trump’s repeated threats to unleash the US military, which Hegseth would directly control, on those he has described as “the enemy within”.

    The Guardian contacted the Trump transition team seeking comment from Hegseth.

    John Whitehouse, news director at Media Matters for America (MMFA) which tracked Hegseth’s Fox career, said that Hegseth has “always given off a proto-fascist vibe”, and that “the thing that appealed to him was going into Iraq as a crusader, and when that went wrong he started looking at America through the same lens”.

    Throughout his work, and especially in 2020’s American Crusade (AC), Hegseth paints an apocalyptic picture of American politics, and encourages his fellow rightwingers to see their opponents as an existential threat.

    At various points in that book, he describes leftists, progressives and Democrats as “enemies” of freedom, the US constitution, and America, and counts Israel among the “international allies” who can help defeat such “domestic enemies”.

    Addressing his conservative audience in a chapter of American Crusade entitled Make the Crusade Great Again, he writes: “Whether you like it or not, you are an ‘infidel’– an unbeliever – according to the false religion of leftism”. He added: “You can submit now or later; or you can fight.”

    Later in the book, he writes, “Build the wall. Raise tariffs. Learn English. Buy American. Fight back.”

    Elsewhere in American Crusade, he writes, “The hour is late for America. Beyond political success, her fate relies on exorcising the leftist specter dominating education, religion, and culture–a 360-degree holy war for the righteous cause of human freedom”.

    In fighting, Hegseth wrote, “our weapon is American nationalism”, adding that “The Left has tried… to intimidate us into thinking that nationalism is a relic of a bygone era.”

    Hegseth has followed his own advice in this respect: his tattoos include the words “We the People”, quoted from the constitution, and a “stylized American flag with its bottom stripe replaced by an AR-15 assault rifle” according to snopes.com reporting.

    In relation to the media, “almost all” politicians, and credentialled experts, Hegseth advises readers to “Disdain, despise, detest, distrust–pick your d-words. But all of this must lead to action.”

    Some actions he recommends resemble forms of disruption and harassment that Trump-aligned activists have brought to nonpartisan local government bodies.

    Hegseth tells readers: “The next time conservative views are squelched in your local school, host a free-speech sit-in in your kids’ school lobby and make your case”, and “When local businesses declare ‘gun free zones,’ remember the Second Amendment, carry your legally owned firearm, and dare them to tell you it’s not allowed.”

    In the wake of Trump’s defeat in 2020, media reports noted an uptick in rightwing activists open-carrying firearms at political protests, and there was a wave of anti-LGBTQ and anti-“critical race theory” protests at school board meetings, with some groups such as Moms for Liberty coordinating efforts to carry out partisan takeovers of school boards.

    Hegseth further advises readers: “You know what local politicians fear the most? A cell phone camera in their face.”

    In January, the Brennan Center for Justice reported that in the three years since the January 6 2021 insurrection, local and state elected officials had experienced “a barrage of intimidating abuse”. Their nationwide survey showed that over 40% of state elected officials and 18% of local officeholders had experienced threats or attacks. The numbers balloon to 89% of state legislators and 52% of local officeholders when less severe forms of abuse – insults or harassment such as stalking – are included.

    Hegseth explicitly rejects democracy in American Crusade, characterizing it as a leftist demand: “For leftists, calls for “democracy” represent a complete rejection of our system. Watch how often they use the word”, adding: “They hate America, so they hate the Constitution and want to quickly amass 51 percent of the votes to change it.”

    He explicitly supports forms of election-rigging via gerrymandering. Fair electoral boundaries, he writes, amount to “Playing nice to placate the so-called middle,” which “has been a losing strategy for patriots for decades”. Since “the other side is stacked with enemies of freedom”, Hegseth argues, “Republican legislatures should draw congressional lines that advantage pro-freedom candidates – and screw Democrats.”

    Hegseth addresses the then-looming election repeatedly in the book, at one point writing that “The clash of 2020 is going to focus on the re-election of Donald Trump; but the real clash – underneath it all – is for the soul of America”. He writes: “Yes, the leftist media and machine hate President Trump – but they hate you just as much, if not more.”

    And in entertaining the prospect of Trump’s defeat, Hegseth claims that a Biden victory will shatter the US and lead to civil war.

    skip past newsletter promotion

    after newsletter promotion

    In the first chapter, Our American Crusade, he claims that “The fate of freedom is what is at stake in the 2020 election. The immediate years that follow will, once and for all, determine whether the American experiment in human freedom – the America of our founding – will die, get a national divorce based on irreconcilable cultural and political divisions, or return to its founding principles.”

    Later in the book he defines a national divorce as “irreconcilable differences between the Left and the Right in America leading to perpetual conflict that cannot be resolved through the political process”.

    The idea of separating America according to ideology has been a rightwing refrain during the Trump era. In recent days, Marjorie Taylor Greene renewed her calls for a “national divorce” that would separate blue and red states, in response to Democratic governors vowing to oppose aspects of Donald Trump’s agenda in his second term after he won the 2024 election.

    For Hegseth, such a move would necessarily involve violence.

    Among the consequences should Biden win, he predicted, would be that “America will decline and die. A national divorce will ensue. Outnumbered freedom lovers will fight back.”

    Continuing, Hegseth writes: “The military and police, both bastions of freedom-loving patriots, will be forced to make a choice. It will not be good. Yes, there will be some form of civil war.”

    Hegseth concedes that “It’s a horrific scenario that nobody wants but would be difficult to avoid.”

    Additionally, he writes, “If America is split, freedom will no longer have an army.”

    The end of the US military – which he elsewhere calls “the only powerful, pro-freedom, pro-Christian, pro-Israel army in the world”– will in turn mean that “Communist China will rise – and rule the globe. Europe will formally surrender. Islamists will get nuclear weapons and seek to wipe America and Israel off the map.”

    Victory, however, will mean the defeat of the allied forces of “globalism”, “socialism”, “secularism”, “environmentalism”, “Islamism”, “genderism” and “leftism” according to Hegseth.

    Hegseth expresses an unstinting loyalty to Trump the man.

    At one point in the book, he describes a conversation between the two after Trump, at Hegseth’s urging, in 2019 pardoned three service members who had been charged or convicted with alleged war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    On Hegseth’s account, Trump called him ahead of the pardon, and the call “ended with a compliment to me that I’ll never forget and might put on my tombstone: ‘You’re a fucking warrior, Pete. A fucking warrior.’ I thanked him for his courage, and he hung up.”

    Whitehouse, the MMFA news director, said that while Hegseth has long advocated for policy changes in defense, such as an end to women in combat roles, Trump has picked him due to “knowing and trusting that they have a similar connection to the conservative media audience”.

    “Trump, Hegseth, and even JD Vance know that when push comes to shove they’ll align with what that rightwing audience wants”, he added. “Will he dissent on an order to have the military attack protesters? It probably depends on what they think that audience wants at the time.”

    For Hegseth’s part, he leaves his readers with the promise to “See you on the battlefield. Together, with God’s help, we will save America. Deus vult!”


    Title: Trump’s Pentagon pick Hegseth wrote of US military taking sides in ‘civil war’
    URL: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/22/trump-defense-secretary-pete-hegseth-book
    Source: the Guardian
    Source URL:
    Date: November 22, 2024 at 02:37PM
    Feedly Board(s):

  • Matt Gaetz running the justice department. Fox hosts in charge of the Pentagon and transportation. Elon Musk as head of layoffs. And Robert F Kennedy Jr and Dr Oz overseeing the nation’s health.

    Some have likened Donald Trump’s administrative picks to a clown car; others are calling our incoming leadership a kakistocracy, or “government by the worst people”, as Merriam-Webster puts it.

    The word has been trending online, with a burst in search traffic in recent weeks and a new dedicated subreddit. It’s not the first time Trump has (accidentally) made the term famous; many discovered it in his first term. But the kakistocracy of 2016 looks like Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood compared with the president-elect’s new batch of sidekicks.

    It’s not the first time a president has popularized the term. Trump would be horrified to know he shares this distinction with several of America’s least-discussed presidents, including Rutherford B Hayes, James Garfield and Chester A Arthur. This trio – somehow forgettable despite the fact that the middle one was assassinated – led the US from the late 1870s to the early 1880s, a period following Reconstruction that saw the expansion of Jim Crow laws and segregation, as well as another election in which the parties clashed over the results. That span saw a surge in the use of the word, as Kelly Wright, assistant professor of language sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, points out based on Oxford English Dictionary data. “Hayes’ term was absolutely being described as a kakistocracy,” she says. (1880 was also a general election year in the UK, another country known for its contributions to the English language. That year, William Gladstone became prime minister for the second time; perhaps his opponents were among those giving the word a boost.)

    In fact, as André Spicer wrote in the Guardian in 2018, the term has been around since at least 1644, during the English civil war, when a sermon warned of “a mad kinde of Kakistocracy” looming.

    Its roots, of course, go back even further – it’s borrowed from the Greek kakistos, or “worst”, which itself probably comes from the Proto-Indo-European word kakka, meaning “to defecate”.

    In other words, as Nancy Friedman wrote at her Substack on language in 2016, “you could say that kakistocracy is ‘government by the shitty’.”

    The term resurfaced on both sides of the Atlantic in the 19th century. Initially it tended to refer to government by the “unskilled, unknowledgeable and unvirtuous”, rather than the infallible aristocracy, Spicer wrote, but by the 20th century, it referred more to government by the corrupt. Today, Friedman’s definition seems most apt.

    But why does a word that is rarely used in common speech have such longevity? Nicole Holliday, acting associate professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, likens the term’s use to identifying a disease: “Some of this is about there being a diagnosis, and if there’s a diagnosis, then maybe there’s a treatment,” she says.

    Wright agrees. Those embracing the term, she says, may be thinking: “I didn’t know there was a word for this, and now that I do it helps me understand what’s going on.”

    Americans, Holliday says, love labels. “We like having words for things, because then they seem like they’ve been en-thing-ified” – in what sociolinguists call “enregisterment”, kakistocracy becomes an identifiable phenomenon. “Language is social,” Holliday notes, and when we have “conventionalized ways of talking about things, it makes us feel less alone” – especially when other ways of describing the situation feel inadequate.

    Of course, it’s not just the modern American left that uses the word; another ex-Fox host, Glenn Beck, used it during the Obama years; Boris Yeltsin also received the distinction. In fact, Wright says, usage has been fairly stable for five centuries.

    “We have no real opposite of kakistocracy, because competency is assumed to be the normal order of things,” Holliday says. “It’s not notable that the government is being run by the most competent people, because, indeed, that’s what you think should be happening. It’s only notable when it’s not.”


    Title: ‘Government by the worst’: why people are calling Trump’s new sidekicks a ‘kakistocracy’
    URL: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/21/trump-administration-kakistocracy
    Source: the Guardian
    Source URL:
    Date: November 21, 2024 at 06:19PM
    Feedly Board(s):

  • I honestly did not read most of this article, but I wanted to draw your attention to some facts about the recent presidential election that you might find surprising:

    While Mr. Trump won the popular vote for the first time in three tries, he garnered just 50.1 percent nationally, according to the latest tabulation by The Times, just 1.8 percentage points ahead of Vice President Kamala Harris. When the slow-counting blue giant of California finally finishes tallying its votes, that margin is likely to shrink a bit more. The Cook Report already calculates that his percentage has fallen below 50 percent, meaning he did not win a majority.

    Wherever it eventually falls, Mr. Trump’s margin of victory in the national popular vote will be one of the smallest in history. Since 1888, only two other presidents who won both the Electoral College and the popular vote had smaller margins of victory: John F. Kennedy in 1960 and Richard M. Nixon in 1968. (Both Mr. Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in 2000 won the Electoral College, and therefore the presidency, without winning the popular vote.)

    Mr. Trump can boast that he increased his margin in the Electoral College, winning 312 votes this year to the 306 he garnered eight years ago. But according to nearly complete totals, he secured his most recent victory by just a cumulative 237,000 votes in three states that, had they gone the other way, would have meant victory for Ms. Harris.

    It’s fine for Trump to crow about his massive election win, but everyone else should realize how historically small his victory actually was. And how he might not have won at all if not for the pressure the Republicans have put on our systems of voting over the past decades (all manner of voter suppression), the billionaires propping up his campaign with hundreds of millions of dollars when he couldn’t keep pace with his opponent in non-PAC fundraising, and the will of post-pandemic voters worldwide who wanted the incumbents out no matter what. Mandate schmandate.

    Note: You wouldn’t even need all of those “cumulative 237,000 votes” to go the other way — all you’d need is half + 1. So we’re talking about ~118,500 voters out of ~155 million. That’s razor thin.

    Tags: Donald Trump · Kamala Harris · politics · USA


    Title: Trump’s Historically Small Victory
    URL: https://kottke.org/24/11/trumps-historically-small-victory
    Source: kottke.org
    Source URL: https://kottke.org/
    Date: November 18, 2024 at 05:13PM
    Feedly Board(s): Englisch

  • by TeachThought Staff

    In a world filled with noise, division, and endless demands on our attention, Wendell Berry’s poem The Peace of Wild Things offers a rare invitation: to step back and find solace in nature.

    ‘The Peace Of Wild Things,’ read slowly enough, can remind us of the deep, quiet refuge that exists in the natural world, beyond the reach of our everyday stress and anxieties. When human life feels overwhelming, he suggests that peace can be found not in more thinking or doing, but in a return to the simplicity and calm of the natural world around us.

    Berry is writing about not simply disconnecting but rather reminding himself of the peace of wild places—the wild nature of creation itself—as a response to a modern world that is exceedingly uninterested in or at least forgetful not just of nature but also of its healing significance.

    In this way, Berry explores leaving behind the worry and immersing himself in ‘the peace of wild things,’ where birds rest on the water and stars wait in the sky. It’s a reminder that nature, in its steadfastness, offers a healing calm free from human striving, division, or pressure.

    If you’re looking to reconnect with something gentle and grounding, The Peace of Wild Things invites you to step out of your mind and back into the world’s heart, where peace waits patiently for all of us.

    You can read the full text of The Peace Of Wild Things.

    The ‘Peace Of Wild Things’ video is below.

    The ‘Peace Of Wild Things’ video

    The post Here’s The Animated Version Of ‘The Peace Of Wild Things’ By Wendell Berry appeared first on TeachThought.


    Title: Here’s The Animated Version Of ‘The Peace Of Wild Things’ By Wendell Berry
    URL: https://www.teachthought.com/literacy/peace-of-wild-things-video-poem/
    Source: TeachThought
    Source URL: https://www.teachthought.com/
    Date: November 16, 2024 at 03:27AM
    Feedly Board(s): Schule

  • Donald Trump and top allies such as the multi-billionaire Elon Musk have created a blizzard of false voting misinformation portraying Democrats as bent on stealing the election, undermining trust in the voting process and leading to potential violence, voting experts and ex-federal prosecutors say.

    To sow doubt about the integrity of the election and reprising his 2020 playbook of claiming that Democrats were trying to steal the election before he lost to Joe Biden and cried fraud, Trump has flatly and without evidence declared that Democrats are a “bunch of cheats”.

    Similarly, Trump has baselessly charged that Kamala Harris could only win “if it was a corrupt election”.

    The social media platform X, owned by Musk, who has donated over $120m to a Super Pac backing Trump with get-out-the-vote efforts in Pennsylvania and other swing states, has become a leading purveyor of falsehoods and conspiracies to his 200 million followers, say critics.

    Musk, the world’s richest man with a fortune close to $260bn, has asserted without evidence that Trump’s campaign is heading for a “crushing victory” over Harris, and been chastised by key election officials in Arizona and Georgia for allowing X to disseminate false claims of election cheating by Democrats and phoney voting problems.

    Bill Gates, a top election official from Maricopa county, Arizona, told the Guardian: “Elon Musk has made a number of false claims about Maricopa county that I and other officials have responded to. Given that Musk has such a large platform it’s of particular concern to us.”

    Election experts warn that the growing volume of misinformation and false charges of Democratic voting fraud involving non-citizens, mail-in ballots, voting machines and more has grown rapidly and is increasingly hard to combat.

    “When Musk bought Twitter and rebranded it as X, he complained that it had been unfairly censoring conservative viewpoints and he wanted to make it an uncensored marketplace of ideas,” ex-Federal Election Commission general counsel Larry Noble told the Guardian.

    “It now appears that Musk is using his wealth and ability to reach hundreds of millions of followers with lies and debunked conspiracy theories about how elections are being administered.

    “Now that he has fully and openly embraced Trump, he has joined Trump and his other minions in spreading the claim that the only way Trump can lose the upcoming election is if there is widespread fraud. Of course, they are already claiming, without credible evidence, that election fraud is already taking place.”

    Other election experts voice similar concerns.

    “Trump allies appear to be spreading a myth among his supporters that his election is inevitable, a landslide,” said David Becker who runs the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research.

    “Given all the data available, it’s clear this race is very close, and no reasonable person should be surprised if either candidate wins. But if Harris wins, this strategy will likely amplify the sense of shock among many of Trump’s supporters, which could increase the chances of violence.”

    Just last Thursday on his Truth Social platform, Trump said, “We caught them CHEATING BIG in Pennsylvania” and quickly demanded criminal prosecutions in a case that appears to have been the result of some minor human errors that have been remedied, according to state officials.

    At a Pennsylvania rally over the weekend in Lancaster county, Trump charged without evidence that “they are trying so hard to steal this damn thing … We should have one-day voting and paper ballots.”

    X, too, has increasingly amplified false charges of voting fraud or problems in key states such as Arizona and Pennsylvania, including a fake video that election officials in Georgia have linked to Russia disinformation of a Haitian in the state claiming he had voted in a few different counties.

    Besides Musk, other key Trump allies such as Turning Point USA chief Charlie Kirk have used their large rightist audiences via podcasts and public events to push bogus claims about Democratic election fraud.

    Former prosecutors and disinformation analysts say that the spread of baseless charges that Democrats are trying to steal the election for Harris carries grave risks

    “We live in a time when influencers can spread false narratives on social media platforms and podcasts. Without any regulation to check their behavior, Elon Musk, Joe Rogan, and others are using their platforms to promote false narratives,” said Barbara McQuade, a former federal prosecutor in eastern Michigan who wrote a book about disinformation entitled Attack from Within.

    McQuade stressed: “We are seeing an orchestrated effort to undermine public confidence in the outcome of the election. There is no evidence that Republican strategies are coordinated with Russia efforts, but their interests align.”

    Likewise, other ex-prosecutors see evidence that Trump and his allies are poised to charge election fraud if he loses again as the “Stop the Steal” movement did.

    “Trump’s efforts to undermine confidence in our election system, through baseless allegations of fraud, is one of the most dangerous things he has accomplished in his sustained assault on democracy,” said Michael Bromwich, a former inspector general at the Department of Justice. “His failure to overturn the 2020 election has not deterred him one bit from trying the same thing this year. This will have profound and long-term consequences on our political and legal systems.”

    “The incidence of election fraud is vanishingly small, and yet Trump, aided by his anti-democratic allies, has managed to persuade a significant percentage of Americans that our elections are riddled with fraud. A mountain of facts to the contrary seems to have no effect. Like many other falsehoods spread by Trump and his allies, Trump’s claims of election fraud are spread by media ecosystems that shape the view of millions of people.”

    Bromwich’s fears are underscored by how election officials in key swing states have been inundated with false claims of suspect voting or Democratic fraud.

    Falsehoods about Democrats cheating or exaggerating early voting glitches in swing states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan have been growing with help from Trump and allies

    Critics say that Musk’s X has been in the vanguard of amplifying false claims of fraud and fueling doubts about the security of voting. At the end of October, Musk told his followers to inform an “Election Integrity Community” on X about election problems, even though Musk’s pro-Trump America Pac oversees the feed, which included some claims of election cheating that state officials in Pennsylvania and Arizona had debunked.

    Noble warns that democracy is endangered by false claims of election fraud by Trump and key allies.

    “Musk’s efforts to undermine trust in the election are doing serious and possibly irreparable harm to our democracy. He is helping to bring what was once a fringe element of our politics into the mainstream and helping normalize irrational conspiracy theories and distrust in the legitimacy of our democracy.”

    Further, Noble said that Musk’s “activities may be putting the safety and lives of election workers at risk by serving as justification for Trump’s followers to take aggressive and potentially violent acts against those trying to administer the election fairly”.

    In Bromwich’s eyes, the deluge of falsehoods about Democrats seeking to steal the election is highly dangerous for election workers and democracy.

    “One of the most disturbing results of Trump’s attacks on the integrity of our elections is the threat posed to election workers. Before Trump, election workers simply did not have to worry about threats to their safety and questions about their integrity. All that has changed because of Trump’s ability to marshal his supporters who support his unsupported claims of fraud based on fabricated allegations of cheating. It is a deeply disturbing development.”


    Title: Alarm grows over Trump and Musk’s blizzard of baseless voter-fraud claims
    URL: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/05/trump-musk-election-voter-fraud-misinformation
    Source: the Guardian
    Source URL:
    Date: November 5, 2024 at 03:21PM
    Feedly Board(s):

  • correction

    A previous version of this article incorrectly included North Carolina among four swing states in which The Washington Post’s polling averages show Harris ahead. That fourth state is Wisconsin. The article has been corrected.

    It’s almost Election Day, and if you think you know what’s about to happen, you’re either deluded or much smarter than I am.

    The Washington Post’s polling averages show that all seven swing states are separated by two points or less. That means if things move only two points from where we think they stand, you could see a swing-state sweep for either candidate and a pretty decisive election — at least, in the electoral college.


    Title: The 7 most likely scenarios for Election Day
    URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/01/presidential-election-results-scenarios-trump-harris/
    Source: Washington Post
    Source URL:
    Date: November 3, 2024 at 04:49AM
    Feedly Board(s):

  • Perplexity, the AI-powered search engine, might hallucinate from time to time. But the company wants to show that it’s trustworthy enough to use for election results tracking.

    Today, Perplexity announced a dedicated hub for U.S. general election information. Populated by data from the Associated Press and Democracy Works, the company described it in a blog as “an entry point for understanding key issues.”

    “Starting Tuesday, we’ll be offering live updates on elections by leveraging data from The Associated Press so you can stay informed on presidential, senate, and house races at both a state and national level,” Perplexity wrote. “Thank you to Democracy Works for granting us access to your Elections API to help power these experiences.”

    Perplexity’s election hub answers election-related questions like voting requirements and poll times, as well as AI-summarized analyses on ballot measures and candidates (and candidates’ policy stances and endorsements). Aside from the summaries, the hub is essentially a wrapper around data from The Associated Press and Democracy Works’ API — but it’s notable in that Perplexity’s rivals have shown a reluctance to launch comparable features for fear of AI-generated misinformation.

    In its recently released ChatGPT Search experience, OpenAI says it’s directing users who ask about election results to The Associated Press and Reuters. Anthropic’s Claude chatbot won’t answer questions about election results, and neither will Google’s Gemini.

    We can only hope that Perplexity’s hub is as accurate as the company purports it to be, given AI’s poor track record in this area.

    In a July study, the Center for Democracy and Technology found that, in response to 77 different election-related queries, more than a third of answers generated by AI chatbots including Claude and Gemini included incorrect information. Other research has shown that major chatbots perform even worse when asked questions about the elections by people with accessibility challenges, and those whose primary language isn’t English.


    Title: Perplexity launches an elections tracker
    URL: https://techcrunch.com/2024/11/01/perplexity-launches-an-elections-tracker/
    Source: TechCrunch
    Source URL: https://techcrunch.com/
    Date: November 1, 2024 at 10:47PM
    Feedly Board(s): Technologie

  • Whither the politics of joy? Kamala Harris’s solid if unspectacular closing argument for why she should be elected US president was not about Kamala Harris. It was first and foremost about Donald Trump.

    The Democratic nominee’s big speech in Washington mentioned Trump by name 24 times and Joe Biden only once. It confirmed that, even when Trump is not commander-in-chief, he still commands the American psyche.

    A week before election day, Harris chose her venue carefully: the Ellipse, a park just south of the White House. Trump “stood at this very spot nearly four years ago”, she noted, adding that he sent an armed mob to the US Capitol to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

    A very different, more diverse, larger crowd – some estimated 75,000 – gathered here on Tuesday, basking in unseasonal afternoon heat, wrapping against an evening chill. They waved “USA” signs and the stars and stripes and wore wristbands glowing blue or red. They chanted “Kamala! Kamala!” and “We’re not going back!” They were surrounded by great symbols of the republic: the Washington monument, the Jefferson memorial, the White House itself.

    Speaking at a lectern behind protective glass, Harris went on to warn of Trump’s enemies list and intention to turn the military against those who disagree with him. “This is not a candidate for president who is thinking about how to make your life better,” she said. “This is someone who is unstable, obsessed with revenge, consumed with grievance, and out for unchecked power.”

    The vice-president went on to sketch out some of her own biography as a prosecutor and law enforcement officer fighting for the people. Yet somehow the argument again came back to the Republican nominee. “On day one, if elected, Donald Trump would walk into that office with an enemies list,” she said. “When elected, I will walk in with a to-do list.”

    It was a far cry from the start of the Harris candidacy, which launched with joyous euphoria and her running mate Tim Walz branding Trump and his allies “weird”. That felt like a refreshing tonic after years of anxiety and misery in the Trump era. At the Democratic national convention in Philadelphia, speaker after speaker mocked Trump and made him seem small (Barack Obama even parodied his manhood).

    People attend a campaign rally for Kamala Harris on the Ellipse in Washington. Photograph: Bryan Dozier/NurPhoto/REX/Shutterstock

    Notably, even then, Harris began to adopt a more serious tone about the threat he poses, and in recent weeks she embraced former Trump officials’ use of “fascist” to underline his authoritarian ambitions, though she did not deploy that word here. His rally at New York’s Madison Square Garden on Sunday, and its echoes of a pro-Nazi rally that took place there in 1939, provided more fodder.

    There is some political logic to this choice: make the election a referendum on Trump rather than Harris; make him seem like the incumbent and Harris the change agent. “It is time to turn the page on the drama and conflict, the fear and division,” she said. “It is time for a new generation of leadership in America.”

    That would explain why she has sought to distance herself from Biden and is reportedly brushing off his offers to campaign for her. Although her Tuesday rally in Washington was Bidenesque in its dire warnings about the Trump threat, it used the president’s favoured word, “democracy”, only once. Instead, the word “freedom” was spelled out on three giant blue banners, along with “USA”.

    Some Democrats are also eager for Harris to separate herself from Biden on the issue of the war in Gaza. A protester was led away shouting: “Stop arming Israel! Arms embargo now!” But Harris did not throw a bone to the peace movement during her remarks.

    Whereas Biden used to tout job growth and economic good news, Harris again offered some practical promises: tax cuts for working people and the middle class, the first-ever federal ban on price gouging on groceries, a cap on the price of insulin and help for first-time home buyers.

    These were important things that ought to win votes. But they were not accompanied by a grand vision. Mario Cuomo’s old adage was campaign in poetry, govern in prose, but there was not a great deal of soaring rhetoric in Harris’s address. A decade of Trump had been bad for the soul.

    The vice-president did deliver a memorable image towards the end, however, recalling how, nearly 250 years, America wrested itself free from a petty tyrant (British monarch George III) and how generations of Americans have preserved that freedom. “They did not struggle, sacrifice and lay down their lives, only to see us cede our fundamental freedoms, only to see us submit to the will of another petty tyrant,” she said. “The United States of America is not a vessel for the schemes of wannabe dictators.”

    Then, from fear, a pivot to hope: “The United States of America is the greatest idea humanity ever devised. A nation big enough to encompass all our dreams. Strong enough to withstand any fracture or fissure between us. And fearless enough to imagine a future of possibilities.”

    Doug Emhoff joined Harris on stage with a hug and a kiss as the crowd cheered. Next Tuesday, they will be back in Washington for the most nail-biting presidential election since George W Bush v Al Gore in 2000. They will be hoping this Democratic vice-president fares better than Gore did. A wafer-thin margin of a few thousand votes in a swing state or two may determine whether Harris’s closing argument looks like strategic genius or a catastrophic miscalculation.

    She told the crowd: “Donald Trump has spent a decade trying to keep the American people divided and afraid of each other. That’s who he is. But America, I am here tonight to say: that’s not who we are.”

    The phrase “this is not who we are” has been used often in the Trump era. Sometimes the evidence says otherwise. Next week, the country will find out who we really are.


    Title: The change agent v the tyrant: Harris’s big speech focuses on Trump
    URL: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/29/kamala-harris-closing-argument
    Source: the Guardian
    Source URL:
    Date: October 30, 2024 at 06:33AM
    Feedly Board(s):

  • Bestselling author Margaret Atwood isn’t worried about the indefatigable rise of generative AI — telling Reuters that she’s too old to be concerned about its impact on the arts.

    Her remarks follow a petition calling for an end to the unlicensed use of creative works to train AI models that’s now amassed over 31,000 signatures. But Atwood’s relaxed posture on the march of the machines isn’t solely down to age; it’s informed by her critical appraisal of AI’s output in certain artistic domains.

    “So far, AI is a cr*p poet,” she told the news agency. “Really bad. Like worse than people. And it’s not a very good fiction writer either.”

    She also dismissed the notion that AI’s literary abilities will improve, intoning: “You will never get an original creator out of AI because it’s a data scraper.”

    “But if I were 30, I’d be worried,” she added. “Especially if I were 30… and in the visual arts. If I were a graphic designer, I would be worried.”


    Title: Margaret Atwood’s verdict on AI poetry is in — and it’s not good
    URL: https://techcrunch.com/2024/10/29/margaret-atwoods-verdict-on-ai-poetry-is-in-and-its-not-good/
    Source: TechCrunch
    Source URL: https://techcrunch.com/
    Date: October 29, 2024 at 12:51PM
    Feedly Board(s): Technologie