economic fairness

What’s wrong with this picture?

For every $1 paid to white men: Black women are paid $.63; Native Hawaiian & PI women are paid $.62; Native American women are paid $.59; and Latinas are paid $.54.

“Shock events“

A thought via Ken Fletcher courtesy of Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College: please read and consider.

I don’t like to talk about politics on Facebook– political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends– but there is an important non-partisan point to make today.

What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night’s ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries– is creating what is known as a “shock event.”

Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order.

When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.

Last night’s Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.

Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.
My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one’s interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won’t like.

I don’t know what Bannon is up to– although I have some guesses– but because I know Bannon’s ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle– and my friends range pretty widely– who will benefit from whatever it is.

If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.

But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event.

A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union.

If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln’s strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power.

Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it.

anonymous asked:

I'm a little confused... I thought liberal was the good side. Can you explain what the set of tweets is talking about?

First, I am going to refer you to an ask that I have answered previously on this topic:

When you say “Liberal” context is important. Are we talking economic issues, social issues or the amount of cheese on nachos?

The “Liberal” talked about in the Tweets is Neo-Liberal economic policies as espoused by Democrats. 

In the last ask, some people had an issue with how i “conflated” Democrats and Republicans with both being Neo-Liberal. This is a perfect opportunity to clarify how that works better. 

Neo-Liberalism is currently at the heart of both political parties, but not in the same ways. As most know, Democrats and Republicans both espouse very different economic views. Neo-Liberalism itself is a return to late 19th Century ideals of economic liberalism and laissez-faire capitalism. Just to give some greater clarity, here are a few policy positions of Neo-Liberalism. 

  • Lower taxes on the wealthy and corporations.
  • Free Trade across national borders
  • Little to no regulation on businesses or the market
  • Relative ease in immigrating across national borders
  • Privatizing public institutions

If you notice, some are Republican policy positions, others are Democratic policy positions. 

Honestly, this is the greatest coup of the wealthy, getting both parties to each support one-half of their economic view. No matter who wins, they will get half of what they want. Thay may have some things they don’t like happen, like the expansion of social safety nets, or decreases in the ease of immigration, but in the long run, the wealthy will get almost all of what they want, no matter who is in power. 

This perpetuation of a failed economic ideology has damaged both parties. The rise of the Sanders left and the Trump right are proof of this. Neither group of voters supports neo-liberalism, they rebelled against it by voting for party outsiders, people that, at least, spoke of a different way of approaching economic governance.

The point of the tweets was that if the Democrats continue to use the same failed system of economics to prop up the party people will begin to flee, looking for any alternative to the current system, even if it is worse.

- @theliberaltony

[The] fundamental error in the foundations of 19th century liberalism [was that it] gave the state hardly any other task other than to maintain peace, and to foresee that contracts were kept.  It was a naive ideology.  It held that the state could only do harm [and that] laissez-faire must be the rule… A new ideology must… give high priority to limiting the state’s ability to intervene in the activities of the individual.  At the same time, it is absolutely clear that there are truly positive functions allotted the state.  The doctrine that, on and off, has been called neoliberalism and that has developed, more or less simultaneously, in many parts of the world… is precisely such a doctrine… [I]n place of the nineteenth century understanding that laissez-faire is the means to achieve [the goal of individual freedom], neoliberalism proposes that it is competition that will lead the way… The state will police the system, it will establish the conditions favorable to competition and prevent monopoly, it will provide a stable monetary framework, and relieve acute poverty and distress.  Citizens will be protected against the state, since there exists a free private market, and the competition will protect them from one another.
— 

From Milton Friedman, writing in 1951: “Neoliberalism and its prospects”

This is for those who say that neoliberalism “doesn’t mean anything” or is an arbitrary term: Straight from the horse’s mouth

Competition will protect them from one another” (!)

mxxnslayersdaughter  asked:

You know, I'm not usually for BryKe bashing or favoring one ship over the other, but I just remembered in one of the audio commentaries I have this memory of them comparing Zutara and Kataang to the election, and that most Zutara shippers were Republican. I can't be a 100 percent sure if that's true, or if it was something they said to get people off their backs about the ships because of party stigmas. Have any thoughts on their statement?

Originally posted by gigihadiid

Any thoughts on the statement? Oh boy, do I

Now I know you aren’t sure if this is true, so I’m going to extend my hand to the Zutara fandom, and ask if anyone else recalls this, has somewhere we can look for evidence of it, etc. Also, for discussion purposes, I’m going to go on the assumption it is true. But, again, disclaimer, it may not be. 

First of all, mixing politics with an entertainment career can be messy. Personally, I don’t think it’s wise for celebrities to bring up politics into their careers. They aren’t politicians. They’re just people with no expertise with opinions like you and me. They’re no one to look to for political wisdom. Some might have some prowess, but largely, they’re just your average Joe. Sticking your nose into politics as an entertainer is always going to anger someone, and make your business lose its market. I know my opinion is controversial, and people think celebrities should use their status to help “influence the world”, but nine times out of ten, if they’re smart, they should shut up. They don’t know what they’re talking about. 

This statement is offensive on about nine-hundred different levels. First of all, they’re categorizing something as black and white. This is something they seem to like to do. The other Avatar writers went out of the way to show that good and evil is complex and gray and interesting and real. Bryke tried to compartmentalize it and dumb it down– i.e. the Zuko lineage reveal with Roku and Sozin that wasn’t initially planned, or more infamously, that horrible comic: The Promise.

Bryke is making some big judgmental distinction here in deeming all Republicans as “evil”, and all Democrats as “good”. This is something (I’m going to get knifed for saying this) tumblr tends to do. Not only is immature, silly, and ignorant– it’s counterproductive. You can’t go around labeling everyone you disagree with as an “evil bigot”. That won’t get anyone anywhere. It eliminates intellectual discussion and heeds progressiveness. It’s just stupid. Both sides of the political spectrum are bearers of great evil and great good. It’s the human nature– and the rest is just opinion, really. We can debate until the cows come home as long as we’re civil, but it’s the narrow-minded and less bright of us that stick to disadvantageous finger-pointing and name-calling like we’re bullies in the recess yard.

For example: during WWII, President FDR, a renowned liberal president, used an executive order, something I believe that was an overreach of his executive power, to instill Japanese Internment Camps. That was evil. That was something the left did, and ignores

For the right, there’s President Andrew Jackson, also renowned and on the twenty dollar bill. He ordered the infamous Trail of Tears, which is more widely known than the Internment Camps for whatever reason. It was also evil and wrong. The right still lauds Jackson like the left praises FDR. Neither side likes these inconvenient truths. 

More dramatically for the evil: there’s Communism, very evil on the left, and Fascism on the right- very evil. 

For the good, a right-wing president, Dwight D. Eisenhower instilled great programs like the Interstate Highways, Education Programs, and he was one of the biggest initiators of the desegregation of schools, most notably the incident at Little Rock, AK where he sent in troops to make sure the black students had a peaceful transition to the recently-desegregated white school. That was good. 

For the left, there’s President Carter, who had a lot of shortcomings as a political leader that left him appearing weak, but he was a good person. He was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts towards aiding human rights and protecting people around the world. That was good. 

Even still for all these men, there are gray for them. Eisenhower did problematic things in the Korean War, and Carter had a horrible time with the Iranian Hostage Crisis. FDR helped end WWII, and Andrew Jackson was a founding father who advanced Democracy. Things are gray, and then it comes down past morals to a matter of opinion- such as economic ideas of hands on vs. lassiez-faire economics. 

So that’s my problem first and foremost. My next problem is what they’re trying to do besides the political aspect. They’re, again, playing the black and white game. They’re saying Republicans are bad, and the people shipping what we don’t like are bad, therefore they are Republicans. Like, I’m sorry, but…

Originally posted by trillxlife-style

First- the majority of Avatar fans are children and teenagers. To ostracize kids in a separation of good and evil and assign them political views that match yours based on which couple of fictional kids they like is frankly……… bizarre? It’s so weird that these grown men are labeling kids, mostly little girls, by party affiliation and deeming them good or bad accordingly. Once again, Bryke takes the shipping a step too far. They did it when they mocked the kids’ fanart they worked hard on in praise of THEIR show, as you know, a compliment. They called them crazy and other names all the time. It was sexist, unprofessional, juvenile, and rude. Bryke may have made an amazing show, but they’re mediocre writers as Legend of Korra shows us, and they’re terrible people. 

They sound like a bunch of uneducated halfwits, and the fact they love harassing  young girls shows a lot about their own shipping preferences, honestly.

Originally posted by totaldivasepisodes

Gal Gadot/Wonder Woman: Intersectionnal feminism, antisemitism & the israeli-palestinian conflict

Lately, I’ve been reading many posts criticizing and calling for the boycott of Wonder Woman, because of Gal Gadot’s ethnicity, and political views. As a queer jewish woman, whose family comes from Algeria and Israel, I’d like to address those 2 particular points in this post.

Keep reading

vimeo

DSA | 30 in 30: Cesar Chavez

Daydream - Mark (Day 15/100)

You can find my post explaining the 100 Day Drabble Challenge here

To read the other drabbles in my drabble challenge, click here

Prompt: Daydream
Member: Mark x Reader
AU: School!AU


You stared out the window of your classroom as soon as your teacher began lecturing. Class was always boring and you much preferred to use the time to daydream. Usually it was about the latest book you had read or tv show you had watched, but today was a bit different.

Today, you were daydreaming about Mark Tuan.

Mark was a transfer student that had just come to your class two weeks earlier. You hadn’t spoken to him yet, but you had seen him around the school quite frequently and he was quickly becoming an object of affection for all of the students. Everyone either wanted him or wanted to be him.

Unfortunately, you could not escape either of those categories. You found yourself getting nervous whenever he was around and you were always paranoid that he would catch you looking at him so you never held your gaze for very long. One time your eyes had met and you had immediately looked away, feeling the heat rsh to your face.

What was it that made him so seemingly perfect? Of course he was beautiful, but there was more than that. More than his dirty blonde hair, and more than his dark, deep eyes. No, it was much more than that.

Mark Tuan was an angel.

You were almost entirely sure of it. You had seen him helping the professor carry boxes to her office. You had seen him help a fellow classmate when they didn’t understand the homework. He had to be an angel. How else could he manage to look so stunning and still have everyone love him? How else could –

“Y/N! Answer the question!” You suddenly snapped your head forward as you felt your friend kick the back of your seat and hiss into your ear.

You were suddenly aware that the entire class was looking at you, hiding knowing smiles and mumbling that you were in trouble. The professor had his arms crossed and was looking at you expectantly. You realized that he must have asked you a question, seeing you daydream and not paying attention to his lecture.

“Umm…can you please repeat the question, sir?” you mumbled, feeling your cheeks burn in embarrassment. The professor gave you an annoyed look.

“Can you tell me the position that the Populist Party took on laissez-faire economics in the United States between 1865 and 1898?” he asked. You gulped and looked around, trying to find anything that could help you answer the question.

“Um…I…I think…” you began, trying to remember anything you could about United States history. Your thoughts were once again interrupted, but this time it was by your savior.

Mark coughed loudly and the class turned to him as he raised his hand. The professor narrowed his eyes, but sighed and nodded for Mark to continue.

“The Populist Party supported more government regulation of the economy,” he said, casually. You sank into your seat as the rest of the class physically buzzed in excitement. “Laissez-faire economics opposed government regulation and was antithetical to the Populist Party because they felt it created too much inequality,” he said. There w

There were a few cheers and a few people gave Mark a high five. You felt a wave of relief because you didn’t have to answer the question anymore, but at the same time, you felt embarrassed for having to be saved by the new student.

The professor tried to calm down the students, but the bell rang just in time and everyone scrambled to get out of the class. You sighed and decided that you should probably thank your savior. After all, it was a fairly good excuse to talk to him. You walked over to his desk and the other boys left, noticing that you wanted to talk with Mark. When he looked up at you, he gave you a small, toothy smile.

“Hey, what’s up?” he said. You felt your heart beat quicken but you quickly took a deep breath and gave him a small smile.

“Hey,” you said back, standing out of the way so that he could stand up from his seat and throw his backpack over his shoulder.

“I just wanted to thank you for saving my ass up there,” you said, refusing to look him in the eye. “The professor already hates me, so thank you for not giving him another reason to throw me in detention,” you said with much more confidence than you felt. Mark let out a small laugh and you felt your heart miss a beat. He had to be an angel. While else would his laugh sound like bells?

“Don’t worry about it. I just read the answer straight from the book anyways,” he said, grinning at you. You laughed nervously as you felt your cheeks become red.

“Seriously?” you gaped, rolling your eyes playfully. “Why didn’t I think of that?” you mumbled to yourself as you walked side by side with Mark out of the classroom. There was a moment of silence, and you expected him to walk away, but he followed you towards your locker.

“But hey!” he said, suddenly. “If you really think it was that big of a deal, then I think you owe me one,” Mark said, leaning up against the locker next to yours and looking out at the sea of people in the hallway. You turned around and gave him a confused look, biting your lip gently.

“Do I?” you asked, matter-of-factly, putting your book away and grabbing your biology notebook. Mark nodded and then turned to you.

“Yup, that’s how it works,” he said, smiling at you. “So what do you say to dinner this Friday?” Mark asked, casually. You nearly choked on your own breath as you stared at him. Was this actually happening?

“I…um…yea,” you stated, stupidly, stumbling on your words. Mark simply handed you a piece of paper that he still had in his hand from class.

“Then write down your number and it’s a date,” he said, smirking. You smiled shyly but pulled out a pen anyway, writing down your number and handing it back to him. Everything felt like one of your day dreams.

Maybe sometimes day dreams really did come true.

Word Count: 1039

Keep reading

youtube

Fair Trade Hellas presents BIOME factory, a Cooperative and Solidarity economy example active in Thessaloniki, Greece. A factory that was abandoned due to the crisis and the workers along with the society decided to take over through a participatory approach. BIOME today produces natural cleaning products which are environmentally friendly and affordable for all.

SHOCK EVENT - How to Handle

From Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College:
“I don’t like to talk about politics on Facebook– political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends– but there is an important non-partisan point to make today.
What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night’s ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries– is creating what is known as a "shock event.”
Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order.
When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.
Last night’s Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.
Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.
My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one’s interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won’t like.
I don’t know what Bannon is up to– although I have some guesses– but because I know Bannon’s ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle– and my friends range pretty widely– who will benefit from whatever it is.
If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.
But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event.
A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union.
If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln’s strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power.
Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it.“

Shock Event

From historian Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College:
“I don’t like to talk about politics on Facebook– political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends– but there is an important non-partisan point to make today.
What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night’s ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries– is creating what is known as a "shock event.”
Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order.
When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.
Last night’s Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.
Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.
My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one’s interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won’t like.
I don’t know what Bannon is up to– although I have some guesses– but because I know Bannon’s ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle– and my friends range pretty widely– who will benefit from whatever it is.
If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.
But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event.
A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union.
If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln’s strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power.
Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to make it work.“

The ideas of the Free Trade movement are based on a theoretical error whose practical origin is not hard to identify; they are based on a distinction between political society and civil society, which is made into and presented as an organic one, whereas in fact it is merely methodological. Thus it is asserted that economic activity belongs to civil society, and that the State must not intervene to regulate it. But since in actual reality civil society and State are one and the same, it must be made clear that laissez-faire too is a form of State ‘regulation’, introduced and maintained by legislative and coercive means. It is a deliberate policy, conscious of its own ends, and not the spontaneous, automatic expression of economic facts.
—  Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks
#DearWhitePeople

Dear White People,

I write this post with no intent to point fingers, with no intent to blame, but simply to educate White America on what is happening in our country right now, as my fingers furiously hit the keys of my laptop.

Over the past two years, this country has been faced with more racial unjust than I would like to admit.  We stand here, asking why.  Why is it that Trayvon Martin, Sandra Bland, Eric Gardner and countless others couldn’t live?  Why were their lives ended so soon?  And in the aftermath of their deaths, and the blatant disregard for the lives of Black Americans, what do we, as African Americans (descendants of Black people forcefully brought to this country centuries ago) what do we do now?  Haven’t we fought this fight before?  Why are we being called into the ring for another round?

White America, Black folks are tired.  We are tired for fighting this fight.  We are tired of constantly defending ourselves, begging for fair treatment in the workplace and on the street.  We are tired of being denied the basic rights that you, yes you, White America has been granted since you stole this country from the Native Americans.  We are tired!

White America, I want you to image just how tired we are.  Try placing yourself in a room, this room has no doors, just windows.  The windows allow you to see the world around you, the world that you are unfairly separated from.  Imagine that you see this world, you yearn for what you see outside your window; people riding their bikes, smiling, frolicking down the street, eating ice cream, taking in the sun, and the sweet air.  You see this, and you want it.  You want it more than anything.    You just want out.  So you start working on the walls, you punch, you kick, you make dents in the walls, because you know that if you work hard enough, you can break that damn wall down and join the world outside your window.  But see, this wall is a fickle bitch, and it takes you a long, long time to break her down.  You may discover some tools in this room, a spoon, a sharp object, something that helps you break down the wall, but it’s hard White America, it’s really hard.  

And when you finally break out, feel the sun on your skin and smell the air, no one is there to congratulate you or welcome you to the new world.  Instead everyone asks why it took you so long to get out.  They tell you they were wondering when you would break free, they make fun of because you were the idiot who didn’t figure out how to break free.  

White America, being Black in this world is a constant conversation on why we haven’t “broken free.”  It’s a constant battle with the rest of the world on why we haven’t hacked life, why we can’t succeed when the rest of the world fails to acknowledge that you started off alone, in a room with little resources, trying like hell to get out, when everyone else started off in the sun, frolicking, eating ice cream, and enjoying the sweet air.  

Black folks have fought, we are the Muhammad Ali of this game.  Black women have marched for equal rights with White women, only to be disrespected and misunderstood by them.  Black folks have marched hand and hand with you for equal and fair economic treatment and political reform. But when the marching is over, and your agenda has been fulfilled, you return to the suburbs, and we return to the cities that are hit the hardest by unjust economic policies.  

White America, as tired as I am, I will use this voice, this gift and love of words to fight and speak out against injustice.  I want this world to treat my sisters, my nephew, and my future children fairly.  I don’t want my family and friends to fear a simple drive on the road, a run to the corner store, or a ride on the train.  No one should fear for their life while running an errand or simply being out on the street.  

White America, you may think that Black folks love to complain, and that we love to point fingers, but realize and remember that room.  We are born with no, ABSOLUTELY NO, fighting chances.  We are born with the expectation to be subset citizens of this country.  We are born with little chance to prove our worth.  Please stop telling us who we are, and what we should be, because we have done a whole lot to get out of the that small ass, lonely room.  We are warriors, because we are forced to get up every time you push us down….every damn time. 


Sincerely,

Nina Carey Marie Young

(A tired, educated, middle class, Black woman from Detroit, who just wants her slice of the fucking American Pie.)

I don’t like to talk about politics on Facebook– political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends– but there is an important non-partisan point to make today.


What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night’s ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries– is creating what is known as a “shock event.” Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order. When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.


Last night’s Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.
Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.


My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one’s interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won’t like. I don’t know what Bannon is up to– although I have some guesses– but because I know Bannon’s ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle– and my friends range pretty widely– who will benefit from whatever it is. If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.


But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event. A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union. If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln’s strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power. Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”


Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it.

—  Heather Richardson

I don’t like to talk about politics on Facebook– political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends– but there is an important non-partisan point to make today.

What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night’s ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries– is creating what is known as a “shock event.”

Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order. When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.

Last night’s Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.

Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot. My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one’s interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won’t like. I don’t know what Bannon is up to– although I have some guesses– but because I know Bannon’s ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle– and my friends range pretty widely– who will benefit from whatever it is. If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal. But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event.

A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union.

If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln’s strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power.

Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it.“

—  Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College

“I believe in national socialism!! Survival and dominance of the fittest race, the Aryans!!! Nazi Germany was glorivs military superpower with tiger tanks!!!”

“Nazi Germany lost the war, really really fucking badly, and Hitler was wildly incompetent as both a peace and wartime leader.”

“TWO-FRONT WAR IT WASNT FAIR 1930s ECONOMICS MIRACLE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE”