rally stage

First 100 Days: Trump and the Degradation of the Presidency

Trump’s failure to accomplish little or any of his agenda during his first 100 days shouldn’t blind us to the vast harm he has done in this comparatively short time to our system of government, especially his degradation of the presidency.

From early in the Republic, we have looked at the office of the president as a focal point for the nation’s values. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and the two Roosevelts exemplified for generations of Americans the moral authority of the highest office in the land. It is not merely what these men accomplished, but how they did it; not just their policies but their positive effects on the institutions of democratic governance.

True, many of our presidents have fallen short of those ideals. But our disappointments in those individuals reflected the high expectations we have had for those who hold that office.

Yet under Trump, the moral authority of the presidency has all but disappeared.

I’m old enough to recall when John F. Kennedy invited the world’s great artists, writers, and philosophers to dine at the White House. The nation felt ennobled. 

Donald Trump invites Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent, who once called President Obama a “mongrel,” and we feel sullied.

But it has not just been Trump’s vulgarity.

There have also been Trump’s lies – blatant, continuous, and unsubstantiated even after the lack of evidence has been pointed out repeatedly. 

They are not just any lies, but lies that deepen Americans’ suspicion of one another and undermine our confidence in our system of government – such as his repeated contention that “three to five million” people voted illegally in the last election, or that Obama spied on him during the campaign.

Prior presidents have embellished the truth and on occasion have lied about a particular important thing, such as the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But never before Trump have we had a president who chronically lies, whose lies have become an integral part of his presidency even in the first 100 days.

There is also Trump’s vast family business, from which he continues to benefit even though the decisions he makes in office affect what he earns, and the almost certain decisions by foreign governments to curry favor with him by bestowing benefits on his business. 

Trump shrugs off such conflicts – even refusing to release his tax returns, even inviting his daughter and son-in-law, each with their own businesses and conflicts of interest, to join him at the highest reaches of the White House.

Some presidents have profited from their presidencies after they leave office through large speaking fees and book contracts. But never before Trump have we had a president for whom conflicts of financial interest during his presidency are so flagrant yet ignored.

The first 100 days has also been marked by Trump’s divisiveness – turning Americans against each other, legitimizing hatefulness toward Mexican-Americans and Muslim-Americans and African-Americans, fueling violence between his supporters and his opponents.

We have had divisive elections before. But after them, other presidents have sought to heal the wounds. Even after the horrors of the Civil War, Lincoln famously asked us to come together without malice. 

Trump, by contrast, has fomented the warring camps – calling his opponents “enemies,” suggesting they are plotting against his administration, and staging rallies to encourage and fuel his bedrock supporters.

We have also seen Trump’s cruelty – toward refugees, undocumented immigrants, and the poor among us. He has issued a budget that would deeply harm the least advantaged Americans, and supported a repeal of the Affordable Care Act that would also hurt those most in need.

He has refused asylum to refugees at a time when the world faces the largest refugee crisis since World War II, and unleashed immigration enforcers on 11 million residents of the United States, many of whom have been productive members of their communities for years. He has even deported people who have been here since childhood and know know no other nation.

Other presidents have on occasion been cruel. But Trump’s cruelty has defied reason. It is utterly unnecessary.

There has also been Trump’s affect on the rest of the world – legitimizing crude nationalism and hateful xenophobia. He has promoted France’s Marine Le Pen and encouraged authoritarians such as Turkey’s Tayyip Erdogan, while at the same time confusing our democratic allies and friends.  

Finally, there is Donald Trump himself – who in the first 100 days as president has shown himself to be narcissistic, xenophobic, paranoid, vindictive, and thin-skinned; who takes credit for the work of others and blames others for his own failings; who lashes out at the press and journalists when they criticize him, and who demonizes judges who disagree with him.  

We have before had presidents whose personality defects harmed their presidencies and tainted the office of the president, such as Richard Nixon. But Donald Trump is in a different league altogether. He exhibits the opposite of every civic virtue ever encouraged in our school rooms, town halls, and churches.

The first 100 days is an artificial landmark for presidents. But it does offer an opportunity to pause and assess what they have done. Too often, though, we think in the narrow gauge of policies and legislation.

With Trump, it’s important to think more broadly. Among the most significant legacies of his first 100 days is his degrading of the moral authority of the office of the president, and, thereby, of America.

On the same night that torch-bearing white nationalists wound up staging a rally at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Van Jones stood at a podium, in the nation’s capital, telling a theater full of supporters why they should let love rule in the face of racial hatred. The timing was sheer coincidence — the ninth stop on the CNN pundit’s 14-city WE RISE tour had been scheduled well ahead of Friday night’s prelude to the violent Unite the Right protest — but one that speaks to the reason why Jones’ #LoveArmy crusade has been met with criticism from the very circles he’s hoping to corral.

“A lot of people are asking, ‘Why are you doing this?’ ” Jones said Friday from the stage of D.C.’s Warner Theatre. “I am sick of you guys being stressed and depressed since this past election.”

Deemed “a star of the 2016 campaign” by the New York Times shortly after blaming “whitelash” for President Trump’s election, Jones quickly earned the liberal left’s ire after characterizing Trump’s State of the Union address as “presidential.” Since signing with JAY-Z’s Roc Nation management firm earlier this year, however, he’s earning cred among a different constituency: generation hip-hop. The first political activist on an artist roster ranging from Big Sean to DJ Khaled and Damian Marley to Rihanna, Jones recently got stopped in the airport by a young TSA agent who said she recognized him, not from the cable news network, he tells me, but for appearing in Footnotes for 4:44, the Tidal-exclusive short doc series complementing JAY-Z’s latest album.

In Midst Of Racial Hatred, Van Jones Still Pushes Love

Photo: Manduley, Christina/Roc Nation
Caption: CNN political commentator and Prince devotee Van Jones is fusing hip-hop into his #LoveArmy.


Malcolm X speaking at a boycott rally against the New York City Board of Education on March 16, 1964.

In one of the largest demonstrations of the Civil Rights movement, hundreds of thousands of parents, students and civil rights advocates took part in a citywide boycott of the New York City public school system to demonstrate their support for the full integration of the city’s public schools and an end to de facto segregation. After years of unsuccessful lobbying, the Parents’ Workshop for Equality decided to take direct action against the school board and called upon Bayard Rustin to organize a one-day protest and boycott of the city’s public school system on February 3, 1964. The organization’s sole objective was to render the racial imbalance of African American and Puerto Rican schools by persuading the New York City Board of Education to implement integration timetables. Response from the African American and Puerto Rican communities was overwhelming as more than 450,000 students refused to attend their respective schools on the day of the boycott. In addition, thousands of demonstrators staged peaceful rallies at the Board of Education, City Hall and the Manhattan office of Governor Nelson Rockefeller. Despite enjoying broad support, the boycott failed to force the city’s school board to undertake immediate reform. Another boycott was held on March 16, over 250,000 students participated in the second boycott.

The "virgin vote": a historian discovers why young Americans once actually voted
In the mid-1800s, politics were indispensable to making friends, becoming an adult, and even getting laid.
By Jeff Stein

In the spring of 1860, Kentucky abolitionist Cassius Clay was giving a speech in Hartford, Connecticut, when he was threatened by a pro-slavery Democrat. A young Republican bodyguard in his early 20s leaped forward and clobbered his assailant with his torch, defending Clay. The story quickly circulated, and the bodyguard and his friends in Connecticut used their newfound reputation to help build a new anti-slavery political group.

They called themselves the “Wide Awakes.” They held late-night meetings in saloons to talk about the Republican causes of the day. Membership required attendance at local government meetings and spending several hours every week promoting the Republican ticket. Wide Awake crowds began showing up in the middle of the night at the homes of prominent lawmakers, often yelling and singing until the politician woke up and agreed to talk. The Wide Awakes threw wild parties and donned unmistakable uniforms: glimmering jet-black robes, long flowing capes, top hats, and 6-foot torches often emblazoned with their logo, an open eyeball.

By the summer of 1860, there were more than 100,000 Wide Awake members gathered into about 1,000 separate clubs across the country. Proportional to population, that would be equivalent to 1 million members today. That fall, the movement played a significant role in mobilizing voters and powering Abraham Lincoln’s electoral victory.

The idea of such a swift and massive uprising of young people may seem unusual from our vantage point, but it was not unusual for the era. In a fascinating and timely recent book, The Virgin Vote: How Young Americans Made Democracy Social, Politics Personal, And Voting Popular, historian Jon Grinspan captures the soaring heights of youth involvement in American politics in the mid- to late 19th century — which he describes as a golden era of youthful popular politics. He makes clear just how far we’ve fallen since then.

Grinspan’s central insight is that we’ve lost the social incentives that once made anything but near-constant political engagement unthinkable for millions of young people.

Politics, he argues, did not gain massive popularity among the young because of the thrill of high-minded policy discussions and reasoned, wonkish debate. Instead, it did so because the 20-somethings of the mid-1800s saw it as vital to fulfilling more fundamental longings — vital to maintaining a group of friends, to socializing, to entertainment, to building a career, even to getting laid. Grinspan says that leaving childhood to become a man — or a woman, in some cases, despite the lack of voting rights — depended on forging a political identity in a way that’s totally alien to us in 2017.

At its core, Grinspan’s book suggests that if we’re ever going to truly solve the long-running crisis of young people’s rejection of politics — one that contributed to Donald Trump’s win — the best bet lies in somehow rekindling those same motivations.

In the 1800s, elementary schools were breeding grounds for “violent little partisans”

They started young.

In the 19th century, schoolhouses — where they existed — served as a “petri dish for popular politics,” Grinspan writes. One popular chant, “Democrats eat dead rats!” was a favorite of Whig schoolboys in the South and Midwest. In unruly classrooms, boys chanted slogans taught by parents and older siblings, and they brawled with partisan rivals in the playground. (In 1876, one group of Republican 8-year-olds in Kansas choked a classmate with his Democratic scarf until he passed out.)

Teachers were expected to read the results of elections in the classrooms. Dozens of children’s diaries show that political arguments frequently dominated the classroom discussions, with academic lessons sometimes an afterthought.

Campaigners staged rallies explicitly to draw young children. They made a point of making sure floats featuring live raccoons, foxes, eagles, and bears appeared alongside the political candidate to make them appealing to kids. They offered leather balls to play with and set off fireworks — entertainment primarily for the children.

On Election Day, children as young as 6 became “errand boys” for campaigners, transporting vital messages and news. Some were tasked “with dragging the tipsy voters in town to the polls.”

All of this made politics look like a clear stepping stone to adulthood. “Campaign spectacle helped the wavering outline of a child’s nature form into a personal, political identity,” Grinspan writes.

Casting “the virgin vote”

Spectators at a Tammany Hall rally through NYC’s Union Square toward the end of the bitterly contested 1884 presidential campaign.

Crossing the threshold from political boyhood to political adulthood was described in terms that sound very much like modern discussions of puberty.

In fact, that era’s contemporaries referred to one’s first vote as a “virgin vote” (the inspiration, obviously, for the book’s title). A “virgin vote” was a risk, a thrill, and a potential source of anxiety. Casting a vote for the “wrong” party, Grinspan writes, might be compared to choosing the wrong romantic partner and catching “a bad case of syphilis.”

The moment a young partisan cast his first ballot was seen as a bridge to adulthood, in a period in which Americans were deeply proud of their status as the world’s most egalitarian democracy (though, of course, one for white men only).

(Continue Reading)

anonymous asked:

i just found out!!! that i share the same birthday as Theodore Roosevelt!!! do you have any facts on him? if you do, could you please share them?

  • As a child, Roosevelt witnessed the Abraham Lincoln funeral procession. 
  • Theodore Roosevelt had a really, really good memory. Roosevelt claimed he had a photographic memory, but it is a statement that can’t be easily proven today. 
  • Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt were fifth cousins. Eleanor Roosevelt was Theodore’s niece. And Uncle Theodore presented the bride at Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt’s wedding.
  • Roosevelt was the first President to win a Nobel Peace Prize.
  • Roosevelt was a prolific writer. Aided by his excellent memory and his always-high energy level, TR wrote about 35 books in his lifetime and an estimated 150,000 letters. And he did write an autobiography!He was also the father of the modern U.S. Navy. 
  • Roosevelt was a grad college dropout. 
  • Roosevelt was blind in one eye after a boxing injury in the White House. 
  • His mother and his first wife died on the same day. On Valentine’s Day in 1884, Roosevelt’s mother passed away from typhoid fever. One floor above in the same house, his first wife, Alice, died less than 12 hours later from Bright’s disease and complications from giving birth to the couple’s first child just two days before. 
  • Roosevelt went skinny-dipping in the Potomac River.
  • Roosevelt was the first sitting president to leave the country.
  • He volunteered to lead an infantry unit in World War I. The ex-president was eager to return to the front lines. Roosevelt lobbied President Woodrow Wilson to send him to France at the head of a 200,000-man expeditionary force. Around the country, supporters of the hero of San Juan Hill staged rallies of support. 
  • Roosevelt would not get called to fight in the war that eventually claimed his son Quentin, who was killed in action when his plane was shot down over France in 1918.
  • Roosevelt had been a Sunday school teacher, he believed strongly in the separation of Church and State. While taking the oath of office during his inauguration after McKinley’s assassination, he did not swear on the Bible.
  • President Roosevelt was the first president to be commonly known by his initials.
  • 1910, Roosevelt took a four minute flight in a plane built by the Wright brothers, making him the first president to fly in an airplane.
  • Theodore Roosevelt was the youngest president, assuming the office at the age of 42 after President McKinley was assassinated. 
  • 1912, Roosevelt was campaigning in Milwaukee, Wisconsin when a local saloon-keeper shot him. The bullet lodged in his chest after passing through a jacket pocket containing his steel eyeglass case and a copy of his 50 page speech which had been folded in half. Being an anatomist, Roosevelt concluded that since he wasn’t coughing blood the bullet had not penetrated the chest wall into his lung. He declined immediate treatment and gave his 90 minute speech with blood seeping from the wound into his shirt. 

Sources: (x) (x) (x)


Aleksandra Aleksandrovna Ekster (18 January 1882 – 17 March 1949), also known as Alexandra Exter, was a Russian painter (Cubo-Futurist, Suprematist, Constructivist) and designer of international stature who divided her life between Kiev, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Vienna, and Paris.

In Kiev, her painting studio in the attic at 27 Funduklievskaya Street, now Khmelnytsky Street, was a rallying stage for Kiev’s intellectual elite. In the attic in her studio there worked future luminaries of world decorative art Vadim Meller, Anatole Petrytsky and P.Tchelitchew . There she was visited by poets and writers, such as Anna Akhmatova, Ilia Ehrenburg, and Osip Mandelstam, dancers Bronislava Nijinska and Elsa Kruger, as well as many artists Alexander Bogomazov, Wladimir Baranoff-Rossine.

In Paris, Aleksandra Ekster was a personal friend of Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque, who introduced her to Gertrude Stein.

In 1914, Ekster participated in the Salon des Indépendants exhibitions in Paris, together with Kazimir Malevich, Alexander Archipenko, Vadym Meller, Sonia Delaunay-Terk and other French and Russian artists. In that same year she participated with the “Russians” Archipenko, Koulbine and Rozanova in the International Futurist Exhibition in Rome. In 1915 she joined the group of avant-garde artists Supremus. Her friend introduced her to the poet Apollinaire, who took her to Picasso’s workshop. According to Moscow Chamber Theatre actress Alice Coonen, “In [Ekster’s] Parisian household there was a conspicuous peculiar combination of European culture with Ukrainian life. On the walls between Picasso and Braque paintings there was Ukrainian embroidery; on the floor was a Ukrainian carpet, at the table they served clay pots, colorful majolica plates of dumplings.”

While not confined within a particular movement, Exter was one of the most experimental women of the avant-garde. Ekster absorbed from many sources and cultures in order to develop her own original style. In 1915–1916 she worked in the peasant craft cooperatives in the villages Skoptsi and Verbovka along with Kazimir Malevich, Yevgenia Pribylskaya, Natalia Davidova, Nina Genke, Liubov Popova, Ivan Puni, Olga Rozanova, Nadezhda Udaltsova and others. Ekster later founded a teaching and production workshop (MDI) in Kiev (1918–1920). Vadym Meller, Anatol Petrytsky, Kliment Red'ko, Tchelitchew, Shifrin, Nikritin worked there. Also during this period she was one of the leading stage designers of Alexander Tairov’s Chamber Theatre.

In line with her eclectic avant-guard-like style, Ekster’s early paintings strongly influenced her costume design as well as her book illustrations, which are scarcely noted. All of Ekster’s works, no matter the medium, stick to her distinct style. Her works are vibrant, playful, dramatic, and theatrical in composition, subject matter, and color. Ekster constantly stayed true to her composition aesthetic across all mediums. Furthermore, each medium only enhanced and influenced her work in other mediums.

With her assimilation of many different genres her essential futurist and cubist ideas was always in tandem with her attention to colour and rhythm. Ekster uses many elements of geometric compositions, which reinforce the core intentions of dynamism, vibrant contrasts, and free brushwork. Ekster stretched the dynamic intentions of her work across all mediums. Ekster’s theatrical works such as sculptures, costume design, set design, and decorations for the revolutionary festivals, strongly reflect her work with geometric elements and vibrant intentions. Through her costume work she experimented with the transparency, movement, and vibrancy of fabrics. Ekster’s movement of her brushstroke in her artwork is reflected in the movement of the fabric in her costumes. Ekster’s theatrical sets used multi-coloured dimensions and experimented with spatial structures. She continued with these experimental tendencies in her later puppet designs. With her experimentation across many mediums Ekster started to take the concept of her costume designing and integrate it into everyday life. In 1921 Ekster’s work in fashion design began. Though her mass production designs were wearable, most of her fashion design was highly decorative and innovative, usually falling under the category of haute couture.

In 1924 Aleksandra Ekster and her husband emigrated to France and settled in Paris, where she initially became a professor at the Academie Moderne. From 1926 to 1930 Ekster was a professor at Fernand Léger’s Académie d'Art Contemporain. In 1933 she began creating beautiful and original illuminated manuscripts (gouache on paper), perhaps the most important works of the last phase of her life. The “Callimaque” manuscript (c. 1939, the text being a French translation of a hymn by Hellenistic poet Callimachus) is widely regarded as her masterpiece. In 1936 she participated in the exhibition Cubism and Abstract Art in New York and went on to have solo exhibitions in Prague and in Paris. She was a book illustrator for the publishing company Flammarion in Paris from 1936 until her death in the Paris suburb of Fontenay-aux-Roses. During the past few decades her reputation has increased dramatically, as have the prices of her works. As a consequence, several fakes have appeared on the market in recent years.


Walle⬇Björn Waldegård
He had a career that spanned 4 decades; he made his debut in 1962 & after winning the Swedish Rally Championship in 1967 & ‘68, continued to compete at the top level until 1992 when a broken arm suffered during a crash in the 1992 Safari Rally forced his retirement. His first international victory, at the wheel of a Porsche 911, came on the 1969 Monte Carlo Rally, while his last came for Toyota on the 1990 Safari. It made him the oldest driver to win a WRC event, a record he still retains.
In the mid70s Waldegård took part in the newborn European Championship for Rallycross Drivers with a privately entered Porsche Carrera RSR. His best overall result was to become the Runner-up to Austrian Franz Wurz, father of Alexander, of the 1974 Embassy European Rallycross Championship.
The Alitalia-Lancia team of the 1970s frequently choose between star drivers Waldegård & Italian frontrunner Sandro Munari. Waldegård and Munari came head to head in the 1976 Rallye Sanremo. Waldegård had a 4-second lead over Munari entering the final stage, only to be forced to squander that advantage in keeping with the team’s hopes for an 'equal’ shootout. Waldegård, however, emerged as victor by four seconds, having disobeyed team orders & overtaken Munari – as a result, Waldegård left Lancia & joined Ford in 1976.
Driving Ford Escort RS1800 models, Waldegård won 3 of the world’s most punishing rallies in 1977; the East African Safari Rally, the Acropolis Rally & the RAC Rally.
He was later victor in the inaugural World Rally Championship series in 1979 for Ford & Mercedes, beating Hannu Mikkola in the final round at the Rallye Côte d'Ivoire in the Ivory Coast, by finishing 2nd behind his rival.
In September 2008, Waldegård took part in the Colin McRae Forest Stages Rally, a round of the Scottish Rally Championship. On the event he drove a Porsche 911.
In 1970 Waldegård took part in the Targa Florio on a JW Automotive Porsche 908. He finished 4th together with Dick Attwood.
He died in 2014.
#motorsport #vintageracing #racing #rennlegenden #whenracingwasracing #björnwaldegård #rally #lancia #alitalia #Ford #porsche #jwautomotive #targaflorio #safarirally

consultinggallifreyanwinchester  asked:

can you review the revolt in France in 1830? thank you!


Absolutely! Here’s a quick overview of the French Revolution of 1830.

  • During the 1830 elections, the liberals are by far victorious. At this point, King Charles X decides to go ahead and seize momentum, and issues repressive edicts.
  • These edicts spark the July Revolution. Barricades rise in the streets of Paris; wealthy liberals form a new government. Charles X runs away and a new government is formed under Louis-Philippe, a cousin of Charles’, as the new king. He was known as the bourgeois monarch because he was put on the throne by the wealthy, revolutionary bourgeoisie.
  • Constitutional changes made sure that the bourgeoisie benefited - suffrage was expanded, the middle class grew. However, the lower classes were disappointed by the terrible conditions and rapid expansion of the 1830s and 40s. There was sporadic violence and unrest.
  • Industrial and agricultural depression shakes France in 1846. The lower classes face hardship, corruption and strife increase, and the government still refuses to extend suffrage any further. This sparks anger in the middle class. Forbidden to stage rallies to spur revolution, they instead have to hold “banquets” - known as the Winter Banquets of 1847-8, the revolution was planned out slowly.
  • Louis-Phillipe realizes what’s happening and really wants to reform the system, but he’s virtually powerless at this point (the real fight is between these two bourgeois politicians Thiers (the Party of Movement) and Guizot (the dominant party, the Party of Resistance.)
  • Louis-Philippe abdicates and a provisional government takes over. This allows us to come full circle from the initial revolution in 1830.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you need anything else!


The History Geek

President Trump’s executive order on immigration late Friday ignited nationwide protests — and a slew of legal challenges.

At least four federal judges across the country have blocked part of the order and temporarily ensured refugees and travelers who reached U.S. soil would not be deported.

Here’s an explanation of what happened so far and what could come next.

5 Questions About The Law And Trump’s Immigration Order

Photo: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images                                                     Caption: Activists stage a rally at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York on Saturday against President Trump’s order barring travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days.