I FORGOT to talk about the legion....i only know a little about it from what ive seen in game but caesar did a bad job. he did a bad job

Ga. islanders vow to keep fighting change favoring rich buyers

DARIEN, Ga. - Descendants of enslaved people living on a Georgia island vowed to keep fighting after county commissioners voted to double the maximum size of homes allowed in their tiny enclave.

Residents fear the move will accelerate the decline of one of the South’s few surviving Gullah-Geechee communities.

An aspect of the ordinance that residents take issue with is the fact that it erases a clause about protecting the island’s indigenous history.

During public meetings leading up to the vote, the zoning board proposed changes to the ordinance of lowering the newly allowed home size and removing talk of golf courses being added to the island.

Black residents of the Hogg Hummock community on Sapelo Island and their supporters packed a meeting of McIntosh County’s elected commissioners to oppose zoning changes that residents say favor wealthy buyers and will lead to tax increases that could pressure them to sell their land.

ISLAND’S HERITAGE

Gullah-Geechee communities like Hogg Hummock are scattered along the Southeast coast from North Carolina to Florida, where they have endured since their enslaved ancestors were freed by the Civil War. Scholars say these people long separated from the mainland retained much of their African heritage, from their unique dialect to skills and crafts such as cast-net fishing and weaving baskets.

Regardless, commissioners voted 3-2 to weaken zoning restrictions the county adopted nearly three decades ago with the stated intent to help Hogg Hummock’s 30 to 50 residents hold on to their land.

Yolanda Grovner, 54, of Atlanta said she has long planned to retire on land her father, an island native, owns in Hogg Hummock. She left the county courthouse Tuesday night wondering if that will ever happen.

“It’s going to be very, very difficult,” Grovner said. She added: “I think this is their way of pushing residents off the island.”

Hogg Hummock is one of just a few surviving communities in the South of people known as Gullah, or Geechee, in Georgia, whose ancestors worked island slave plantations.

MORE | Mom in Grovetown calls cops on U.S. energy secretary’s staff

Fights with the local government are nothing new to residents and landowners. Dozens successfully appealed staggering property tax hikes in 2012, and residents spent years fighting the county in federal court for basic services such as firefighting equipment and trash collection before county officials settled last year.

“We’re still fighting all the time,” said Maurice Bailey, a Hogg Hummock native whose mother, Cornelia Bailey, was a celebrated storyteller and one of Sapelo Island’s most prominent voices before her death in 2017. “They’re not going to stop. The people moving in don’t respect us as people. They love our food, they love our culture. But they don’t love us.”

Merden Hall, who asked not to be on camera, has lived on Sapelo his whole life. He says he’s worried about the sizes of homes now allowed on the island.

“I’m not comfortable with this. They approved the 3,000 square feet, that’s the only thing I disapprove of, because that’s going to raise property taxes,” he said.

Hogg Hummock’s population has been shrinking in recent decades, and some families have sold their land to outsiders who built vacation homes. New construction has caused tension over how large those homes can be.

Commissioners on Tuesday raised the maximum size of a home in Hogg Hummock to 3,000 square feet of total enclosed space. The previous limit was 1,400 square feet of heated and air-conditioned space.

Commissioner Davis Poole, who supported loosening the size restriction, said it would allow “a modest home enabling a whole family to stay under one roof.”

“The commissioners are not out to destroy the Gullah-Geechee culture or erase the history of Sapelo,” Poole said. “We’re not out to make more money for the county.”

Commission Chairman David Stevens, who said he’s been visiting Sapelo Island since the 1980s, blamed Hogg Hummock’s changing landscape on native owners who sold their land.

“I don’t need anybody to lecture me on the culture of Sapelo Island,” Stevens said, adding: “If you don’t want these outsiders, if you don’t want these new homes being built ... don’t sell your land.”

County officials have argued that size restrictions based on heated and cooled spaced proved impossible to enforce. County attorney Adam Poppell said more than a dozen homes in Hogg Hummock appeared to violate the limits, and in some cases homeowners refused to open their doors to inspectors.

Hogg Hummock landowner Richard Banks equated that to the county letting lawbreakers make the rules.

“If everybody wants to exceed the speed limit, should we increase the speed limits for all the speeders?” Banks said.

Hogg Hummock residents said they were blindsided when the county unveiled its proposed zoning changes on Aug. 16. Commissioners in July had approved sweeping zoning changes throughout McIntosh County, but had left Hogg Hummock alone.

Commissioner Roger Lotson, the only Black member of the county commission, voted against the changes and warned his colleagues that he fears they will end up back in court for rushing them.

Two attorneys from the Southern Poverty Law Center sat in the front row. Attorney Anjana Joshi said they had “due process and equal protection concerns” about the way the zoning ordinance was amended.

“In our view, this was not done correctly,” said Joshi, who added: “We’re just getting started.”

Located about 60 miles south of Savannah, Sapelo Island remains separated from the mainland and reachable only by boat. Since 1976, the state of Georgia has owned most of its 30 square miles of largely unspoiled wilderness. Hogg Hummock, also known as Hog Hammock, sits on less than a square mile.

Hogg Hummock earned a place in 1996 on the National Register of Historic Places, the official list of the United States’ treasured historic sites. But for protections to preserve the community, residents depend on the local government in McIntosh County, where 65% of the 11,100 residents are white.

genuine question: how is arabization not colonialism when the indigenous cultures, languages and peoples were forcefully assimilated, supressed and killed?

I’m going to speak for Algeria because that’s what I know best and because while I believe it applies to other countries as well I have zero right to speak on behalf of the indigenous people of these countries. (I don’t even have the right to speak on behalf of Algerians in general cause I haven’t been elected as some sort of representative for my people on Tumblr I only have the right to speak AS an Algerian)

Before French colonialism the arabization was a chosen process that happened naturally when people reverted to Islam through the Arab conquest. It wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows but it wasn’t violent colonialism either. It was about being Muslims. If you were Muslim (the conversion were not forced btw) it didn’t matter if you were Arabized or not (to be fair if you were not Muslim it didn’t really matter either). Some of our leaders were Arabized some were not. We had whole Amazigh dynasties ruling AFTER the spread of Islam in the region.

During French colonialism there was a second wave of arabization. In the region where the French tried to forcibly Arabize people, refusing arabization was a form of resistance. In the region where the French tried to keep us from being Arabized, accepting arabization was a form of resistance (I was told that’s how my family was Arabized the French didn’t want us to be Arabs so we decided to be Arabs)

The third wave of arabization is more complicated and more problematic because it was imposed (during the last few years there’s been some work to fix things). After French colonialism, the Algerian government thoughts that being united behind an Algerian identity wasn’t enough. So they started Arabizing the country hoping to get rid of French influence but also to create more unity. In my opinion it was a mistake a huge one but I haven’t lived through colonialism so I don’t know how I would have reacted and what I would have been willing to do to ensure that we never go through it again.

None of these three waves were caused by Arabs imposing their culture on us.

That being said… the indigenous people still exist. The cultures still exist (the one thing we lost is tattoos a lot of women in my great grandma’s generation had them but I don’t know any who has them in my grandma’s generation but even non Arabized Imazighen stopped doing them because they are Muslims and tattoos are not allowed in Islam) The languages are still spoken (it’s one of the official languages of Algeria with Arabic). When you say that arabization suppressed the culture of indigenous people in the region you’re implying that all of the Arabized people in the SWANA region have the same culture except we don’t. Our cultural difference comes from the cultures we had before arabization and when you say our cultures and languages have been destroyed and suppressed you’re erasing us. I’m an Arabized Algerian but the food I eat is Amazigh not Arab, the traditional clothes I wear are Amazigh not Arab, my bedtime stories when I grew up were Amazigh stories. The only reason I’m Arabized is because I speak Arabic not any form of Tamazight (but my Arabic included Tamazight words), and at some point my ancestors last name was Arabized and went from Ait something to Ben Cheikh (that’s not my current last name French colonialism happened and they forced new last names on us).

Now I’m not saying arabization is always a good thing. I’m not saying calling it colonialism is always wrong (in the case of Algeria and similar cases it is). I’m not saying either that everyone went through the same processes I described here. But the cultures, traditions and languages were not erased and they never will be.

I’m not from the US so I don’t know much about it, but someone once told me that the civil war was fighting for two different things. The north was fighting to end slavery and the south was fighting because they didn’t want the government to be able to dictate to them what they did with their property (the only problem was that the south saw people (slaves) as property).

How much of this is correct? Or is it a simplistic view?

It's complicated. There are a lot of historical forces--social, economic, religious, political, legal, cultural--surrounding the lead-up to the Civil War, and you can take as simplistic or as detailed a lens toward it as you'd like.

Before the war, the South did want to protect their property. Slavery in the territories became such a huge issue because slave owners wanted to be able to migrate to these new territories with their property, which included slaves. The majority of the soldiers who'd fought in the Mexican-American War had been Southern--were they going to be barred from the territories that they had fought and bled to win?

Of course, the North argued that people couldn't be property, and their insistence that slavery was evil only made the South get more defensive over it. At the end of the 18th century, a lot of Southerners believed that slavery was an unfortunate evil--not an ideal situation, but not one they could realistically do anything about. (What were they supposed to do with all these free blacks, for one?) But as the South got more defensive, they started to argue that slavery was a moral good, giving these slaves much better lives than they'd have in Africa, and allowing for a white upper-class that could devote itself to civilized culture rather than the rat-race of industry in the North. Their way of life, they believed, depended upon maintaining slavery.

So the war absolutely was about slavery, but the South considered it the main issue long before the North did. Secession started pretty much as soon as Lincoln was elected, because he'd been painted as a "Black Republican" who was going to free all the slaves as soon as he came into office. In his famous "A House Divided" speech, Lincoln argued that the long history of maintaining balance between slave and free states wasn't going to be sustainable. Because Southern slave owners wanted to be able take their slaves through the whole country, and wanted to get their slaves back if they escaped to freedom, either the nation had to abolish slavery or slavery would take over the whole nation--there was no middle ground that would be acceptable to either side. Because everyone knew Lincoln considered slavery a moral wrong, the South thought this speech proof that Lincoln was going to free all the slaves, so they seceded to protect their "states' rights".

The ironic thing was that Lincoln didn't believe he could free the slaves. He was a lawyer through and through, who held the Constitution as a nearly religious document. The Constitution explicitly protected slavery, so as much as Lincoln would have liked to end slavery, he didn't believe the president had the power to do anything about it--that was up to the states. Not long after Lincoln came into office--in an attempt to bring the seceding states back-- both the House and the Senate passed a constitutional amendment that would have explicitly prevented the federal government from interfering with slavery; the war was the only reason it never went to the states for the vote to make it official.

Once the war started, the North was very clear that the purpose was not to end slavery--it was to keep the Union together. Lincoln believed that the Constitution as written did not give the states the right to secede, and that doing so was traitorous and made the Constitution meaningless. Remember, a democratic-republican government had never been attempted on such a scale before; several other similar governments had fallen in recent decades. If this American experiment was going to succeed, the nation needed to prove that an elected government could maintain power even when there was disagreement among its citizens. The war couldn't be about slavery--the North had to bring the rebel states back into the fold and then solve the slavery issue through civilized legislative and judicial measures.

So the North was very careful not to make the war about slavery early on. Early in the war, the ardent abolitionist general John C. Fremont took over Missouri, declared martial law, and issued a proclamation freeing all the slaves. Lincoln was pissed, and he immediately reversed the order. Several border states in the Union still allowed slavery; if they thought the war was about ending it, they'd join the Confederacy, and the problem would get even bigger.

That view only began to shift after the war dragged on. After so much bloodshed, could the North really be okay with going back to pre-war business as usual, with the issue that had led to secession unresolved? Black soldiers were beginning to fight for the Union and showing immense bravery--could we let them fight for freedom and then send them back to slavery?

Ironically, Lincoln was only able to issue the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure. He still believed the president didn't have the power to end slavery--it's why the order didn't free any slaves in the Union. But slaves were an important resource in the Confederate war effort; men were able to go off and fight because they could leave their families and farms in the care of slaves. Slaves were being used for physical labor in army camps, freeing up the white men to do the actual fighting. By freeing the slaves, Lincoln was furthering the war effort by depriving the South of a vital resource--a legitimate use of his expanded wartime powers, with the added bonus of ending a horrible system of bondage. If the South hadn't seceded, such a measure wouldn't have been legal.

By the end of the war, the North was fighting to end slavery, and the South was desperately trying to spin the narrative to prove that it had been about anything other than slavery. But no matter how you spin it, the South seceded specifically to maintain slavery, and the resulting war was the only reason it was able to end.

Society of authors members - a word...

Members of the Society of Authors, we have our annual AGM on November 17th.Usually, only a hundred or so members choose to attend the AGM, but this year is going to be different. This year, we face a well-organized attempt by a relatively small group of members to take over the AGM and push through two resolutions.

The meeting is virtual, so you can attend by Zoom. You can also vote on resolutions by proxy as long as you do so before the 15th.

Before we start, this post is mine, and not an official SOA statement. But –

As members of our union, there are a number of important resolutions for you to look at during this year’s AGM, which will help shape the future of the organization. I urge you to look at them all, and especially at resolutions 6 and 7, submitted by a group headed by some prominent gender critical members.

You’ve probably noticed that this year, there has been a great deal of attention given to our little group by a (mostly hostile) media. Much of it centres on me personally, and much of what they say is typically misleading, incomplete or untrue. Most of it has been driven by social media, where for several years I have been the target of abuse and attacks by gender critical people. I believe that the two following resolutions come as a direct result of this.

Resolution 6 is an attempt to get rid of me as Chair because of my “documented behaviour and comments”, which I take to mean my statements on social media in favour of trans rights, as well as my support of the three writers of colour who received racist abuse in the wake of the Kate Clanchy affair last year.

Resolution 7 includes a demand for a commitment to free speech, which, though it may seem reasonable in principle, in this context shows a basic lack of understanding of what the SOA already does for free speech, and implies that there is bias against certain groups within the organization.

First, let’s have a look at this accusation of bias, which runs through the whole proposal. Some of the people behind these two motions have made it clear that they think that my personal opinions, as tweeted on my personal account, somehow make me unable to exercise impartiality in my capacity as SOA chair.

Okay. Let’s look at my personal opinions. I have a lot of them, and I tweet a lot. I’m a Remainer. I’m left-wing. I’m pro-choice. I wear a mask in public places. I support trans rights. I’m afraid of climate change. I hate racism in all its forms. I really like musical theatre, and (full disclosure) once unfollowed someone on Twitter for saying they hated Les Mis. But the thing I keep being accused of bias over is – you guessed it – trans rights.

If you look at the list of people proposing these motions (and if you take a glance at their Twitter profiles), you’ll find some prominent gender critical voices there. I’m not remotely surprised by this. There’s a history and a context to this attack, dating back several years. If you’d like to know more, here it is. And all this has become part of a right-wing culture wars agenda that sees me as part of “a contamination by the woke”,  as this blog post (one of many) typifies.The way I see it, this targeting of the SOA is part of a wider attempt to force the organization to abandon its impartiality and to pander to the demands of the right wing, via the gender critical movement – demands that, in this case, amount to removing a democratically elected Chair, and effectively giving preferential treatment to people with gender critical beliefs.

I don’t think that having openly pro-trans beliefs is a reason to stand down as Chair. I don’t think that anyone would insist on this if I held any other belief – if I were Jewish, for instance. But having a trans son, and supporting his rights, is enough in the eyes of these people to justify this unfounded claim – a claim that either by expression my opinions, or by not supporting theirs, I have somehow “allowed” gender critical authors to be cancelled or to lose work, because of their gender critical beliefs.

This is utter nonsense. My Twitter is a personal account, like the rest of my social media. I don’t bring my clashes on Twitter into SOA meetings, or expect the SOA to defend me against criticism or abuse. Nor should anyone else: it’s not within the remit of the SOA to supervise social media, or to comment when authors disagree.What the SOA is very good at is resolving contractual complaints. But anyone needing this kind of help needs to ask the SOA for help, not complain on social media that they weren’t offered any. If my car gets a flat tyre, I don’t complain to the management of my local Toyota garage that they didn’t help me – unless I’ve actually been there first. I wouldn’t expect them to look on social media to find out if I needed repairs. Why? Because what I say on Twitter doesn’t concern my local Toyota garage. For a start, they probably don’t follow me on Twitter.  And I wouldn’t expect them to intervene if someone on Twitter complained that I’d left my Toyota blocking their drive, or if someone had left a rude message on the windscreen. Because – guess what? It isn’t their job. They’re a garage, not The Batman.

So, what do I actually do at the SOA? Well, I chair the Management Committee. We deal with finances and strategy, prizes and grants. We help direct policy and, with the help of the SOA staff, determine how best to serve the members. We are not a political party, though we do lobby politicians of all parties on issues that concern our members. We do not debate “what makes a woman” because the SOA has 12,000 members, including trans people and gender critical people, and we want to serve them all. The gender critical lobby has – or so it seems to me – consistently refused to understand this. I have been asked repeatedly to debate with them on Twitter over trans rights. I have been threatened over my refusal to sign a petition that I felt legitimized JK Rowling’s comments on gender. I have received death threats and abuse. I have been told that as Chair of the SOA I must engage with this debate, and then, when I have expressed opinions, have been told by the same people that I shouldn’t have said anything. But here’s the thing. Free speech is for all, even in the case of those with whom you disagree. And a democracy treats people equally, regardless of their status. The gender critical lobby seems also not to understand this. It may have the support of some very powerful and well-connected people, but that doesn’t make their voices any more important than those of our other members. That’s why the SOA remains neutral in disagreements between individuals, whilst still supporting the free speech of everyone concerned. I’m very sure that if my opinion had swung towards the gender-critical side, no-one would be trying to claim that I was biased now. And I think that where there has been prejudice, it has been directed at me, for exercising my right to a belief that a very well-connected group of people in the media feel I simply shouldn’t hold.

Please don’t see this an an invitation to attack these people on social media. Whatever they may have said about me, whatever lies and smears they have used to make their case, I do not condone attacks or abuse in my name. If you feel there is a legitimate complaint to be made about anyone, then please do so via the SOA, according to their Dignity & Respect policy, not on Twitter.  Twitter can be ugly, and things can quickly get out of hand there.

When I was elected to the Management Committee, I promised to concentrate on promoting diverse voices and ensuring that the SOA was an inclusive, fair and welcoming environment for every kind of writer. This current attack on our democracy by a vocal group of ideologues not only threatens that promise, but uses up valuable resources of time, expense and energy that would be better spent dealing with the needs of our members.

If you agree, please consider voting against Resolutions 6 and 7, either in person at the AGM, or by proxy.Here’s the link to register:  If you agree, please consider voting against Resolutions 6 and 7, either in person at the AGM, or by proxy.

Here's the link to register:  

See you at the AGM, where, whatever your views, I look forward to hearing you. 

MEKET / OVERVIEW.

LOCATION: Northern Zakhara, east of the Cities of the North and west of the Yikarian Empire DEMONYM: Meketi LANGUAGE: Meketi (official); Midani (common) GOVERNMENT: Constitutional Monarchy RELIGION: Soshism CURRENCY: 1 gp = 1 kas = 25 ciskas = 100 pakas

HISTORY.

Meket was once part of the Cities of the North. Located along the Eruti River, it is incredibly fertile, mineral rich, and prosperous in trade — which has in turn made it a target for conquest. This prompted a period of expansion and alliance circa -300 DR under the leadership of Monarch Semre. The first to come under his banner were those already united by the recently martyred Soshe. Together, they formed a hereditary monarchy tempered by an elected council. Legally speaking, anyone may be elected to this council, but practically, its members are nearly always drawn from the nobility.

Recent history has found their fortunes on a steady upswing, due in part to an alliance with the Island of Gardens. This has not only allowed trade to flourish but proved valuable in a recent war with the Yikarian Empire. Termed the Daylily War for its length, the conflict began and ended in 1486 DR. This allowed Meket to claim a portion of the Sun's Eye Province's coastland. They in turn appointed an ally from the Isle of Gardens its overseer.

All of this is wonderful for Meket and the Island of Gardens, less so for their neighbors. The Yikarian Empire, the Cities of the North, and the other islands of the Corsair Domains all fear attempts at conquest. Whether this is truly Meket's plan will soon matter little. Like as not, one of their neighbors will get it into their head to strike first.

NOTES ON CULTURE.

Meket is a largely collectivist society, placing the greatest emphasis on family. Indeed, a person is viewed less as an individual and more as an extension of their family unit. Any action a person takes reflects on their family and community. Related: This continues into death. Dead relatives are still relatives and can expect to receive regular visits + care from their living relations.

They are not a rigidly stratified society. By which I mean: social mobility is difficult but not impossible. Although there is a hereditary monarchy and peerage, inheritance is not necessarily guaranteed. Competency is key. One unsuited to their position may be replaced, including the monarch. No inheritance is ever truly guaranteed, and those in power must constantly prove they are worthy.

Education is highly valued in Meket. They boast a nationwide public education system and a number of universities. An education is the fastest path to higher status including government positions. Likewise, supporting education is one of the most highly regarded forms of charity. Related: They are one of the world leaders in the healing arts, both mundane and magical.

Meket tends to be diverse. This is most apparent along the coast and the Eruti River where travelers arrive from around the world. However, the whole of the nation is home to multiple ethnicities. I don't wish to oversimplify over a millennium of history, but overall, their method has been to emphasize unifying commonalities among these groups. That has served well to keep them whole but has generated other consequences. Related: Most Meketi are bilingual or trilingual. Nearly everyone speaks Meketi, but there are several regional languages throughout the nation. Those in urban areas tend to speak Midani as well, at least conversationally, to interact with the high volume of travelers.

Although they aren't quite a militaristic society, they have had to maintain a strong military or court conquest. Keeping the Yikarian Empire, the Grand Caliph, and the Corsair Domains at bay is a Sisyphean task — one that has not always been successful. They were one of the first nations to maintain a standing army and navy. Presently, their navy is the finest on the continent.

NOTES ON RELIGION.

Soshism is a henotheistic religion dating back to the late -400s DR. Long before Ao was revealed to Faerûn, word spread in Zakhara of a deity above all deities. Soshists typically refer to this deity as the One Above, although many names across many cultures have been attached to this concept. Conversely, they typically refer to Soshe as the One Below. However, the two are named, it must always be in balance with each other.

Soshe is not held to be a second deity, however. Soshists hold that She is an aspect of the One Above sent to the world to lead it back to a proper path. They likewise hold that She was the Loregiver, although whether non-Soshists agree is another matter. Ultimately, Her rapidly growing popularity led to Her being perceived as a threat. When the reigning powers attempted to execute Her, She bewailed that the world was not ready for redemption, yet She entreated the One Above not to forsake them entirely. In a blaze of sunfire, She was gone, leaving behind a still-beating heart.

One of the core concepts of Soshism is balance. Balance between life and death, body and soul, heaven and earth, light and dark, good and evil — you get the picture. Although there are regional variances in interpretation, Meket tends to be occupied with dichotomies and the belief that balance must be maintained. Once all the world is in balance, the boundaries between Heaven and Earth, mortal and divine, the One Above and the One Below, will no longer be necessary. All will be in harmony.

Soshism does not deny the existence or validity of other deities. It merely says that worshipping them is . . . moot. They believe it was necessary to work through these deities in the past but that Soshe made it possible to entreat the One Above directly. You can call on them, sure, but why settle for the middleman when you can go direct to the source? They have their place in the balance of things, but one day, they will not be needed.

Is the modern dating scene a product of our divided society?

As shocking as this title may sound, there have been multiple studies conducted by psychologists and sociologists about the deterrent effect of modern dating regarding the increase in population. Many may argue that options such as dating apps should be able to help singles find dates and get into relationships. But because of the constant availability of other, or “better” singles out there, the dating scene is met with a ruthless new phenomenon. “Situationships” better known as “delusionships” is the factor that is keeping people away from the dating pool. 

Many people take into account that due to our divided culture, it is harder to set aside differences to find a partner, and with that, I agree. In this post-2016 election dating pool, many singles consider voting decisions, alongside their career, education, salary, and whether or not they own a property before making their decision official. Why is that? Have we succumbed to becoming superficial and narrow-minded? 

I am no sociologist, but I know quick judgments result in lonely nights. As a college student, I understand the desire to be in a monogamous yet non-committal relationship. But that only exists in a world where STDs and constant communication exist, what I mean is this fallacy does not exist. 

As a twenty-something, I have made peace with the fact that my dating pool will be inherently barren until I hit 27, solely because I refuse to be in this constant loop of being like a girlfriend without the title. We as a society all collectively agree that free labor is cruel, and as college students, we would not be caught dead with an unpaid internship, but we allow ourselves to be in “almost relationships”. Due to these harsh conditions, there has been a rise in practicing celibacy, the act of withholding sexual encounters until emotional needs are met. This rise was originally seen as a side effect of the lockdown, but after open conversations on social media, the hashtag celibacy has surpassed more than 1.2 billion views.

 As an observer of these changes, the best way to explain modern dating is to view the change as if it were the real estate market. Back in the day, it was much easier to buy a house since there were fewer restrictions on home-buying, but to purchase a new property one needs a strong credit score, a loan, insurance, and also be able to buy the property in cash. The same could be said about dating, we expect too much in the worst way possible.

As a population, it is hard to admit that we have become blind to what truly defines a person and what makes a good partner. I can guarantee that an individual who is deemed “cool” most definitely lacks character, and is not dating material and we need to stop chasing people for the sake of a better status. Yes go out with someone who shares similar interests, but for the love of god DO NOT and I do mean this, but do not take someone off your roster because they have some differing views. Ask them about their opinions and be reasonable, this intolerance to any differences is not only leaving people alone, but it is creating insane division outside the dating scene. This notion of accepting differences goes a long way, accepting people for their values and their dating goals will not only make the dating pool accessible but also help heal other divided relationships. 

The final issue with modern dating is that we do not want to get attached or else we will get hurt, pain is inevitable, and any venture worth going into will cause pain. If we applied this mentality in all aspects of life, more would be done.

So this is an open question. And it's one I've struggled with.

How free is too free? I adore freedom. And I believe freedom leads to prosperity. However. Having said this, I realize the freedom we have we are not enjoying. We are suffering from it.

Our boarders are open

We're being invaded slowly with not nearly enough deportations including allowing known terrorists into our country.

Our education system is more concerned about teaching our kids to have sex and cut off their body parts, then they are teaching them actual academics.

Communists run rampant, indoctrinating or youth into an ideology that there is no truth but power

We can't even properly elect officials to public office because the heads in power do more to keep people out than they do to let them in

Our leaders abuse their power to propagandize us into war and servitude as well as national strife and division.

We've let people get elected to office that hate this country and want to burn it to the ground.

We've demonized nationalism and instead promote national hate, racial hate, and cultural hate.

So again. What the hell do we do here? Our nations are crumbling under the weight of those that scalped our freedoms. Communists, Socialists, Marxists, and lazy entitled shits that think 40hrs is an agonizingly long work week. Where's the off ramp? Because I want to find out before violence becomes the only possible solution. We're well aware the radicals on the left would physically purge anyone to the right of Stalin given the chance to do so unopposed. So as a moderate left libertarian wtf do I even do? Talking sense into people seems to be doing nothing because people further left than me don't listen to reason.

It's always, oppression this, racism that, colonization this, diversity (but only for one ethnicity) that. How exactly do I NOT be black pilled at this point? Things are not getting better. The outright cheering for the Hamas attack by hundreds of thousands if but millions globally including in Western nations was deafening. What were they cheering for? The slaughter, rape, beheading, and torture of civilians specifically women and children. And even IF Hamas were not lying scumbags, which they are, how is killing civilians and tourists ok? Pretty sure the phrase is, "And eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

We are not winning. Communists are winning. Globalists are winning. Radical islam is winning. And do you know what all three groups have in common? Their hate for liberals and neo liberals after their usefulness is up. You know what else they have in common? Their hate for the "peasant" class and LGBT people, the ladder of which, they make sport of throwing them off rooftops or beheading them.

At this point? I don't know what the point is. We're f*cked. And short of burying our morals and stooping to their level, I don't see a win here. We will crumble. We will collapse. And we will not win.

So again I ask. What the hell do we even do here? Just "live our lives" until the dictators and sharia law roll around? I honestly don't know.

It's been a crazy day...

If you live in the United States, you know why today is a crazy day. But this isn't going to be about that. Even though I really want to talk about it.

THIS POST will have to deal with the rumors flying regarding the potential for a second Oprah Interview.

Do you ever wonder why people like Amber Heard just can't help themselves? Let me fill you in. Of course if you're new here, I strongly suggest you take a look see around the blog and get familiar with my credentials. I speak with the authority of my own experience alone. I am also infamous for admitting when I am wrong, though. (If I get time to see the corrections). Assume everything I say is speculative opinions only. Unless I have proof to show you, it's my own opinion, kay?

One would argue that doing a second Oprah interview would be unwise for all parties involved. Many criticized O for not pushing or questioning any answers given by the couple. I, on the other hand, have had time to digest everything. I feel that, in a way, Oprah always meant to allow them the peace of saying anything they wanted.

For O, she was the one who got the cash from CBS and iTV for the interview. As you most all know, finding a legal version of that interview is difficult. Every other interview O did after the duo is easily found. Not that one.

Maybe it's because O is waiting for the right number amount before selling streaming rights. Maybe this was really an overt operation. Maybe O's loyalty lies with the real Royals, not the runaways.

Think about it for a moment. The O video was the first big interview the duo sat down for after leaving the UK and royal duties. Oprah's notoriety as a talkshow host is massive in the US. She, in a way, is the closest version of royalty the US has. Even our elected officials don't survive the distractions of American idiotism anymore. Only those billionaire names and faces that have taken up air space for generations really hold that esteem here.

But anyone like O could only get to where she is by being wiser than everyone else in the room. Meaning she wasn't being played when the duo spilled their "truth". She could've been playing them instead.

If I were a narcissist billionaire wanting to cement or refresh my place in American pop culture, an interview with a controversial person would do the trick (i.e. Amber Heard, H&M, etc.). The narc is going to want to get everything out of the con as possible. Some will give up when they know they're caught. Others will lean in more. My ex was the latter.

My ex would lean in even harder. He would argue that real victims would never stop crying. It didn't matter if they cried wolf or bear. They never stop crying because even one glance in their direction is enough to keep going. It's an addiction in its own rite. People get addicted to openly bullshitting others because they know nothing will ever be done. If there is any hope out there that just one person believes the bullshit, the narc will fight tooth and nail until there are two believers. This is how we got to where we are today in many areas of society, but back to O.

She would know the real royalty is where the real value lies. She was still salty about not getting that Diana interview way back. For a lot of Americans, Harry is the closest thing to Diana they can get. Weird, I know. But still. The second son of Diana, Princess of Wales is way better than nothing. Even if the wife comes, too. BUT AGAIN... This could've been an opportune moment for a person like Oprah.

She would've seen the benefit in letting them ramble on and say anything they want. Especially if what they were saying could - and would- eventually be proven as a lie. O wasn't the liar in the interview. She was just a "safe space"... remember?

It could be entirely possible that O was really doing the BRF a big solid by allowing them to get their own nonsense out there. If there is a second interview, it would only be to finish the job left unfinished. Or just a big cash grab.

I wholeheartedly believe that O would only do a part two of an interview with strict stipulations. That would include cross examination most likely. O doesn't like being made a fool.

Narcs recognize narcs, and they will work together in tandem if it means everyone benefits. O gets her money either way. She's not the one lying.

It would be easy to think she allowed them enough water in the swimming pool to drown themselves. Otherwise, she risked her entire career for two fibbers and their truths.

OH A SIDE NOTE... How someone feels through something is one thing. Lying about things that can be proven to be lies is just lying. I am not debating her mental health issues while in the royal fam. Truth is, narcs love themselves too much to ever commit suicide. See The Thing About Pam.

Anyway... if the interview is going on, I doubt Netflix will get the rights to it. O would go bigger. I suspect they'll either be fired or have already been here in the last couple of days. It would justify the chin uppers coming from Nacho Man.

IDK... I think Gayle King would take the second one. She is owed that much for peddling for the Sunshines...

Before being ousted in Montenegro’s presidential runoff election on April 2, incumbent President Milo Djukanovic sounded the alarm about a revival of Serbian efforts to establish a “Serbian world” in the Balkans, linked to the ideology driving Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“The ‘Russian world’ project in the Balkans is called ‘Serbian world,’” Djukanovic warned before being ousted, arguing that Serbia views Yugoslavia’s successor states in the same way that Russia views post-Soviet independent states: ripe for political control and even annexation.

Over the past several decades, the idea of a “Russian world” has shaped how Russia sees the populations of former Soviet countries. The Russian language, Orthodox Christianity, and a common culture and history are all viewed by Moscow as ties that outlived the collapse of the Soviet Union. More than three decades later, Moscow still sees these countries as belonging to its sphere of influence despite being independent states—a perception shaping policy. President Vladimir Putin justified Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea by referring in essence to the effort to reclaim the Russian world. His 2022 invasion of Ukraine seeks to reestablish “the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians.”

The Russian world reflects a tension between “actual Russian Federation state borders and the mental maps of ‘Russianness’ that exist in the minds of many Russians,” said Igor Zevelev, a global fellow at the Wilson Center. The concept of the Russian world, Zevelev said, “allows Moscow to keep boundaries vague, at least rhetorically, with uncertain consequences for regional security.” Timothy Garton Ash recently observed that “the ideology of a Russian world was always closely associated with the Russian imperial project, the Russian Orthodox Church … and autocracy.”

Similarly, the idea of a Serbian world casts doubts on the borders of Yugoslavia’s successor states and aims at their reunification. The concept was first articulated in September 2020 by Serbia’s then-defense minister, Aleksandar Vulin. At that time, Vulin stated that Serbia’s president, Aleksandar Vucic, “should establish a Serbian world. Belgrade should unite all the Serbs. President of Serbia is president of all Serbs.”

Vulin’s views were not a gaffe. Serbia’s national security strategy of 2021 stated that the country’s objective is the “preservation of the existence and protection of the Serbian people wherever they live.” In other words, Serbia considers itself responsible for promoting and guaranteeing the political interests of Serbs living outside its borders.

Most ominously, this strategy declared that the “preservation of Republika Srpska is one of the foreign policy priorities of the Republic of Serbia.” Republika Srpska is an administrative entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina, a result of the Dayton peace accord hammered out in late 1995. Serbia and Republika Srpska are allowed to have “special parallel relations” under the Dayton Agreement; what is a cause for concern is that Serbia is taking it upon itself to defend a part of Bosnia’s territory. Perhaps in no other country’s national security strategy is its interference in a neighboring state so officially laid out—and well received. Last weekend, Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik called for a unification of Republika Srpska and Serbia, adding that “this century is one of Serbian unification.”

Former Bosniak member of Bosnia’s tripartite presidency Sefik Dzaferovic warned in 2021 that talk by Serbian politicians of a Serbian world was reminiscent of former Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic’s “Greater Serbia” project: the effort to incorporate all Serbs into one state which brought years of war and suffering to Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Dzaferovic’s colleague in the presidency, Bosnian Croat Zeljko Komsic, told the European Parliament in March 2022 that the “Serbian world was identical to the so-called Russian world” in scope, aims, and strategic reasoning.

As if to show his commitment to Serbia’s overreach, Vulin—as interior minister—declared in June 2022 that “the formation of the Serbian world is a process that cannot be stopped.” The following month, he was even more direct: “I dream of the unification of Serbs, just as all my ancestors dreamed of it,” adding, “I know that one day it will be completed, peacefully, without violence and conflict.”

Vulin even called for the unification of all Serbs in the Balkans “in one state,” though how exactly he plans to redraw borders and incorporate Serbs living in other independent states without violence remains unclear. In emphasizing that borders are vague and fluid, he echoes proponents of a Russian world, such as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who also think post-Soviet borders are vague and accordingly take it upon themselves to redraw them. In July 2022, Lavrov said that Russia’s military goals in Ukraine would expand beyond the country’s eastern regions, adding that at the invasion’s five-month mark “the geography is different.” Vulin met with Lavrov when he visited Moscow the following month.

Taken together, Serbia’s 2021 national security strategy and Vulin’s 2022 statements are cause for concern. Even more worryingly, Vulin served under Slobodan Milosevic’s wife, Mira Markovic, in the 1990s, has visited Milosevic’s grave on the anniversary of his death, and pays homage to the former Serbian leader. Vulin’s rhetoric and his living link with the Milosevic years have raised suspicions in Bosnia that the Serbian world is, as political scientist Jasmin Mujanovic termed it, “‘Greater Serbia’ 2.0.” Vulin’s boss, Vucic, also served under Milosevic in the 1990s and has not disowned the idea of a Serbian world.

Though the idea is gaining institutional support, many in the region saw Djukanovic as a brake on it. This month, though, 36-year-old economist Jakov Milatovic won 60 percent of the vote to Djukanovic’s 40 percent, becoming Montenegro’s new president. On the surface, these election results may seem like nothing out of the ordinary: A veteran politician long accused of corruption was replaced by a youthful candidate with international credentials promising change.

But Djukanovic’s defeat is a major victory for those who believe in a Serbian world and support its aims, because it removes barriers to Belgrade’s influence in Montenegro. Djukanovic had been critical of the rising rhetoric of the Serbian world idea and the danger it poses for the rest of the Balkans, lamenting the West’s failure to respond to Vulin’s aggressive rhetoric. After elections in August 2020, a coalition of opposition parties formed a government, turning him into a lame-duck president. On April 2, this array of anti-Djukanovic parties joined forces to oust him.

Milatovic, who got his start in politics as an economic development minister in a coalition government of pro-Serbia, pro-Serbian Orthodox Church parties, won the election with the support of Andrija Mandic, one of the leaders of Montenegro’s pro-Serbian Democratic Front. Mandic, who ran against Djukanovic in the election’s first round, was tried in 2019 for his alleged role in an attempted coup joining Serbs, Russians, and Montenegrins in overthrowing Montenegro’s government. He flanked Milatovic during his victory speech as supporters in the streets greeted the new president with Serbian flags.

Djukanovic’s defeat also opens the door for Serbia’s religious influence in Montenegro. The runoffs featured a clash between the Serbian Orthodox Church and Montenegro’s Orthodox Church. The Belgrade-based Serbian Orthodox Church holds jurisdiction throughout Serbia, Bosnia, and Montenegro, and its control over properties in Montenegro —which Djukanovic opposed—was at stake on April 2. Djukanovic’s ouster will reduce the power of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church in its own country, strengthening the Serbian church’s hand even more.

Milatovic himself has dismissed the idea of a Serbian world, but observers in Montenegro perceive that his victory enables it. Seki Radoncic, a journalist based in Montenegro, sees the new president as a “puppet” of Belgrade, stating that Milatovic represents a Greater Serbia to Montenegro. Senad Pecanin, a lawyer and journalist based in Sarajevo, recently observed that Serbia will do away with Montenegro’s identity and “may change the character of its statehood.” And Avdo Avdic, an investigative journalist in Sarajevo, weighed in that “the Serbian world now has access to the sea.” He meant that Serbia, through its control over Montenegro, has gained access to the Adriatic Sea, which it lost when Montenegro opted for independence in 2006.

With Milatovic in power, Montenegro will keep its territorial integrity but lose the political independence Djukanovic helped secure for it. The 61-year-old veteran politician dominated Montenegro’s politics for over three decades and was first elected prime minister at the age of 29. In the 1990s, he was in league with Milosevic as he launched his wars of conquest on Croatia and Bosnia. When he saw that Milosevic’s fortunes were declining, Djukanovic distanced himself from the strongman and chartered his own course, eventually leading Montenegro to independence from Serbia.

He has since become a champion of a pro-Western Montenegro and presided over its closer integration with the European Union. In 2017, Montenegro joined NATO. At home, ethnic minority rights were largely respected. Djukanovic was happy to declare his country a leader in the European integration process in the Balkans.

With Djukanovic gone, fears of a rising Serbian world are spreading beyond Montenegro. Serbian officials in Bosnia are effectively blocking the country’s NATO accession. In a Serbian world, key political and military decisions about states in which ethnic Serbs live outside Serbia would be made in Belgrade, negating the independence of post-Yugoslav successor states and placing Serbia as the center of political gravity in the Balkans. True to form, Bosnia’s Serb member of the presidency, Zeljka Cvijanovic, mandated that the Bosnian Armed Forces must hold exercises with Serbia before they can do so with Germany and the United States.

What “Greater Serbia” failed to achieve by brute force in the 1990s may now be attempted by hybrid means. Political state capture from within independent states, rather than military incursion, seems to be Serbia’s preferred method for pursuing the dream of a Serbian world. For now.

Axar

Jeff was homesick, again, increasingly often the past few days. He’d known that it was basically a one-way ticket coming here, but since he’d grown up in a Govhouse as a pioneer orphan, he had de-facto no family. All had been spread across the galaxy during the Bio-diaspora, and in the Govhouse he’d rarely made friends. Exactly one to be honest, but Jannod had elected to stay behind and become a teacher. On the other side of Jal was a woman, about five years older than he, whom he vidchatted with on a weekly basis, but he could hardly call Grace his friend, as he had never met her in person or chatted with her on anything but official business. What vexed him was the fact that he could even become homesick for the Govhouse, because it in itself was just a space station hung in an Earth/Moon Lagrange, and he’d never been physically able to visit Earth. 

He walked alone through the Corridor-streets of the Hond-Fold in which he lived, passing Jalians who looked at him mildly amused, ever friendly, but always keeping their distance. Magnay was visiting a different Fold with Thorace and his other pupils, to see if they could convince anyone else to accept another Gaian, but many were still in the “let’s wait and see what happens with the strangers” phase, and the Grand-All-Mother of Hond-Fold had definitely declared that she would only allow one Gaian or other off-worlder into the fold at a time, until they saw that it was either detrimental to keep them alone, or that they could understand and adapt to fold law and culture. Since only a few Jalians spoke Gaianglish, and he still spoke only rudimentary Jalian, he was surprised when he heard someone call his name. He looked around and saw a rather tall and gangly Jalian wave and walk towards him. “Good Day honored Gaian-Jeff!” he called from a distance, other Jalians looked around in surprise. As he approached, he even did the unimaginable and held out his fist to make an old-fashioned fist-bump. As surprised as he was, Jeff had never been the squeamish type, so he held up his fist at about the same height, and the strange Jalian fist-bumped him and gave him a grin, actually bearing his teeth, which was even stranger and would have been a open affront to another Jalian. In fact, Jeff noticed a couple of Jalians passing by, who quickly changed directions, expecting a fight to break out at any second! “Honored Gaian-Jeff!” he exclaimed enthusiastically “I am named Axar, and I am so excited and pleased to finally make your acquaintance!”

Jeff looked at him, and said “Honored Jal-Axar, thank you for your introduction, if I may ask, your business and how you speak Gaianglish so well?” Axar looked highly pleased but offered the usual range of polite but exaggerated humbleness, “Honored Gaian-Jeff, please, you flatter me unnecessarily! My language skills are most un-notable. I have just returned from space-faring on the Gaian ship Hitherto and was contacted by the Great-Teacher Thorace, who requested that I accompany you, and continue to show you more of the fold” he paused waiting for Jeff’s reaction, but carried on after a second, “Also, Great-Teacher Thorace has great confidence in you to carry yourself respectfully within the Fold, but has had heard some rumors about some of our Fold-Kind, who are not altogether pleased about the acceptance of Off-Worlders into the Fold, and may try to taunt you or coerce you into making a mistake.” Jeff looked around, then back to him “Oh, well then if Thorace deems it better, then of course I accept his wisdom, and of course your honored company, but please, call me simply Jeff!” Axar looked rather pleased and nodded his head vigorously (which was also quite un-Jalian) “Please Jeff, then I request that you simply call me Axar”.

“So, tell me Axar, what was your duty and length of stay on the Hitherto?” Axar, still looking quite pleased like an overzealous schoolperson answered “I was also as a cultural exchange, much as yourself, but instead of being on a station or planet, I was accepted onto the Gaian ship Hitherto, explicitly to learn, and later teach our Fold-Kind about space-faring. My duty was learning about navigation as a potential cadet of the Gaian Space Academy. It was planned that I stay three Gaian years, but alas, I wished to leave the ship for a season after only one Gaian year, as I found it most difficult living without any other Fold-Kind to converse and friendship with”, his face falling somewhat with the explanation. Jeff considered this and replied “I understand, as I was also just thinking about the situation, that I also have no other Gaians around” and explained about Grace and the thoughts and concerns of the other Folds. Axar listened intently and nodded his head again. “I hope that the Gaian ship Captain Jonathan is willing to accept me back onboard when they pass again in ten nights”, (Jalians counted in Jal night times which were roughly 14 Earth days) “That is if the Grand-All-Mother allows me to leave again, and possibly take a companion. She is still negotiating with the Gaian Space Academy.”

They walked along in silence awhile, until they heard a clicking and clacking and shouting in the distance “Oh!” exclaimed Axar “A game of Frok!”, speeding up his pace. Jeff hurried after him until they came to a group of Jalians standing around a type of amphitheater. Down below, were six Jalians standing around a shallow basin, and in regular intervals and varying levels around the walls of the basin, were indentations. The Jalians were taking turns rolling balls looking to be around the size and weight of Gaian bowling balls (still a popular pastime on Gaian stations and planets) into the basin, and trying to either knock their teams balls into, or the other teams balls out of the indentations. Up close, it was amazing how loud the collisions of the balls, and even more surprisingly, how loud the usually reserved Jalians themselves were! He saw Jalians passing “leaves” (Jalian money) and yelling what Jeff recognized as obscenities back and forth, as the players looked very concentrated. He was amazed as one player rolled a ball with a flip if it’s wrist down into the basin, hitting one of the other teams balls, which ran up the basin wall, and knocked a ball the same color as his from one indentation, into a higher one. The crowd went crazy, yelling and gesticulating at the player, who turned around in a circle, with his arms raised and bearing his teeth, which naturally made some of the spectators go even wilder. Jeff looked around and saw Axar passing leaves, and talking with another Jalian, but when he noticed Jeff watching him, he looked sheepishly back, and came back to his side. “Oh, please forgive me honored Gaian-Jeff, but it has been so long since I have watched a good Frok, and even longer since I’ve seen a player make such a spectacular play like that!” Jeff smiled lightly, and said “Please Axar, I am happy to see that Jalains play sports and wager like this. I guess it’s something universal!” Axar nodded vigorously, and exclaimed enthusiastically “Come Jeff, when the game is over, then I will take you to a dining-room and explain the rules, maybe tomorrow, we can find a Frok-bowl to try our hands in it together!”

Resistance against Cannabis still remains...

Dateline: 3-19-24

It was 28 degrees F, this morning, in Middle Tennessee and The Old Hemp Farmer is wondering if this low of a temperature will ding the Plum and Peach trees and for two years in a row, they will be barren. Farming Cannabis is hard, running a Fruit Tree Nursery must be masochistic. Anyway, the Sun is rising and the temperatures will rise quickly, there was only a two hour period where it was sub-freezing, so hopefully the blossoms will survive. While the Sun starts to warm us, The Old Hemp farmer is imbibing my usual cup of organic Indonesian coffee and a half bar of Costa Rican Cacao fortified with Tennessee homegrown CBD/THC extract. So as the caffeine, cannabinoids and theobromine kickstarts what creativity there may be in the cranial tank, I will try to write something somewhat entertaining and edifying about Cannabis. This morning topic is that after 24 states have legalized Recreational, the elected officials that oppose legal Cannabis are starting to to dig their heels in and are trying to resist any attempt to further expand Cannabis whether its Medical, Recreational or Hemp derived. 90% of these influential politicians that are anti-Cannabis are older, Republican and in very Conservative states with little or no chances of being voted out of office. The irony is that in almost all of these “Red” states, the majority of their adult population believes that Recreational Cannabis should be legal. So why do these mostly Republican elected official continue to be so staunchly against Cannabis? The Old Hemp Farmer has a theory, that these Red State Republicans aren’t really opposed to legal Cannabis as much they are opposed to what legal Cannabis represents. To these elected officials, common sense Cannabis laws are a symbol of a Culture War that they are slowly losing. I truly believe that these older Republican officials see Recreational Cannabis, Gay rights, and Racial equality as an assault on their America, they’re comfortable with the status quo and don’t want to accept that this is 2024, instead of 1954. The irony here is that Conservatives and Liberals almost equally think that adults should be able to consume Cannabis, regardless if they themselves consume it. In Tennessee (the World Headquarters for Tennessee homegrown and The Old Hemp Farmer’s Wife) we have this exact situation, where registered voters would vote to legalize Recreational Cannabis in a heart beat, if given the opportunity. But because Tennessee doesn’t allow plebiscites, a group of firmly entrenched Republican elected officials act as gatekeepers, in regards, to Cannabis. As in Tennessee, these old school Conservative Republican officials have gone on record to state as long as they elected there won’t be any Medical or Recreational Cannabis and while we’re at it, were going to clamp down on Hemp Derived Cannabinoids, as well. So after 10 years of more and more states legalizing Medical and Recreational Cannabis, there is starting to be some pushback against Cannabis, especially Hemp Derived Cannabinoids. Which has totally upended the formerly binary world of Cannabis, before Hemp Derived Cannabinoids, it was quite simple Marijuana was decadent while Hemp was wholesome. So when folks realized that were a lot of things in Hemp that you could turn into things that could get you high, that just complicated everything. So there are a whole of folks (some in the Cannabis industry) that don’t want to deal with the fact that Hemp Derived Cannabinoids are here to stay, so their solution? Let’s make Hemp Derived Cannabinoids and Recreational Cannabis go away, that way we don’t have to deal with any of it. So as some states continue to legalize Recreational Cannabis, we can’t keep pretending that in a dozen or so very “Red” states that Cannabis legalization is right around the corner, because its not, and Tennessee is a prime example. Anyway as always, Hemp Dawgs and Hemp Puppies keep one eye on the weather and the other eye on the market.

Visit our Tennessee homegrown web site to try our great products: https://www.tnhomegrown.com

The Wife's web site: https://www.theoldhempfarmerswife.com

Our Podcast - Full Contact Cannabis: https://fullcontactcannabis.podbean.com

“Prison Hardens Criminals, Former Inmate Declares,” Toronto Star. October 22, 1932. Page 2. ---- Says Kingston Officials Aim at Destroying Convicts’ Self-Respect --- NEED MORE EXERCISE ---- ‘Month by month and year by year as the doors of Kingston penitentiary swing open, they have let forth into the world again men whose whole attitude towards life has changed, men desperately embittered, men who deep down in their souls are now enemies of society. These men are the result of the Canadian penitentiary system.

These words were spoken to The Star yesterday by a responsible cultured man, who still counts amongst his friends many people prominent in Toronto’s social life, who once in his life transgressed the law and paid the price by serving his term in the Portsmouth penitentiary at Kingston. The reporter found him in his garden and found him in his garden and though reticent at first, he finally agreed to speak, in the hopes that his statements might do something towards alleviating the lot of the unfortunates.

‘The penitentiary at Portsmouth is entirely punitive and never in the slightest degree reformatory in the way the men are treated. The attitude of the officers towards the prisoners from the moment of their entering the institution is to treat them as anything but human beings. Their aim appears to be to cow and brutalize the men. To destroy every vestige that they may have retained of self-respect. This is the worst feature of Kingston.

‘The men certainly do not get enough recreation; often it is only 15 minutes, generally 20 minutes, and never more than 30 minutes of silent marching in the air.

‘If anyone says they are out in the open all day and do not need longer then they are wrong. In the mail bag and tailoring shops, in the hospital, library, change room, laundry, barber shop, garage, broom-makers shop, cleaners department, and stone-cutting ship the men are inside all day. Is 20 minutes in the air sufficient? Of the 900 inmates of the penitentiary only about 100 work outside. The others get this brief recreation. When ex-Superintendent of Prisons General Hughes says the average mechanic or factory hand does not average this much recreation he is puerile. The mechanic and factory hand takes his recreation in the evening in the open air and gets his outings on Saturdays and Sundays; perhaps the general forgets that.

His lack of fresh air is another drastic fault of the penal system. The men should be allowed at least an hour and some form of healthy athletic sport to keep their bodies in condition and freshen their minds.’

‘Because the men are locked in their cells over week-ends, on holidays, during rain and snow and during election periods, and because they are totally devoid of any recreation their brains become atrophied and they develop a morbid complex that involves a hatred of mankind akin to the viciousness of a chained animal.

‘The warder who has first charge of the newcomers I do not exaggerate when I describe as a regular Simon Legree. This man is brutal and seems to take a delight in taking away the last vestige of self-respect a prisoner may have.

‘As for the dungeons they are rightly called the ‘hole’; it is a good name for them and they certainly do exist.’

‘When it is stated the prisoners in the dungeons are shackled because they would otherwise break up their cells – what absurd nonsense. Could they do not this during the time they are taken down for meals or at night. No, that is not the reason at all; to so describe it is the stupidest subterfuge.’

‘While it is true that a minority coming to Kingston penitentiary may be habitual criminals, it is equally true that a majority are sensible men capable of responding to humane, sane reformatory treatment. These men should not be herded indiscriminately with the lowest types. They should be all examined on entry by a properly qualified board of psycho-analysists. By men capable of signing them up. The hardened criminal and the first offender should be kept apart. In Kingston penitentiary, I should say 10 per cent are boys of under 20 and 20 per cent young men of under 30. Is it wise to herd these men with the confirmed unfortunate criminal. Can one wonder that in practically every case they come out bitter enemies of society.

The word honor or reform is never heard in Kingston Penitentiary.

‘I agree that discipline is needed – is essential – but discipline can be enforced so as to improve character rather than to destroy it.

Warden Lawes, I believe, of Sing Sing prison conducts the institution on an honor system and I believe his work would be well worth the study of some of our Ottawa officials. In the library they used to receive a mass of instructions regarding deletions from magazines and books that were so silly as to be incredible.

‘I used to have one of the finest gardens around,’ concluded The Star’s informant, ‘but it has gone sadly wrong while I have been away. I have not lost faith in my flowers though. They remind me of human beings; soon with care and kindness they will be as beautiful as ever again.

Amber Heard: I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.

By Amber Heard

December 18, 2018

"I was exposed to abuse at a very young age. I knew certain things early on, without ever having to be told. I knew that men have the power — physically, socially and financially — and that a lot of institutions support that arrangement. I knew this long before I had the words to articulate it, and I bet you learned it young, too.

Like many women, I had been harassed and sexually assaulted by the time I was of college age. But I kept quiet — I did not expect filing complaints to bring justice. And I didn’t see myself as a victim.

Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.

Friends and advisers told me I would never again work as an actress — that I would be blacklisted. A movie I was attached to recast my role. I had just shot a two-year campaign as the face of a global fashion brand, and the company dropped me. Questions arose as to whether I would be able to keep my role of Mera in the movies “Justice League” and “Aquaman.”

I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.

Imagine a powerful man as a ship, like the Titanic. That ship is a huge enterprise. When it strikes an iceberg, there are a lot of people on board desperate to patch up holes — not because they believe in or even care about the ship, but because their own fates depend on the enterprise.

In recent years, the #MeToo movement has taught us about how power like this works, not just in Hollywood but in all kinds of institutions — workplaces, places of worship or simply in particular communities. In every walk of life, women are confronting these men who are buoyed by social, economic and cultural power. And these institutions are beginning to change.

We are in a transformative political moment. The president of our country has been accused by more than a dozen women of sexual misconduct, including assault and harassment. Outrage over his statements and behavior has energized a female-led opposition. #MeToo started a conversation about just how profoundly sexual violence affects women in every area of our lives. And last month, more women were elected to Congress than ever in our history, with a mandate to take women’s issues seriously. Women’s rage and determination to end sexual violence are turning into a political force.

We have an opening now to bolster and build institutions protective of women. For starters, Congress can reauthorize and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act. First passed in 1994, the act is one of the most effective pieces of legislation enacted to fight domestic violence and sexual assault. It creates support systems for people who report abuse, and provides funding for rape crisis centers, legal assistance programs and other critical services. It improves responses by law enforcement, and it prohibits discrimination against LGBTQ survivors. Funding for the act expired in September and has only been temporarily extended.

We should continue to fight sexual assault on college campuses, while simultaneously insisting on fair processes for adjudicating complaints. Last month, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos proposed changes to Title IX rules governing the treatment of sexual harassment and assault in schools. While some changes would make the process for handling complaints more fair, others would weaken protections for sexual assault survivors. For example, the new rules would require schools to investigate only the most extreme complaints, and then only when they are made to designated officials. Women on campuses already have trouble coming forward about sexual violence — why would we allow institutions to scale back supports?

I write this as a woman who had to change my phone number weekly because I was getting death threats. For months, I rarely left my apartment, and when I did, I was pursued by camera drones and photographers on foot, on motorcycles and in cars. Tabloid outlets that posted pictures of me spun them in a negative light. I felt as though I was on trial in the court of public opinion — and my life and livelihood depended on myriad judgments far beyond my control.

I want to ensure that women who come forward to talk about violence receive more support. We are electing representatives who know how deeply we care about these issues. We can work together to demand changes to laws and rules and social norms — and to right the imbalances that have shaped our lives."

Here’s the op-ed Amber Heard has to pay $350,000 for writing:

I was exposed to abuse at a very young age. I knew certain things early on, without ever having to be told. I knew that men have the power — physically, socially and financially — and that a lot of institutions support that arrangement. I knew this long before I had the words to articulate it, and I bet you learned it young, too.

Like many women, I had been harassed and sexually assaulted by the time I was of college age. But I kept quiet — I did not expect filing complaints to bring justice. And I didn’t see myself as a victim.

Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.

Friends and advisers told me I would never again work as an actress — that I would be blacklisted. A movie I was attached to recast my role. I had just shot a two-year campaign as the face of a global fashion brand, and the company dropped me. Questions arose as to whether I would be able to keep my role of Mera in the movies “Justice League” and “Aquaman.”

I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.

Imagine a powerful man as a ship, like the Titanic. That ship is a huge enterprise. When it strikes an iceberg, there are a lot of people on board desperate to patch up holes — not because they believe in or even care about the ship, but because their own fates depend on the enterprise.

In recent years, the #MeToo movement has taught us about how power like this works, not just in Hollywood but in all kinds of institutions — workplaces, places of worship or simply in particular communities. In every walk of life, women are confronting these men who are buoyed by social, economic and cultural power. And these institutions are beginning to change.

We are in a transformative political moment. The president of our country has been accused by more than a dozen women of sexual misconduct, including assault and harassment. Outrage over his statements and behavior has energized a female-led opposition. #MeToo started a conversation about just how profoundly sexual violence affects women in every area of our lives. And last month, more women were elected to Congress than ever in our history, with a mandate to take women’s issues seriously. Women’s rage and determination to end sexual violence are turning into a political force.

We have an opening now to bolster and build institutions protective of women. For starters, Congress can reauthorize and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act. First passed in 1994, the act is one of the most effective pieces of legislation enacted to fight domestic violence and sexual assault. It creates support systems for people who report abuse, and provides funding for rape crisis centers, legal assistance programs and other critical services. It improves responses by law enforcement, and it prohibits discrimination against LGBTQ survivors. Funding for the act expired in September and has only been temporarily extended.

We should continue to fight sexual assault on college campuses, while simultaneously insisting on fair processes for adjudicating complaints. Last month, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos proposed changes to Title IX rules governing the treatment of sexual harassment and assault in schools. While some changes would make the process for handling complaints more fair, others would weaken protections for sexual assault survivors. For example, the new rules would require schools to investigate only the most extreme complaints, and then only when they are made to designated officials. Women on campuses already have trouble coming forward about sexual violence — why would we allow institutions to scale back supports?

I write this as a woman who had to change my phone number weekly because I was getting death threats. For months, I rarely left my apartment, and when I did, I was pursued by camera drones and photographers on foot, on motorcycles and in cars. Tabloid outlets that posted pictures of me spun them in a negative light. I felt as though I was on trial in the court of public opinion — and my life and livelihood depended on myriad judgments far beyond my control.

I want to ensure that women who come forward to talk about violence receive more support. We are electing representatives who know how deeply we care about these issues. We can work together to demand changes to laws and rules and social norms — and to right the imbalances that have shaped our lives.

Wait what happened in the '48 elections? I don't get it

(this got very long i’m sorry but also you’re welcome)

After the fascist regime fell, Italy abolished monarchy with a referendum (1946) and became a republic with a brand new Constitution (1947) written by a deeply anti-fascist constituent assembly. It is important to note that the country at this point was still very much socially, culturally and politically fragmented--for example, here are a few numbers: in the 1946 referendum the percentage of people who voted in favor of the Republic was only 21-39% in the South (tendentially center/center-right oriented), 66-80% in the Center (very communist oriented), 51-68% in the North (mainly socialist) with a 85% peak in Trentino. However, all things considered, a leftist victory in the 1948 elections was expected. That is, until the USA and the CIA stepped in. It was unacceptable and a dangerous threat, from their point of view, that a Western European country could ‘go left’. Never mind that the Italian Communist and Socialist parties (PCI, PSI) were 1) extremely moderate compared to Moscow’s standards, and 2) made up of the very people who had fought against and opposed the fascists, while the USA’s beloved DC party (i.e. Democrazia Cristiana, center-right) was ‘riddled through with collaborators, monarchists and plain unreconstructed fascists’ (Killing Hope, W. Blum). So the CIA funneled around 10 million dollars (allegedly) into ‘center’ parties and implemented a series of operations and stunts including but not limited to (!) (I am citing directly from Killing Hope, W. Blum):

“A massive letter writing campaign from Americans of Italian extraction to their relatives and friends in Italy [...] [the letters] contained messages such as: "A communist victory would ruin Italy. The United States would withdraw aid and a world war would probably result." [...] "If the forces of true democracy should lose in the Italian election, the American Government will not send any more money to Italy and we won't send any more money to you, our relatives."

“The State Department backed up the warnings in the letters by announcing that "If the Communists should win ... there would be no further question of assistance from the United States." The Italian left felt compelled to regularly assure voters that this would not really happen; this, in turn, inspired American officials, including Secretary of State George Marshall, to repeat the threat. (Marshall was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953.)”

“Voice of America daily broadcasts into Italy were sharply increased, highlighting news of American assistance or gestures of friendship to Italy.”

“American officials in Italy widely distributed leaflets extolling US economic aid and staged exhibitions among low-income groups.”

“The Justice Department served notice that Italians who joined the Communist Party would be denied that dream of so many Italians, emigration to America. The State Department then ruled that any Italians known to have voted for the Communists would not be allowed to even enter the terrestrial paradise.”

“A "Friendship Train" toured the United States gathering gifts and then traveled round Italy distributing them. The train was painted red, white and blue, and bore large signs expressing the friendship of American citizens toward the people of Italy.”

“The US, Great Britain and France maneuvered the Soviet Union into vetoing, for the third time, a motion that Italy be admitted to the United Nations.”

“The Agency also forged documents and letters purported to come from the PCI which were designed to put the party in a bad light and discredit its leaders;”

“President Truman chose a month before the election as the time to transfer 29 merchant ships to the Italian government as a "gesture of friendship and confidence in a democratic Italy".”

“Six days before election day, the State Department made it public that Italy would soon receive $31 million in gold in return for gold looted by the Nazis. (The fact that only a few years earlier Italy had been the "enemy" fighting alongside the Nazis was now but a dim memory.)”

“Two days later, the US government authorized two further large shipments of food to Italy, one for $8 million worth of grains. A number of the aid ships, upon their arrival in Italy during the election campaign, had been unloaded amid ceremony and a speech by the American ambassador.”

“The American ambassador, James Clement Dunn, traveled constantly throughout Italy pointing out to the population "on every possible occasion what American aid has meant to them and their country". At the last unloading of food, Dunn declared that the American people were saving Italy from starvation, chaos and possible domination from outside.”

The DC won with a resounding 48%. The leftist coalition earned a mere, humiliating 31%. “It had been a crusade of the kind which Aneurin Bevan had ascribed to the Tories: "The whole art of Conservative politics in the 20th century," the British Labour leader wrote, "is being deployed to enable wealth to persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power."”