young conducter

The new Young American Tracking Poll (YATP) is a first-of-its-kind quarterly survey and report that focuses on the opinions and behaviors of Americans between the ages 13 and 25 on topics in politics, policy, and civic engagement.

From its annual surveying of young Americans conducted since 2013, and TMI Strategy launched the YATP in order to elevate the voices of young people in discussions of national policies and priorities. The poll brings attention to the distinct ways young millennials and Gen Z participate in their civic communities, which often contrast from beliefs and actions found in the general adult population in America.

Most often, young people are defined as 18–29 and so thinly sampled that additional segmentation within the group is impossible. And for the voices of those under 18? Nothing.

Specifically, the YATP provides an alternative to the standard approaches taken by traditional polling towards young people. Most often, young people are defined as 18–29 and so thinly sampled that additional segmentation within the group is impossible. This approach mutes the nuances of youth experience and opinions. The circumstances of someone in her late teens are very different than someone in her late twenties. And even with more narrow age-bracketing, there are major differences between urban and rural youth, male and female, and so on.

And for the voices of those under 18? Nothing. Most national polls omit 13- to 18-year-olds entirely from sampling, thereby silencing millions of young people who disproportionately rely on and are impacted by policy decisions.

Summary of Key Findings

The YATP finds that young Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of Donald Trump and his policies. For all areas where a direct comparison is possible, youth disapproval of Trump exceeds that of the general population. Specifically, American youth disproportionately disagree with Trump’s actions regarding immigration and border security.

In the months since the election, young people significantly increased their participation in organized protests, their use of technology to take and promote positions on social issues, and their use of social networks to organize others to take action.

This strong disapproval of Trump corresponds with a perceptible increase in civic participation from young Americans. In the months since the election, young people significantly increased their participation in organized protests, their use of technology to take and promote positions on social issues, and their use of social networks to organize others to take action.

Self-identified young “liberals” — one third of all young people — are driving the increase in civic participation almost entirely. This group has been two to three times more likely to take action than self-identified “moderate” or “conservative” peers since the November election.

Additionally, across a broad set of issues and policy areas, America’s young people are increasingly taking sides. On nearly every issue/policy asked about in the YATP, the percent of young people with no opinion decreased following the election.

The biggest gains in agreement went almost exclusively towards traditionally liberal positions. On topics ranging from climate change, to immigration reform, to the legalization of marijuana, a new consensus is forming among young Americans.

On topics ranging from climate change, to immigration reform, to the legalization of marijuana, a new consensus is forming among young Americans.

On several issues and policy areas, young liberals diverge from young moderates and young conservatives. The Women’s March in Washington, D.C. and identification with feminism are resoundingly unpopular with young moderates and young conservatives but are popular with young liberals. On issues of religion and security, young moderates and young conservatives are noticeably more skeptical of refugees and concerned by terrorism than are their young liberal peers.

In this report, we’ll take a deep dive into:

Keep reading


“Beating up a kind man is violence, but beating up a bad guy.. that’s justice.”

“Now, as I look at my family’s faces, I wonder if I’ll see them again. When you become a police officer, sometimes there are criminals like this, that you will risk your life to capture, because he’s not the usual bastard out there. Right now, I see in my mind my son and my wife’s faces. I know I might not see them again… If we die, who will protect our families? Who will protect them?”

alias grace meta: dr jordan & grace’s dynamic

I McFreaking love what they did with the dynamic between these two characters because it’s subversive on so many levels.

on the one hand we get a traditional historical fiction “romance” set-up–both attractive, young, single, conducting intimate and long conversations in a sitting room with equal parts civility and a simmering something underneath.

but then you have layers of power dynamics along different dichotomies: man/woman, doctor/patient, prisoner/free man, object/subject. Not to mention class. Doctor Jordan is a member of the bourgeoisie, well-educated, and has been afforded every privilege in life. Meanwhile, Grace is a working-class immigrant who grew up in poverty. (On a side note, I greatly enjoyed Grace’s sly aside regarding Jordan’s inquiry into throwing away people’s shit in the privy.) 

The power dynamics are fragile, though. And I would argue, they flip, or are in flux.

The thing is, where Dr. Jordan finds Grace fascinating, Grace finds Dr. Jordan relatively transparent. She manipulates him easily because of this. He wants “forbidden knowledge” of her–both in a spiritual, mental, and physical sense. Grace is a great mystery to him. But he’s just a another man to her. Sure, he’s a doctor and has theories and ideas. But he also wants to fuck her, just like so many other men she’s encountered in life. Grace knows this. She speaks to this fact during her hypnosis session through the dark veil (”through a mirror, darkly.”) Grace reveals him, humiliates him, and shows the extent to which she has him figured out. She says it later too, in her letter to him eleven years on, how his morbid fascination and sexual desire tangled together, just like with her husband Jamie, just like with the “doctors” who raped her in the asylum.

On another note, throughout the show we see Dr. Jordan slowly slipping, losing control. Grace, on the other hand, stays in control of her narrative. The slippage within it, the multiple identities, one could argue that it, too, is part of her theater and performance of her own story. 

As Grace transforms further into metaphor, obscurity, multiplicities–the forbidden fruit, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Dr. Jordan becomes more and more humanized. Adam. Falling from grace. Note the scene where we see Jordan rutting the landlady into the carpet, putting his dick away, and saying “I wish that was someone else.” This scene shows an aspect of the Doctor that Grace observed early-on, namely, that he’s just another angry, horny man who treats women like shit. 

(Also, note how Jordan treats other women in the narrative that he’s not attracted to!!) 

The subject/object dichotomy is the most in flux between them. Indeed, Grace is his subject and it is her subjectivities that fill his notebooks. She is also an object though–her beauty and her body are coded as highly feminine and beautiful by many of the male characters in the narrative (see: Kinnear’s description of her “Grecian profile” and “blush.”) Jordan is also patronizing toward her in his dreams (him, wrapping his coat around her) and in reality (Grace, fainting, Jordan rushing to her aid.) But Dr. Jordan also functions as her subject. Just as he’s studying her, she’s studying him. She gauges he wants to hear, how he reacts, and adjusts accordingly. She wants to understand the truth he’s seeking from her (perhaps subconsciously) and then delivers it to him. 

How does Dr. Jordan function for Grace then? I would argue he becomes someone for her to pass the time–an amusement. Someone she can craft stories for. Indeed, Grace is the Scheherazade of this story, and Dr. Jordan is the bewitched and enthralled Sasanian king. And Grace herself is an allegory for storytelling and narratives, holding multiple identities and truths within her, needing to be told and witnessed/heard. (This is stated at some point in the show–her need and desire to be witnessed and heard.) This is one way I would concede Dr. Jordan differs from other men in her life. He wants to hear her story, and not from papers or other people, but from her own mouth. (Unfortunately he doesn’t realize he’s getting played to some extent.)

And the power dynamics do flip in the end. Dr. Jordan becomes a literal prisoner to his own mind and body, first after his depressive spiral after parting with Grace and then from his subsequent injury in the war. Grace, on the other hand, gains her freedom. 

I might write more on this just because I have SO MANY THOUGHTS but do you guys agree? disagree? have things to add?

Also: I’m very curious about the moment when Grace offers to show Jordan the scar on her chest from when she fainted while in court. Was she testing him? Was she offering something to him? 

takokunnn  asked:

heya, first of all thanks for running this blog!! is it possible to write a story where the opening and ending are in the present, but with the huge chunk in the middle being past events? how can i make sure the transition isn't too jarring?

Very possible! In fact, there’s a large body of novels that have this exact structure!

What you have is what is called a ‘framing narrative’ which explains why the main narrative is being told, or remembered, or recorded. It gives context for the story as it is told and often at the end, going ‘back’ to the framing narrative, the characters are then somehow brought into or connected to the events of the story that has just been relayed.

A few examples from the vast sea of books that use this technique:

  • Interview with the Vampire, Anne Rice
    (A young journalist conducting interviews winds up recording the life story of an actual vampire)
  • ‘Salem’s Lot, Stephen King
    (A man on the run gives confession in a Catholic church in Mexico regarding events in his home town)
  • Wuthering Heights, Emily Brontë
    (A new tenant moves into a country estate and the housekeeper tells him the history of the previous tenants and the neighbours)
  • The Princess Bride, William Goldman
    (A grandfather tells a bedtime story to his ill grandchild)
  • Moby Dick, Herman Melville
    (A sailor relates the events of his time sailing under Captain Ahab)
  • Frankenstein, Mary Shelly
    (A boat captain discovers a man on the Arctic ice, who tells him a strange tale which the captain writes down in letters to his sister)
  • The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer
    (Several people travelling together take turns to tell stories that illustrate a moral tale)

So, there are a lot of ways that this can be done, and I’m sure I couldn’t even begin to list and break down all of them. 

I think the main thing to be aware of is that the framing narrative needs to support the telling of the story – so you probably don’t want matters in the framing narrative to start off more pressing or interesting than the story being told, rather, it should be important to the framing narrative that the story be told.

The other thing is that occasionally during the middle of the story, it might return to the framing narrative so that the characters can discuss elements of the story being told – this doesn’t always happen, but is often used to elaborate on certain ideas or to skip forward in the telling ‘get past the boring bit, Grandpa!’

I hope this helps!

Hi there, your friendly blogger Mason here!

At the moment I’m fundraising to cover the costs of my gender confirmation surgery, if you’re able to donate, please click [HERE] to give me a helping hand!

If you’re not able to donate, I would be really grateful if you would reblog [THIS POST] so that more people will be able to see the fundraiser.


I loved this scene… He was going to let her go, but she didn’t let him just walk away like many of our first lead females! You go, girl!! You get him!! FIGHTING!!

I fucking love this.

I actually meant to talk about the goings-on with Anna (Shen-Anna-Gins?) after the last episode, since it so far exceeded my expectations for her character arc in a single episode, but I’m glad I waited since they expand on them naturally and beautifully in this one.

Aside from the obvious satirical points about censorship, information, and thought-control, Shimoneta presents a pretty interesting take on sex-education and its importance and role in the health and conduct of young adults (and old adults). They’ve hinted at elements of this before, such as in the first episode where they make it clear that kids in the school and society have no idea how sex actually works or what they’re being prevented from talking about it for, but Anna embodies the concept head-on, turning the classic anime standard of ‘purity’ upside-down. It’s actually pretty funny to think about for a moment, because the ‘purity’ of these anime girls is something desired both in-universe by the leaders of the society in the show, and by a large contingent of of the fans/otaku who follow much tamer school series and worship at the altar of these ‘pure’ characters. Hell, Okuma himself does it in-universe. So the story jumping off such a steep ledge at the end of the last episode presented a wonderfully damning portrayal of the dangers associated with such standards.

Keep reading