#center for popular democracy | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

kp777 · 27 days

Text

By Jessica Corbett

Common Dreams

April 19, 2024

Campaigners urged the president to "keep listening to the millions of young, people of color, and working-class voters who are demanding climate policy that meets the moment."

The youth-led Sunrise Movement on Thursday celebrated Bloombergreporting that "White House officials have renewed discussions about potentially declaring a national climate emergency."

The Wednesday revelation came just two days after six young activists were arrested outside Vice President Kamala Harris' Los Angeles, California home to increase pressure on the Biden administration to make such a declaration, which would unlock various federal powers to combat the fossil fuel-driven global crisis.

According to Bloomberg:

Top advisers to President Joe Biden have recently resumed talks about the merits of such a move, which could be used to curtail crude exports, suspend offshore drilling, and curb greenhouse gas emissions, according to people familiar with the matter who asked not to be named because a final decision has not been made. White House advisers are divided over the idea of declaring a climate emergency, with some saying it wouldn't provide Biden with enough newfound authority to make substantial changes, the people said. Others, however, argue such an announcement would galvanize climate-minded voters.

"The pressure is working. Let's keep it up," Sunrise said on social media, highlighting some of what Biden—who claimed last year that "practically speaking," he had already declared a national climate emergency—could do with a real declaration.

Sunrise wasn't alone in welcoming the news. The Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) Action said that "we've BEEN calling for a climate emergency!! Now, the White House is considering declaring one."

The group urged Biden to "keep listening to the millions of young, people of color, and working-class voters who are demanding climate policy that meets the moment."

As Biden and Harris have campaigned for reelection in November—when they are expected to face former Republican President Donald Trump, whose plan for the planet is "drill, baby, drill"—the Democrats have encountered intense pressure from campaigners including members of CPD and Sunrise to step up their climate actions.

"I'm on the frontlines raising my voice for my Black and Latine families and friends, because I know that we deserve to have affordable housing and healthcare, we deserve an administration who will fight for us, but instead of declaring a climate emergency, we are seeing Biden and Harris expand oil and gas production to record levels," 18-year-old Ariela Lara, who was arrested at Harris' house, said Monday.

Climate campaigners have praised the Biden administration for parts of the Inflation Reduction Act and a recent pause on liquefied natural gas exports but blasted the president for skipping last year's United Nations summit, continuing fossil fuel lease sales, and enabling the Mountain Valley Pipeline, Willow oil project, and construction of the nation's largest offshore oil terminal.

#climate emergency #sunrise movement #center for popular democracy #joe biden #2024 presidential race #fossil fuels

9 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 10 months

Text

Young Americans are piling the blame for their student debt balances on conservatives, according to a poll by Generation Lab provided exclusively to Axios.

Why It Matters: The high court's recent decisions on education, including student loans and affirmative action, could drive young voters to the polls.

• Tens of millions of borrowers in the U.S. collectively owe more than $1 trillion.

Catch Up Quick: The Supreme Court's six conservative Justices recently killed President Biden's historic forgiveness plan — and the coming payment resumption carries significant economic and political implications.

• Under Biden's plan, qualifying borrowers would have been forgiven for loans up to $10,000 if they made under $125,000 per year or $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients. Its announcement last summer incited immediate GOP backlash.

• Republicans drove the lawsuits challenging it, criticizing it as a "bailout for the wealthy," and GOP presidential candidates immediately praised the Supreme Court's decision.

By the numbers: Most respondents blamed SCOTUS and the GOP for student debt going unforgiven:

• 47% said the Supreme Court was responsible.

• 38% said the Republicans were responsible.

• 10% said Biden was responsible.

• 5% said Democrats were responsible.

More than half of respondents did not agree with the court's ruling last month, according to Generation Lab.

• 17% agreed with the decision, and 21% were unsure.

• ¾ of people polled said they were aware of the SCOTUS ruling prior to the poll.

Driving The News: Meanwhile, Biden has begun rolling out his plan B and aims to appeal to young voters.

• The administration said Friday it would alleviate $39 billion of debt for 804,000 borrowers.

The Biden re-election campaign could lose voters who care about student debt forgiveness if it doesn't clearly align with them, said Analilia Mejia, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy Action.

• "They obviously need to ensure that there is high enthusiasm across the voting bloc to secure victory" in 2024, she said.

Of Note: Public confidence in the Supreme Court has been staggeringly low in recent months, particularly since it overturned Roe v. Wade.

• "Young people are right. It's a radicalized Supreme Court," Mejia said.

The Big Picture: The coming student loan cliff is the latest in a string of withdrawals of pandemic-era supports.

• Federal student loan payments will resume in October after years of COVID-related pauses.

• Americans with student loan debt tend to be younger, with lower incomes — they're spending a higher share of their income already, so an additional monthly payment will hurt.

Methodology: The Generation Lab, which measures youth trends and perspectives, polled 783 college students and recent graduates nationwide July 12–17 about who's responsible for student loans not being forgiven.

Go Deeper: Who owes the most in federal student loans

55 notes · View notes

robertreich · 9 months

Video

youtube

Is Donald Trump a Fascist?

I want to talk to you about the F word. No no — not that F word.

I’m talking about fascism.

Is Donald Trump really a “fascist,” as some would claim?

Is “authoritarian” adequate?

The term “fascism” is often used loosely, but you can generally identify fascists by their hate of the "other," vengeful nationalism, and repression of dissent.

To fight these ideas, we need to be aware of what they are and how they fit together.

Let's examine the five elements that define fascism and what makes it distinct from, and more dangerous than, authoritarianism.

1. The rejection of democracy in favor of a strongman

Authoritarians believe strong leaders are needed to maintain stability. So they empower strongmen, dictators, or absolute monarchs to maintain social order through the use of force.

But fascists view strong leaders as the means of discovering what society needs. They regard the leader as the embodiment of society, the voice of the people.

2. Stoking rage against cultural elites

Authoritarian movements cannot succeed without at least some buy-in from establishment elites.

While fascist movements often seek to co-opt the establishment, they largely depend on fueling resentment and anger against presumed cultural elites for supposedly displacing regular people. Fascists rile up their followers to seek revenge on the elites.

They create mass political parties and demand participation. They encourage violence.

3. Nationalism based on “superior” race and historic bloodlines.

Authoritarians see nationalism as a means of asserting the power of the state.

For fascists the state embodies what is considered a “superior” group — based on race, religion, and historic bloodlines. To fascists, the state is a means of asserting that superiority.

Fascists worry about disloyalty and replacement by groups that don’t share the same race or bloodlines. Fascists encourage their followers to scapegoat, expel, and sometimes even kill such “others.”

Fascists believe schools and universities must teach values that glorify the dominant race, religion, and bloodline. Schools should not teach inconvenient truths about the failures of the dominant race.

4. Extolling brute strength and heroic warriors.

The goal of authoritarianism is to gain and maintain state power at any cost. For authoritarians, “strength” comes in the form of large standing armies that can enforce their rule. They seek power to wield power.

Fascists seek state power to achieve their ostensible goal: achieving their vision of society.

Fascism accomplishes this goal by rewarding those who win economically and physically, and denigrating or exterminating those who lose. Fascism depends on organized bullying — a form of social Darwinism.

For the fascist, war and violence are means of strengthening society by culling the weak and glorifying heroic warriors.

5. Disdain of women and LGBTQ+ people

Authoritarianism imposes hierarchies. It’s about order.

Fascism’s idea of order is organized around a particular hierarchy of male dominance. The fascist “heroic warrior” is male. Women are relegated to subservient roles.

In fascism, anything that challenges the traditional heroic male roles of protector, provider, and controller of the family is considered a threat to the social order.

Fascism seeks to eliminate homosexuals, nonbinary, transgender, and queer people because they’re thought to challenge or weaken the heroic male warrior.

These five elements of fascism fit together and reinforce each other.

Rejection of democracy in favor of a strongman depends on galvanizing popular rage.

Popular rage draws on a nationalism based on a supposed superior race or ethnicity.

That superior race or ethnicity is justified by a social Darwinist idea of strength and violence, as exemplified by heroic warriors.

Strength, violence, and the heroic warrior are centered on male power.

These five elements find exact expression in Donald Trump. His uniquely American version of fascism is rooted largely in White Christian Nationalism. It is the direction that most of the Republican Party is now heading in.

It’s not enough to call Trump and those promoting his ideas authoritarians when what they are really advocating is something far worse: fascism.

#youtube #fascism #Donald Trump #politics #election #video #videos

579 notes · View notes

contemplatingoutlander · 7 months

Text

Amazon’s Alexa has been claiming the 2020 election was stolen

The popular voice assistant says the 2020 race was stolen, even as parent company Amazon promotes the tool as a reliable election news source -- foreshadowing a new information battleground

This is a scary WaPo article by Cat Zakrzewski about how big tech is allowing AI to get information from dubious sources. Consequently, it is contributing to the lies and disinformation that exist in today's current political climate.

Even the normally banal but ubiquitous (and not yet AI supercharged) Alexa is prone to pick up and recite political disinformation. Here are some excerpts from the article [color emphasis added]:

Amid concerns the rise of artificial intelligence will supercharge the spread of misinformation comes a wild fabrication from a more prosaic source: Amazon’s Alexa, which declared that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Asked about fraud in the race — in which President Biden defeated former president Donald Trump with 306 electoral college votes — the popular voice assistant said it was “stolen by a massive amount of election fraud,” citing Rumble, a video-streaming service favored by conservatives.

The 2020 races were “notorious for many incidents of irregularities and indications pointing to electoral fraud taking place in major metro centers,” according to Alexa, referencing Substack, a subscription newsletter service. Alexa contended that Trump won Pennsylvania, citing “an Alexa answers contributor.”

Multiple investigations into the 2020 election have revealed no evidence of fraud, and Trump faces federal criminal charges connected to his efforts to overturn the election. Yet Alexa disseminates misinformation about the race, even as parent company Amazon promotes the tool as a reliable election news source to more than 70 million estimated users. [...] Developers “often think that they have to give a balanced viewpoint and they do this by alternating between pulling sources from right and left, thinking this is going to give balance,” [Prof. Meredith] Broussard said. “The most popular sources on the left and right vary dramatically in quality.” Such attempts can be fraught. Earlier this week, the media company the Messenger announced a new partnership with AI company Seekr to “eliminate bias” in the news. Yet Seekr’s website characterizes some articles from the pro-Trump news network One America News as “center” and as having “very high” reliability. Meanwhile, several articles from the Associated Press were rated “very low.” [...] Yet despite a growing clamor in Congress to respond to the threat AI poses to elections, much of the attention has fixated on deepfakes. However, [attorney Jacob] Glick warned Alexa and AI-powered systems could “potentially double down on the damage that’s been done.” “If you have AI models drawing from an internet that is filled with platforms that don’t care about the preservation of democracy … you’re going to get information that includes really dangerous undercurrents,” he said. [color emphasis added]

#alexa #ai is spreading political misinformation #2020 election lies #the washington post #cat zakrzewski #audio

165 notes · View notes

ohsalome · 10 months

Text

In 2015, Russia officially entered Syria an ally of Assad in order to kill Syrians and commit the most heinous massacres, such as bombing markets, hospitals, residential neighborhoods, city centers, and health centers. Until now, Russia and the Assad regime and its ally, Iran, are killing civilians in a semi-formal manner. daily. They committed thousands of massacres against the Syrians in many areas in Syria. As for the United States, unfortunately, it did not have a word in order to stop the criminals from killing the Syrians. The United States policy was weak in Syria and did not properly care about the civilians being killed by the Assad regime and Russia. In 2020, the Assad regime, Russia and Iran expelled me from my city of Maarat al-Numan and occupied it. They destroyed my memories, took my house and my father's shop, and stole everything we owned. Because of these criminals (the Assad regime, Russia and Iran), I became an internally displaced person without anything. I lost my memories, my city, my home, and literally everything.

To all foreign journalists interested in the Syrian issue, please be honest and forthright in everything you write about Syria. Don't forget the Syrian Revolution. Do not write “civil war.” It is not a Syrian civil war, it is a Syrian popular revolution that arose for the sake of demanding freedom and democracy. Please follow those who live on the ground (inside Syria) and take the news from them, do not trust any other source. Those who live inside Syria know all the truth and everything that is happening. Do not forget the detainees in the prisons of the Assad regime, who are subjected daily to the worst forms of torture. Research the Caesar Files [in August 2013, a military defector code-named Caesar smuggled 53,275 photographs out of Syria showing at least 6,786 detainees who died in detention or after being transferred from detention to a military hospital.] And also follow the organization I work with, Syrian Emergency Task Force, in order to know a lot of things about Syria.

#syria #assad regime #syrian war #syrian revolution #syrian civil war #fared al mahlool

135 notes · View notes

dipperdesperado · 1 year

Text

what is capitalism?

After watching this video and thinking about it a little more, I want to quickly discuss what has been the most useful way for me to define capitalism, along with what are the most interesting features. If you want a deeper dive, check the linked video above.

When people think of capitalism, they might think of free trade, freedom, or innovation. When it's put like this, being anticapitalist sounds like being against these idea(l)s. While some folks might be against free trade in its current definitional context, the ideals of freedom and innovation can be featured in non-capitalist systems. I'd go so far as to argue that the maximum realization of freedom, free trade (as in choices and options, not race-to-the-bottom competition), and innovation flourish proportionally to the level of equity of the economic system. The more people that have access and power to the means of production, the faster things can progress. So, what is a useful way to think of capitalism? I'm going to refer to this definition from the Center for Popular Economics:

Private Ownership, especially of the Means of Production ["MOPs"] (Factories, Fields, etc)

Wage Labor (you exchange your time and energy for currency)

Profit Maximization (a focus on getting more than is needed for perpetuation)

Commodity Production (using MOPs to create goods, over which the producers have a bounded autocracy)

Market Exchange (platform of exchange based on supply and demand)

These are the main things that make up capitalism. The first two are necessary features, and the last three are common patterns. I'd argue that we need all of these working together, as agents/elements in the system that is capitalism. Depending on where you are in the world, some features might have a higher focus. If nation-states were RPG characters, and capitalism was a class for those characters, the stats for private property and wage labor start off with higher specs, while widely varying amounts of XP could be put into the other stats.

If you take away the first two elements, then the system stops being capitalist. If you can get rid of private (not personal) property and the need to trade time+energy for money, then you can create other relationships with stuff. This is true even if there's still a market, there are still commodities being produced, and a focus on making more than is needed. Not getting rid of those things, or only getting rid of one, may either lead to a system that is a nicer form of capitalism (like social democracy) or could leave the door open for capitalistic relationships to crop back up.

71 notes · View notes

just-late-roman-republic-things · 3 months

Text

Power to the people! How democratic was Rome? And are we really in a position to judge? Today's notes, based on "Popular Power in the Roman Republic" by Alexander Yakobson:

Historians have argued for a long time about how democratic the republic was. Part of this is due to changes in what we know, but part of it also comes from our own expectations, biases, and current events. It is difficult not to project the political issues of our own time onto Rome.

The debate centers on whether Rome was effectively an oligarchy (rule by a small elite class), or if it had significant democratic elements, even if limited and flawed. This debate is as much about subjective interpretation, and what we think defines a "fair and representative government, as it is about Rome itself.

(Dēmokratia is also a Greek concept that doesn't quite correspond to ancient Roman values such as libertas, but Yakobson doesn't go into that.)

Yakobson asks whether we're comparing Rome to an ideal democratic system, and whether this is fair. He points out that both Rome and most modern democracies have similar flaws: wealth inequality; the wealthy holding most government offices; politicians being in bed with corporate interests; devices like gerrymandering and the electoral college to dilute the votes of certain groups; voters being pressured by social and economic connections; entire territories and underclasses without voting rights. Even in the most democratic countries today, how far is government and society actually shaped by the wishes of "the people"?

He also asks if ancient and modern democracies might both exemplify the iron law of oligarchy: the idea that every society, no matter its political system, eventually develops an elite class that controls most political power. Personally, I'm suspicious of that "law," and not just because its author Robert Michels eventually joined the Italian fascists because he thought democracy was obsolete. I think Michels overlooked the varying degree of accountability that different government structures promote, which can check abuses of power. E.g. in a democracy, regular elections can "punish" sufficiently unpopular politicians by voting in their opponents; autocrats have no such limitation.

(I'm surprised Yakobson quotes the iron law seriously, since he appears to be very pro-democracy and anti-war.)

Anyway, he provides a range of examples of Roman politicians behaving, and speaking, as if the popular vote does matter for their legislation and careers:

Contested elections mean that although the aristocracy as a whole controlled government offices, individual politicians were forced to compete for popular approval.

Popular assemblies repeatedly legislated against the Senate's will. (Strongly backed up by Erich Gruen's survey of assembly results in The Last Generation of the Roman Republic.)

I would also add that the Plebeian Assembly could pass legislation without senatorial approval, but the Senate could not pass legislation without the Plebeian Assembly affirming it.

The Conflict of the Orders, even if somewhat mythologized, does point toward a politically active lower class, and an aristocracy that was forced to grant them greater rights over time.

Aspiring politicians created public games, festivals, grain subsidies, and other "attractions" to secure popularity, and thus elections. Populares were generally not trying to subvert the Senate, but relying more strongly on this established electoral strategy.

Yakobson posits two opposing forces acting on Roman politicians: one pulling them to uphold elite interests and connections, the other pulling them to "break ranks" by winning over the common people. (You might say optimates and populares, though there's other definitions for those words too.)

Rome's lack of zoning meant that many politicians lived side-by-side with the middle and lower classes, and the size of one's posse was important to demonstrate influence. Unpopular politicians risked meeting with insults, protests, and even threats in the streets.

Contemporary documents like Cicero's On the Commonwealth show that Roman politicians saw the "popular mandate" as a strong force, and potentially a threat to the aristocracy's hold on government. Cicero in particular saw it as inevitable and needing to be integrated into the government, not suppressed, to ensure political stability.

Yakobson also points out several examples of "radical" tribunes long before Tiberius Gracchus, and a few commoners making it into the Senate. (LGRR is useful again, and Gruen lists a lot of non-senatorial families making it into the tribunate and quaestorship, especially.)

Rome had many plebiscites, contios (political gatherings), and public trials where people voted on legislation, expressed support or rejection, and could even intimidate politicians. E.g. Bibulus' fasces getting broken by a crowd in 59 BCE, which was probably a symbolic rejection of his authority. Or the troops Pompey had to station at Milo's trial to prevent jurors from being threatened by Clodius' supporters.

The plebiscites, especially, are a form of direct democracy that are rarer in many modern democracies!

Although patrons probably influenced clients' votes, the theory that patrons controlled client votes has been discredited, and fails outright after secret ballots were introduced in the 130s BCE.

Sulla's reforms that aimed to defang the tribunate indicate that tribunes could pose credible force against the Senate, and the reinstatement of tribunes' powers a decade later is a prime example of the Senate bending to popular pressure.

The supposed "harmony" of the decades pre-133 BCE may be an illusion caused by our paucity of sources, rather than an actual lack of tension between the Senate and common people.

Also, Yakobson doesn't discuss public rhetoric here, but Robert Morstein-Marx presents a strong argument in Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic that the legitimacy of Rome's government openly derived from popular support, and that politicians had to argue their case for popular approval, at least in contios and other public arenas.

Overall, Yakobson concludes that although there were big constraints to how "democratic" Rome actually was, there was some real popular influence in government, and that the Roman people were not passive entities under a "sham" democracy. In this he agrees with Gruen and Morstein-Marx.

Yakobson doesn't talk much about the limitations of Roman democracy, because he's mainly responding to arguments that Rome was purely an oligarchy in practice. But I want to list a few:

Only male citizens in Rome could vote. Women, slaves, and anyone unable to travel to Rome were disenfranchised.

The size of the voting areas and temporal constraints limited the number of voters to 20,000 people, max.

The Roman voting system gave a disproportionate weight to the rich, especially in elections for consuls and praetors.

The Senate could co-opt tribunes of the plebs to veto bills, even if the bill was popular. (This formed the crux of several showdowns for Tiberius Gracchus, Julius Caesar, and others.)

Augurs could call off a vote on account of bad omens (obnuntatio).

The Plebeian Assembly could only vote "yes" or "no," not amend bills or propose new ones. A magistrate had to introduce the bill first. From 82 to 70 BCE, the tribunes could not do this, so all legislation came from the Senate first.

Prior to 139-131 BCE, there was no secret ballot.

#jlrrt essays #roman government #roman politics #democracy #popular power in the roman republic #alexander yakobson #a companion to the roman republic #jlrrt reads

18 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 3 months

Text

In November 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) met in Algiers and issued a Declaration of Independence, proclaiming the state of Palestine. The declaration grounded the new state in the 1947 U.N. Partition Resolution, which called for two states, one Arab and one Jewish. The PLO’s goal, as with Hamas today, had previously been the “liberation” of all of Palestine, from the river to the sea. In the 1988 declaration, the PLO reversed that position. Four weeks later, the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist.

Immediately following the proclamation, Algeria, the host country, announced its recognition of the state of Palestine. And almost immediately, the United States launched a worldwide effort to persuade other countries to withhold recognition and thwart the Palestinians in their campaign to gain admission into international organizations.

Today, 139 countries recognize the state of Palestine, but this does not include the major Western democracies. The state is a member of many international organizations but not the United Nations, where the United States, through the Security Council, has blocked admission. Yet since 2012, Palestine has been recognized by the United Nations as a non-member observer state.

Now, triggered by the war in Gaza, this may change. British Foreign Secretary David Cameron, has stated that the United Kingdom is considering recognizing Palestine and supporting its membership in the United Nations. More importantly, it has been reported that this is also under consideration by the U.S. State Department.

Prior to Oct. 7, 2023, recognition by the United States and admission of the state of Palestine to the United Nations would have been a major accomplishment for Fatah (the biggest secular Palestinian political party), the PLO, and for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who also holds the title of President of the state of Palestine.

This would not have fundamentally changed the widespread Palestinian judgment that the entire Oslo Accords process was a disaster for the Palestinians, but it would have kindled a small spark of hope and would have counted for something in Fatah’s struggle with Hamas, which replaced the PLO as the home for Palestinians who remained committed to liberating all of Palestine and to the use of armed struggle to do so.

If it happens now, Hamas, whose popularity among Palestinians has grown and will grow further if there is a release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the Israeli hostages, will likely take credit. It will maintain that this recognition, which the PLO was not able to accomplish, demonstrates that only armed struggle produces results.

And within Israel, such moves will likely increase the political fortunes of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. U.S. President Biden’s advocacy of the two-state solution is already being used by Netanyahu as a central theme in his effort to win the next Israeli election, despite his dismal polling numbers. He claims that, were it not for him, Israel would be presently facing a Hamas-controlled state in the West Bank, and that only he can stand up to U.S. pressure.

Key figures in the Israeli center who might challenge Netanyahu in the next election are sufficiently concerned that they have asked Washington to stop talking, at least in public, about the two-state solution. Unilateral recognition of Palestine by the United States would be used by Netanyahu in his efforts to stoke Israeli fears.

That said, U.S. recognition of Palestine and its admission to the United Nations can be hugely important in the effort to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but to do so, such steps must be part of a comprehensive peace plan, one that acknowledges the new reality that Oct. 7 has created for Israelis. That day, Israelis underwent a trauma whose impact will endure. Israelis lost a sense of security that had long become part of their lives. They lost trust in their government and in their military, their intelligence services, and their technology. Hamas’s slaughter awakened the historic memories of the Holocaust and of centuries of pogroms.

Post-Oct. 7, no Israeli government will ever agree to a Palestinian state in the West Bank unless there is substantial confidence that it will not be a threat to Israel. No set of written arrangements, including provisions that say the Palestinian state will be demilitarized, will supply Israelis with the degree of confidence that is necessary before they will risk a sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank.

If there is an answer, it will require abandoning the defunct Oslo paradigm, which sees Palestinian statehood emerging as a result of successful end-of-conflict negotiations. The alternative is a sovereignty-in-Gaza-first approach: to test Palestinian statehood in Gaza first, and only if it is successful over an agreed period, to then move to negotiations on extending Palestinian sovereignty to the West Bank.

The Gaza-first approach to Palestinian statehood has a long history. Its strongest Israeli proponent was Shimon Peres. Back in 1995, at Peres’s request, I presented to Yasser Arafat a 20-point Gaza-first proposal I had developed. Arafat abruptly rejected it, not unreasonably, fearing that Gaza-first would become Gaza-last. But that was in the heyday of the Oslo Accords, when other paths to statehood seemed possible. Today, for Israelis, actual lived experience with a trial state in Gaza may be the only path to the two-state solution.

Here are the main components of what a “Gaza-first plan” might look like—one that integrates U.S. recognition of the state of Palestine into a path to peace:

The United States (or a group of Arab states including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar) will put forward a plan for a trial Palestinian state in Gaza, with permanent status negotiations between Israel and the state of Palestine to be held only after a successful, three-year demonstration by the new state that it is stable, committed to peace with Israel, and has been successful in achieving de facto sovereignty over Gaza. The State of Palestine would have to attain respect for its authority from nonstate actors, especially Hamas. Hamas would have to relinquish its ability to initiate hostilities, including the possession of heavy weapons, missile production, and weapons smuggling.

If the PLO accepts this Gaza-first test of Palestinian sovereignty, then the United States would stop blocking Palestine’s admission to the U.N. and commit to recognizing the state of Palestine once it establishes de facto sovereignty over Gaza.

The PLO or Fatah, under Arab auspices, would then begin negotiations with Hamas over the group’s future. The goal will be agreement that once Israel withdraws from Gaza, Hamas will accept the authority of the Palestinian state. Further, agreement will be sought on conditions that Hamas-affiliated candidates will have to meet in order to participate in Palestinian elections, including acceptance of the Declaration of Independence’s language that Palestine “rejects the threat or use of force, violence and terrorism, against … the territorial integrity of other states.”

If the PLO-Hamas negotiations are successful, Israeli forces in Gaza will be rapidly replaced by security forces from the Palestinian Authority. If they are not successful, then Palestine will receive assistance from other Arab states, or an international force, to establish its sovereign control of Gaza, leading to Israel’s exit.

Once the state of Palestine establishes control over Gaza, it would be recognized by the United States and Israel—but with its recognized sovereignty, at this point, limited to Gaza. Upon Israeli recognition of the state of Palestine, the Palestinian Authority will cease to exist. All its administrative functions and assets and bureaucracy in the West Bank will be assumed by the state of Palestine.

The emerging state will hold its first elections in both the West Bank and Gaza. All candidates for office will be required to meet the conditions discussed above.

Upon the election of the first government of Palestine, the two states, Israel and Palestine, will exchange ambassadors and pledge peaceful coexistence. The United States will sponsor negotiations between the two states on lifting the blockade of Gaza and on how to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza.

To demonstrate that it is serious about future negotiations over the West Bank, Israel will also agree to a complete halt to the expansion of West Bank settlements, and to control and punish violence and intimidation of Palestinians by Israeli settlers.

After the transfer of power to the state of Palestine, the settlement freeze, and the opening of negotiations on lifting the blockade of Gaza, Saudi Arabia will normalize relations with Israel.

Upon a declaration by Palestine that it has attained de facto sovereignty over Gaza, the three-year trial period will commence. If it is successful, as judged by an implementation commission composed of the United States and the Arab countries that have recognized Israel, then Washington will convene permanent status talks between the two states. Those negotiations will be based on the final status parameters articulated by then-U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in 2016. These not only included the demilitarization of the Palestinian state and security provisions for Israel, but also a commitment that the borders of Palestine in the West Bank will be based on the 1967 lines, modified by equal land swaps, and with a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.

Making Palestinian statehood a reality would allow Palestinian moderates to take over Gaza from the Israelis without appearing to be Israeli subcontractors or a police force furthering the occupation. Without this fundamental change in its role, the notion of a “revitalized Palestinian Authority” taking effective control of Gaza, as Biden has proposed, is delusional.

Much will depend on the size and capabilities of Palestine’s security forces. But most of all, success or failure will depend on whether the Palestinian people themselves believe that this statehood trial really offers a path to comprehensive independence. If so, succeeding in the trial will have widespread Palestinian support, and this in turn will affect Hamas’s willingness to accept the authority of the state. Essentially, Hamas will be faced with a choice between marginalization or evolution.

Ironically, this approach may also appeal to many Israelis who currently oppose a Palestinian state. This is because, apart from fierce right-wing ideologues, most of the Israeli opposition to a Palestinian state rests on the belief that real peace with such a state is not possible. For those firmly of this view, a Gaza-first test may appeal to them, if only because they believe that Palestine will prove to be a failed state.

For the centrists seeking to lead Israel, a Gaza-first trial is a pragmatic option that serves to neutralize Netanyahu’s claim that only he can prevent the imposition of a Palestinian state with West Bank sovereignty. Further, testing sovereignty does not tie Israel’s hands if a Palestinian state is unable to gain actual sovereign power over Gaza. At the same time, a trial state in Gaza potentially offers Israel a chance that it would not otherwise have: a way to permanently withdraw from Gaza, rather than having to face an interminable insurgency.

Gaining Saudi recognition of Israel by committing only to good-faith testing of Palestinian sovereignty will significantly enhance interest in the plan for all Israelis.

For the moderate Palestinian leadership, this framework provides a major achievement towards a full end to the occupation, with actual sovereignty in some part of Palestine. And recognition by the United States will mean a Palestinian Embassy in Washington, a U.S. ambassador to Palestine, and worldwide acceptance of symbols of Palestinian sovereignty including passports and a currency.

Palestinians will be wary, as Arafat was in 1995, that Gaza-first will become Gaza-last, but such fears will be alleviated by a permanent halt to Israeli settlement expansion.

For those on both sides who are deeply committed to resolving the conflict, a Gaza-first approach provides an opportunity to demonstrate that lasting peace is possible, as well as an opportunity to develop new approaches to final-status arrangements outside the Oslo paradigm. Most importantly, it offers a credible path to the end of the conflict, without playing into Netanyahu’s hands.

18 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 7 months

Text

A few minutes earlier, Walz had been onstage in Washington at a Center for American Progress event, chiding a crowd of engaged but worried Democrats, “Everybody who says, ‘I wish he was younger.’ I wish I was skinnier! [Florida Gov. Ron] DeSantis wishes he was more likable! It’s not going to happen. … There’s a responsibility for us not to buy into that.”

STOP EXPECTING THINGS OF US!

Or as Pennsylvania Rep. Brendan Boyle told CNN more bluntly, “People should shut the hell up.”

STOP DEMANDING WE DO ANY BETTER!

“I deal in the real world,” said the Philadelphia-area Democrat, who has been proudly supporting Biden for years. “He is going to be the nominee, regardless of whether people think they can construct on paper a more attractive nominee or not.”

IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!!

“Every time Democrats go on TV and say, ‘The president’s done a great job, but he’s 80 years old,’ all they’re doing is feeding this appetite out there by some for a third-party run,” said Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Kansas City-area Democrat. “And that could be the worst thing that happens in a century.”

WE LIVE IN THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS DON'T LOOK FOR ALTERNATIVES AND RUIN EVERYTHING NOW!

“Joe Biden is on the freedom, democracy and opportunity agenda that beat MAGA Republicans in 2020, in 2022, and will win again in 2024,” Ben Wikler, the Democratic party chair in the top battleground state of Wisconsin, told CNN. “Every hour that someone spends fantasizing about some other ticket is an hour they could have spent calling voters or raising money to help reelect President Biden and Vice President Harris.”

WE'RE GREAT! WE'RE DOING SUCH A GREAT JOB!! OUR POSITION IS COMPLETELY UNASSAILABLE AND WE'RE DEFINITELY GOING TO WIN EVEN THOUGH WE INSPIRE NO CONFIDENCE IN OURSELVES OR OUR SUPPORTERS.

“All these pundits will talk about polling, polling, polling — OK, fine, let’s talk about that,” Harris said, drawing an enthusiastic standing ovation during the DNC meeting in St. Louis. “What we did on the climate crisis: I think 80% popularity. Lowering the cost of prescription drugs to $35 a month, I think everyone loves that. $2,000 a year for seniors for prescription medication, hallelujah. Fighting for relief of student loan debt. 800,000 new manufacturing jobs. Popular, popular, popular.”

Delusional, delusional, delusional.

“That which doesn’t kill him,” the congressman said hopefully, “makes him stronger.”

lol, lmao

#joe biden #2024 presidential election

26 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 1 month

Text

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 3, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

APR 04, 2024

The election of 2000 was back in the news this week, when Nate Cohn of the New York Times reminded readers of his newsletter, using a map by data strategist and consultant Matthew C. Isbell, that the unusual butterfly ballot design in Palm Beach County that year siphoned off at least 2,000 votes intended for Democratic candidate Al Gore to far-right candidate Pat Buchanan.

Those 2,000 votes were enough to decide the election, “all things being equal,” Cohn wrote. But of course, they weren’t equal: in 1998 a purge of the Florida voter rolls had disproportionately disenfranchised Black voters, making them ten times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected.

That ballot and that purge gave Republican candidate George W. Bush the electoral votes from Florida, putting him into the White House although he had lost the popular vote by more than half a million votes.

Revisiting the 2000 election reminds us that manipulating the vote through voter suppression or the mechanics of an election in even small ways can undermine the will of the people.

A poll out today from the Associated Press/NORC showed that the vast majority of Americans agree about the importance of the fundamental principles of our democracy. Ninety-eight percent of Americans think the right to vote is extremely important, very important, or somewhat important. Only 2% think it is “not too important.” The split was similar with regard to “the right of everyone to equal protection under the law”: 98% of those polled thought it was extremely, very, or somewhat important, while only 2% thought it was not too important.

Recent election results suggest that voters don’t support the extremism of the current Republican Party. In local elections in the St. Louis, Missouri, area on Tuesday, voters rejected all 13 right-wing candidates for school boards, and in Enid, Oklahoma, voters recalled a city council member who participated in the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and had ties to white supremacist groups.

Seemingly aware of the growing backlash to their policies, MAGA Republicans are backing away from them, at least in public. Earlier this year, Florida governor Ron DeSantis called for making it harder to ban books after a few activists systematically challenged dozens of books in districts where they had no children in the schools—although he blamed teachers, administrators, and “the news media” for creating a “hoax.”

Today, lawyers for the state of Texas told a federal appeals court that state legislators might have gone “too far” with their immigration law that made it a state crime to enter Texas illegally and allowed state judges to order immigrants to be deported. (Mexico had flatly refused to accept deported immigrants from other countries under this new law.) Nonetheless, Arizona legislators have passed a similar bill—that Democratic governor Katie Hobbs refuses to sign into law—and are considering another measure that would allow landowners to threaten or shoot people who cross their property to get into the U.S.

Indeed, the extremists who have taken over the Republican Party seem less inclined to moderate their stances than either to pollute popular opinion or to prevent their opponents from voting.

While Trump is hedging about his stance on abortion—after bragging repeatedly that he was the person responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade—MAGA Republicans have made their unpopular abortion stance even stronger.

Emily Cochrane of the New York Times reported today that the hospital at the center of the decision by the Alabama state supreme court that embryos used for in vitro fertilization have the same rights and protections as children has ended its IVF services. And on Monday, Florida’s supreme court, which Florida governor Ron DeSantis packed with extremists, upheld a ban on abortion after 15 weeks and allowed a new six-week abortion ban—before most women know they’re pregnant—to go into effect in 30 days.

In the past, people seeking abortions had gravitated to Florida because its constitution upheld the right to privacy, which protected abortion. But now the Florida Supreme Court has decided the constitution does not protect the right to abortion. Caroline Kitchener explained in the Washington Post that in the past, more than 80,000 women a year accessed abortion services in Florida. This ban will make it nearly impossible to get an abortion in the American South.

Anya Cook, who in 2022 nearly died after she was denied an abortion under Florida’s 15-week ban, gave Kitchener a message for Florida women experiencing pregnancy complications: “Run,” she said. “Run, because you have no help here.”

Extremist Republicans have managed to put their policies into place not by winning a majority and passing laws through Congress, but by creating cases that they then take to sympathetic judges. This system, known as “judge shopping,” has so perverted lawmaking that on March 12 the Judicial Conference, the body that makes policy for federal courts, announced a new rule that any lawsuit seeking to overturn statewide or national policies would be randomly assigned among a larger pool of judges.

On March 29, the chief judge of the Northern District of Texas, where many such cases are filed, told Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that he would not adhere to the new rules.

Rather than moderating their stances, extremist Republicans are doubling down on their attempt to create dirt on the president. With their impeachment effort against President Joe Biden in embarrassing ruins, House Republicans are casting around for another issue to hurt the Democrats before the 2024 election.

Jennifer Haberkorn of Politico reported today that in the last month, House Republican Committee chairs have sent almost 50 oversight requests to a variety of departments and agencies. Haberkorn noted that there is “significant political pressure on the party to produce results after months of promising it would uncover evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors involving Biden.”

But it is Trump, not Biden, who is in the news for questionable behavior. In The Guardian today, Hugo Lowell reported that Trump’s social media company was kept afloat in 2022 “by emergency loans provided in part by a Russian-American businessman under scrutiny in a federal insider-trading and money-laundering investigation.”

There is more trouble for the social media company in the news today, as two of its investors pleaded guilty to being part of an insider-trading scheme involving the company’s stock. They admitted they had secret, inside information about the merger between Trump Media and Digital World Acquisition Corporation and had used that insider information to make profitable trades.

Meanwhile, Trump is suing Truth Social’s founders to force them out of leadership and make them give up their shares in the company. His is a countersuit to their lawsuit accusing him of trying to dilute the company’s stock.

Of more immediate concern for Trump, Judge Juan Merchan denied yet another attempt by Trump—his eighth, according to prosecutors—to delay his election interference trial. The trial is scheduled to begin April 15.

Finally, in an illustration of extremists aiming not to moderate their stances but to impose the will of the minority on the majority, Republicans are putting in place rules to make it easier for individuals to challenge voters, removing them from the voter rolls before the 2024 election.

Marc Elias of Democracy Docket noted today that states and local governments have regular programs to keep voter registration accurate, while right-wing activists are operating on a different agenda. In one 70,000-person town in Michigan, a single activist challenged more than a thousand voters, Elias reported, and in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, right-wing activists have already challenged 16,000 voters and intend to challenge another 10,000.

One group boasted that their system “can and will change elections in America forever.”

Rather like the election of 2000.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Letters from An American #Heather Cox Richardson #political #history #Democracy Docket #voting #voter suppression #abortion ban #GOP extremism #election 2024 #purging voter rolls #Election 2000

9 notes · View notes

deathlessathanasia · 10 months

Text

“The most important goddess in the Phrygian pantheon was Matar Kubileya, the Mother of the Mountains. From the sixth century on, Greek religion knew her as Meter (the Mother), and poets called her Kybele, a personal name derived from her Phrygian title. In her homeland, her places of worship were door-shaped niches carved into rocky cliffs and hillsides. These were filled with high relief or freestanding images of the goddess, often holding a bird of prey or flanked by lions. A mistress of wild nature, Matar Kubileya was a close relative of the Bronze Age goddess who is depicted in Minoan gems standing on a mountain peak, flanked by twin lions; many variations of this goddess were worshiped throughout Anatolia. Some of the Ionians who first adopted her cult, like the Chians and Phokaians, continued the tradition of rural, rock-cut sanctuaries, but more often the motif of the goddess in the niche was transferred to the portable medium of stone votive reliefs.

The popular appeal of Meter’s cult is attested both by its rapid spread through the Greek world in the sixth century and by the abundance of votive reliefs and figurines depicting the goddess, found not only in sanctuaries, but also in domestic contexts and tombs. On the other hand, “Meter” iconography was used to depict a wide range of goddesses, so without an inscription, secure identification of artifacts can be difficult. Meter was quickly syncretized with Ge/Gaia, with Demeter, and especially with the Titaness Rhea, mother of Zeus and the other elder Olympians. Rhea’s Kretan cult, perhaps a Bronze Age survival, was focused on the birth of Zeus and was celebrated in an ecstatic dance during which the participants imitated the mythical Kouretes, youths who clashed their shields to coverthe infant’s cries. One of the centers of this cult, Mt. Ida in Krete, wasclosely associated with the Phrygian Mt. Ida, the haunt of Meter. Like Idaian Zeus and Rhea, Meter was worshiped with percussive music and ecstatic dancing, and she was accompanied by the Korybantes, youths who were analogous to the Kouretes. The characteristic instruments in her musicwere the tumpanon, a tambourine-like drum, and the flute. Herodotus (4.76) tells how the Greeks of Kyzikos celebrated Meter’s festival at night, striking tumpana and decking themselves with small images of the goddess. . . .

During the Meter cult’s period of explosive growth in the late Archaic period, she was quickly incorporated into civic worship. In Athens, the emerging democracy seems to have welcomed this popular goddess by the end of the sixth century. Meter’s cult was established in or near the bouleute¯ rion(council chamber) in the agora and Athenian council members began to sacrifice to the Mother of the Gods along with the other major civic deities. In the late fifth century, with the construction of a new bouleute¯ rion, the old one became known as the Metroön, or temple of Meter. Like the temple of the Mother in Kolophon, the Metroön was used as a state archive.

Private sponsorship of Meter was also widespread and was prompted by dreams and visions. Pindar is said to have founded a Theban shrine of Meter after he had a vision of the goddess’ statue walking, and Themistokles brought the cultto Magnesia after the goddess warned him in a dream of an assassination attempt. In the succeeding generation, however, the cult of Meter was viewed less favorably, at least by the elite men of Athens, and was associated with women, the poor, and excessive emotional displays. Attis, who later became known as the consort of Kybele, does not become a prominent figure in the cult until the fourth century. While the Phrygian priests of Matar bore the title Attes, the myth of Attis seems to be a Greek invention.”

- Ancient Greek Cults: A Guide by Jennifer Larson

#kybele #cybele #meter #meter theon #matar #quotes #excerpts

42 notes · View notes

imperium-insider · 23 days

Text

Elections; Democracy and Its Nuances

The Philippine elections was a period plagued with unease and restless nerves as Filipinos, whether in the Philippines or not, tossed their votes in the hopes of choosing the country’s next set of top officials. Much thought was often placed on both the voters voting for their desired candidate and the politicians participating in campaigns to ensure that the elections weren't only true to the people but also for the betterment of the country. Knowing this led many to ask the question; why are the Philippine elections essential to the state of the country especially in terms of the country’s democracy?Democracy was described as a type of government centered on the principle of equality between those in power and ordinary people (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.). The nature of elections, in the way that individuals get to be able to pick out who they want to run for office, was a prime example of democracy being demonstrated in real time. In the same way, the Philippine elections was essential to the nation as it gave people a chance to showcase their own opinions as citizens of the country that they’re voting for. Hence, elections, no matter what country it takes place in, are an important process in being able to practice democracy in society.

Beginnings of Opinion

I’m yet to vote for the national or local elections as I haven’t gotten my COMELEC (Commission On Elections) ID as of the moment. However, I’ve had my share of experience being not only a voter during elections but also as a person running or campaigning during one when elections for the Student Council came around. As for a vivid memory I have in regards to elections, I would recall the national elections that took place last May 2022, where Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. won as the president with a total of 31,104,175 votes.

I recall waking up in the middle of the night and going downstairs to grab a glass of water. In the living room, my parents and brother were sitting down on the couch, eyes glued on the television as a female voice reported live the current status of the ballots and which of the candidates were in the lead for their respective positions. As for why this specific moment was a pivotal memory to how I viewed Philippine elections, I would say it’s because as the voting was being broadcast live, there were also some other reports of the candidates’ programs and the reaction of some people to these programs. Some citizens being interviewed by the reporters were crying, some were furious, and some were just neutral.

One thing was common amongst all of them though, all of them mostly mentioned the most popular politicians as the ones they were going to vote for. Many people mentioned only the names of Robredo and Marcos, two of whom were the leading candidates for the elections at the time. It was as if the other participants like Lacson, Pacquiao, and Domagoso were hardly mentioned at all. As someone not entirely interested in the realm of politics, seeing all of this in real-time was an interesting experience to say the least, though it never really impacted me emotionally when I think about it now.

Experience, Relevance, and All Things Between

When pondering on specific factors that influence the course of the Philippine elections, the one thing I can think of would be whether or not the politician in question has the experience or background knowledge that applies to the position they’re running for. After all, nobody wants an uneducated individual to run for a seat in the government that is required to lead large groups of people or even the whole nation. Being an important figure in society, citizens must be able to choose candidates that they believe are experts in their respective fields.

Second, I believe that another factor that influences votes would be how well-known a person is. Not to say that this is the case most of the time, but I do notice that when it comes to those who aren’t exactly into politics, they typically mention big names or those in the majority lead. In some ways, this can become a problem as instead of voting for people who fit the job description/requirements that the position asks for, citizens end up picking only those whose names ring a bell to them.

A personal observation I have for this would be when some politicians will end up buying votes or bribing people to vote for them in exchange for money. Some people like to term the money they gain from this as “ayuda”, which is essentially just money coming from politicians so that they can influence you to vote for them. This is a prevalent problem in the Philippine elections as not only do they bribe voters with money, but at times the money may even come from the government. This issue isn’t exactly one-sided as voters are willing to take the money or in fact, may use it as a reason instead. In a sense, this problem must be solved on both fronts, the voters and the candidates.

The Foundation of Unity

As I near the end of this blog, I’m stuck thinking about what I want for the Philippine elections or the entire country as a whole. I may not be knowledgeable about politics or the sort, but I truly believe that it has the power to be able to change the tide of things in not only our country but in any location in general. As all people do, my main goal for the Philippine elections is for it to be more transparent in terms of its dealings. From how I see things, I believe everyone knows that some strange dealings happen behind the scenes for some votings and yet we Filipinos just look at it as if it’s a common occurrence. We shouldn’t have this mentality as it’s important for us to have a stand against these types of issues instead of it becoming a norm in our country.

That does lead us to the biggest concern, how do we deal with such concerns and what’s the best course of action for it? To begin, we must remember that we can report such incidents to an official organization, such as the COMELEC. The COMELEC is in charge of everything and anything when it comes down to voting and thus, should be the first place to go to when wanting to report any concerns regarding election violations. Additionally, the PNP (Philippine National Police) can also be approached for concerns regarding electoral fraud if ever going to the COMELEC can’t be done.

Now that all is said and done, I presume that one may wonder what’s my stance on the entire ordeal in terms of flaws in the electoral system. I believe that it’s high time for the Philippines to begin an era of electoral reform because of the few issues that continue to break the system from the inside. Additionally, it’s not only violations that we must deal with but also the attitude of us citizens when it comes to learning about these flaws. Instead of looking at these things with neutrality, it’s best for us to take action and actually do something about them. Change doesn’t stem from only one side of the argument but from both parties. Hence, other than calling out politicians or those in power who use said power to manipulate votes and such, we must also take the time to inform and spur others to action.

With all of the information presented above, I can only hope that people take my words not as information for another time but as a stepping stone. It truly takes time to learn about things such as electoral reform or democratic renewal, but if individuals make the effort to try and become educated of the current issues surrounding the mere process of choosing leaders who will guide them to a better tomorrow, then perhaps it will help deal with certain nuances.

#politics #Philippines #election #election fraud #blog #election 2022 #democracy #society

5 notes · View notes

arthurdrakoni · 10 months

Text

Flag of the Cherokee Confederacy

This is the flag of the Cherokee Confederacy. It comes from a world where the Spanish Armada successfully conquered England in 1588. While England did eventually regain its independence, the Spanish conquest severely stunted England’s growth as a world power, and lead to greater political instability. As a result, England never became a demographic juggernaut during the colonization of North America. The lands that would have become the Thirteen Colonies are a patchwork of nations and colonies founded by numerous European nations. There are also several independent indigenous nations, such as the Cherokee Confederacy.

The Cherokee Confederacy also includes the Muskogee, Chickasaw, and Choctaw tribes. The Cherokee, as reflected by the name, were the founding tribe of the confederacy. The Cherokee Confederacy was one of the first indigenous nations of North America to implement westernization and industrialization programs. Today, most Cherokee dress in European-style clothing, but do wear traditional clothing on special occasions. Like most southern nations in eastern North America, the Cherokee historically practiced slavery. Slavery was formally abolished in 1885 as part of the modernization efforts. Racial divides and tensions still remain, but the Cherokee government has, in recent years, implement programs to help blacks integrate into Cherokee society.

The Cherokee legislature, known as the Tribal Council, is organized into a semi-parliamentary democracy, with a prime minister as the Head of Government, and a president as Head of State. The Cherokee Tribal Council is closer in style to the French National Assmbly, rather than to the English Parliament. The Cherokee Confederacy is centered around what would be western North Carolina, Tennessee, and the northern bits of Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia. The indigenous republics of North America, being sovereign nations, did not suffer an equivalent of the Indian Removal Act.

Historically, the Cherokee Confederacy has been rivals with the Haudenosaunee Federation. However, in recent times the two nations have been putting their rivalries behind them. In terms of good relations, the Cherokee Confederacy has historically been an ally of New Neatherlands, which in located in Virginia. The various nations of North America have formed a European Union-style economic union, and there are hopes that this will eventually leads to a federation. There is a general spirit of good will and optimism. That said, North America still has a ways to go before its nation states become united.

The flag contains seven gold stars in the shape of the Big Dipper, or Ursa Major, on an orange field with a green border. Ursa Major is an important constellation to several tribes within the Cherokee Confederacy. It also symbolizes how the same night sky shine over the entire Cherokee Confederacy. Blue would seem a natural color choice, but the Cherokee picked orange instead. There is some debate about why this is. Popular belief says that it symbolizes the Cherokee Confederacy’s ties to New Netherlands. However, the Cherokee actually picked orange to contrast with the blue flags several other North American nations use. The green border is to offset the orange.

Link to the original flag on my blog: https://drakoniandgriffalco.blogspot.com/2022/05/flag-of-cherokee-confederacy.html?m=1

36 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 4 months

Text

Two notable defeats handed to the far right in European elections over the weekend. 🇩🇪🇫🇮

In the German state of Thuringia, the candidate of the extremist AfD unexpectedly was upset by the candidate for the moderate center-right CDU in a runoff for district administrator of Saale-Orla. The position of district administrator (Landrat) is roughly equivalent to a county board chair/president in the US.

AfD loses run-off in first vote since mass-deportation story

Christian Herrgott of the conservative CDU beat out far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) candidate Uwe Thrum in a regional run-off election in the eastern German state of Thuringia on Sunday. The vote was viewed by political observers as a barometer for the AfD's popularity at a time when damaging headlines may have dented its alarming nationwide momentum. The vote was the first since Correctiv, an investigative journalism outfit, published a report outlining a November meeting in which AfD politicians and far-right extremists — including Austrian neo-Nazi Martin Sellner of the Identitarian Movement — discussed plans for the mass deportation of foreigners and unassimilated German citizens should they come to power. The story sparked outrage and led to numerous rallies across the country in which more than one million people turned out to demonstrate against right-wing extremism and for democracy. AfD candidate Thrum had led the race safely before the Correctiv report was released — he dominated the general election two weeks ago with 45.7% of the vote compared to Herrgott's 33.3% — but only gained 47.6% of the vote to Herrgott's 52.4% on Sunday. Herrgott, the 39-year-old leader of the CDU state party in Thuringia, has been a state parliamentarian since 2014 and will take up his post as district administrator on February 9.

So Herrgott ran 12.4% behind Thrum in the first round but ended up beating Thrum by 4.8% in the runoff. Presumably voters from other pro-democracy parties united Herrgott to lift him to victory.

In any country, unity among pro-democracy forces is necessary to defeat fascism.

—··—— —··—— —··—— —··——

Meanwhile, Finland held the first round of its presidential election on Sunday to replace retiring President Sauli Niinistö.

Former Prime Minister Alexander Stubb of the pro-EU center-right National Coalition Party (NCP) (Kokoomus) came in first place with 27.2% of the vote. Former Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto, a member of the Green League (Vihreät) but running as an independent, came in second place with 25.8%. Stubb and Haavisto move forward to the runoff on February 11th.

Edged out of the runoff was Speaker of Parliament Jussi Halla-aho of the far right Finns Party (Perussuomalaiset) who received 19.0% of the vote and finished third.

Finland’s Stubb and Haavisto head for runoff in presidential election

As neither Stubb nor Haavisto secured the 50 percent needed to win outright in the first round, the two will now go head to head in a second round on February 11. [ ... ] “Of course it’s nice to come first in the first round, but everything starts again tomorrow morning; the election starts again,” Stubb told reporters as the vote count drew to a close. The result marked the latest step in an unlikely comeback for Stubb, an ebullient and at times divisive politician, who walked away from Finnish politics in 2017 after a brief stint as prime minister ended in a parliamentary election defeat. [ ... ] Stubb has said Russia’s attack on Ukraine in 2022 drew him back into the political fray; like his rival Haavisto he has said he will take a hard line against Finland’s giant eastern neighbor. Presidents in Finland take a leading role in foreign policy and serve as the country’s commander-in-chief, meaning the looming shift from widely respected incumbent Sauli Niinistö, who has reached Finland’s limit of two six-year terms, to Stubb or Haavisto is on the radar of international leaders. [ ... ] Haavisto also has a long foreign policy track record. He is often less forceful in debates than Stubb, but is seen as a quietly effective operator. Both candidates represent mainstream political parties in Finland: Stubb as a longtime lawmaker with the center-right National Coalition Party and Haavisto with the center-left Green Party.

Stubb and Haavisto are staunchly pro-Ukraine. Finland fought a war with Stalin's Soviet Union and has few illusions about its eastern neighbor. Even Halla-aho, unlike the leaders of some other far right parties, is not a fan of Putin's Russia.

On a personal note, Haavisto would become Finland's first LGBTQ president if he wins on February 11th.

Finland’s ‘DJ’ candidate hopes to become the country’s first Green and gay president

Finland recently joined NATO. If it also elects a gay president then homophobe Vladimir Putin might get conniptions. 🤯

9 notes · View notes

scotianostra · 6 months

Text

On November 28th 1666 the King's army defeated Covenanting forces at the Battle of Rullion Green in the Pentlands.

This post connects with last Sundays one on General Tam Dalyell. Although not a story from history that you might remember from your school days, the Battle of Rullion Green near Penicuik played a huge part in the history of our country, and is seen as a decisive step towards establishing Presbyterianism as the form of governance of the Church of Scotland and the supremacy of local democracy over the divine right of Kings.

The Pentland Rising was in the context of the long-running government campaign to impose Episcopalianism upon Scotland.

The uprising began in the Ayrshire town of Dalry. The long march of the Covenanters started with the rescue of an old man in the town from soldiers tormenting him. The group gathered followers en route to Dumfries, where they captured the military commander appointed to suppress Dumfries and Galloway. However, they failed to get support in central Scotland and found the gates of Edinburgh barred.

They were retreating back to the west when overtaken by the Royalist army under General Dalyell at Rullion Green.

From a peak of perhaps 3000 men the force had diminished by half at Colinton, and then further dispersed as the group headed home towards Galloway. The rebels included experienced professional soldiers as well as ordinary folk, and were commanded by Colonel James Wallace of Auchens. They decided to hold a parade and review by Colonel Wallace at Rullion Green in the Pentland Hills.

General Tam Dalyell of the Binns was with a force in Currie, and cut through the Pentland Hills to confront the rebels and crush this uprising. The survivors were treated with cruelty; 15 were hanged, drawn and quartered, and several, including two boys of 18, were tortured first with the boot, a type of torture which inflicted great pain on the victim's feet, with boiling water. (See more below)

Insurrection and suppression continued. After the Covenanters’ final defeat at the Battle of Bothwell Bridge in 1679, prisoners were penned up in the open air in Greyfriars Kirkyard for five months on starvation rations before execution or transportation as slaves.

The Boot Torture

This type of torture, which inflicted great pain on the victim's feet, was often used, as the victim rarely, if ever, died from it. It consisted of high boots, made of spongy leather, that were placed on the victim's feet. The victim was tied near a fire by the boots. Next, boiling water was poured on the boots, which seeped through the leather boots and dissolved the flesh and bone of the victim's feet. In some cases, the torture administrators add wood inside the boot and pour oil in as well. This action expands the wood and cuts off circulation to the foot.

Since the magnitude of the torture depended on the magnitude of the crime the felon committed, a serious criminal would sometimes receive a foot press torture as well. This consisted of horizontal iron plates that, by use of a crank, would tighten around the foot to cut the flesh and break the bones of the foot. Sometimes, sharp spikes were added to the press, and a drill would cause a hole in the center of the felon's instep. This very painful torture method was popular because it forced criminals to answer questions or endure horrific pain, without causing death.

Pics are of the memorial in the Pentlands, which I am glad to see has been cleaned up having been a bit overgrown of late.

#scotland #scottish #history #edinburgh #the killing time #covenanters #battle #torture

12 notes · View notes

dipperdesperado · 1 year

Text

Social Ecology: A Solarpunk Practice

One of the most appealing ways I’ve found to think about solarpunk ideology is by using social ecology as a practical framework. Social ecology is a philosophy created by Murray Bookchin that holistically understands our ecological crisis. It declares that humans are inseparable from the environment, instead of our prevailing western assumption of being “above” or “removed” from it. Social ecology is a different mode of thinking than our dualistic, hierarchical, mechanical, and authoritarian social system.

The world is a complex place, and one of its most complex relationships is between humans and the natural environment. There needs to be a balance between the two since humans have an unparalleled capacity to influence and edit the environment. Harmony between our social systems and our environments is a necessary part of our liberatory practice. This is not achievable in the current societal mode of operation. Not only is our economic system problematic since it commodifies the environment, but it further exemplifies our domination of each other. After all, if humans can be exploited, then of course it'd be acceptable to exploit “lesser” living and/or natural bodies.

This complexity of the world is simplified as a necessity in hierarchical and authoritarian societies. Since information flow is vertical instead of decentralized and distributed, different levels of the pyramid have different levels of information. Hence, how the top of the pyramid can do things like say that climate change is not real in press releases while knowing the truth all along. By taking a radical approach to understanding our environmental issues and how they stem from our social structures, we can look at our ecology hurdles through a liberatory lens.

So, that’s great. Social ecology says, “Hey, the reason why the environment is dying is due to our domination-centered society.” Now what? What do we do? Well, thankfully social ecology has some programs to actually address the problems!

One layer of this is education. Like I said before, simple systems like authoritarian and hierarchical ones by their very design gate information off. Alternatively, by having an open flow of information that is accessible and trustworthy, people will be able to sow the seeds of discontent with the status quo and understand how it’s flawed. Most importantly, they’ll know that there is an alternative. This might be referred to as a "popular education initiative".

This is enhanced by direct democracy. The word democracy has taken on a different meaning in our current day and age, but direct democracy harkens back to its actual meaning. It just means that the people to who the decisions pertain make the decisions themselves. Those who were governed start to govern themselves. Instead of a representative that you have to cross your fingers and hope acts in your best interest, you and your community make the choices. The one-two punch of education and direct democracy will allow people to regain their agency in their lives and live how they desire.

To complement these values are the ideas of equity and sustainable development. While some of that is built into the program through the more direct ownership people have over their communities and themselves, having specific mentions of these is important. It should go without saying, but to be crystal clear, social ecology is useless if it doesn’t provide space for unity in diversity. People’s identities are so important to who they are and their experiences and only serve to strengthen the project. No matter their race, gender, class, ability, or another factor, everyone has value and would be deserving of love from the community. The confluence of ideas and experiences will lead to the most sustainable and ecologically sound development possible. Ideas and insights can be gained by the solidaric relationships formed between individuals and sister communities, locally and “internationally”. Listening to people who have known how to live with the environment harmoniously while upholding and even improving the quality of life is something that social ecology could provide.

Social ecology is an important vector in our social movements; the connected nature of all of our struggles means we have to create programs that address them all. By understanding that we are part of nature, along with the understanding that liberation has to be available for all, we can create robust socially revolutionary projects that will actually make life better for people. Not only that, but the people themselves will be doing the work themselves. We don’t need heroes. We just need each other.

#solarpunk #ecology #sustainable #ecofriendly #writers of tumblr #creative #politics #social ecology #socioeconomic #sociopolitical #environment #sustainability

111 notes · View notes