will William Andrew Solace be in the time travel AU 🥺🥺🥺🥺

short answer: yes

longer answer: he's gonna be a source of tension since he's an external force that pushes nico to rely on others/be happy/not sacrifice himself (or at least an external stimulus that sparks internal conflict) which will oppose nico's fundamental internal belief that he lives to correct his past transgressions and his own happiness/health cannot be given the chance to take priority and therefore should not take any priority

nico's gonna be like "ough crap its this guy im gonna have to watch his family die. damn i dont want him to suffer the same fate i did i gotta save his family. im gonna martyr myself but its gonna be okay cause i'll be preventing anguish in the progress" and will's gonna be like "wow that guy is weird and concerning. hope he doesn't martyr himself and waste his potential as a member of society and lose the opportunity to live life as a discrete individual" which is basically the same as in the canon except nico just got weirder and more concerning faster

also this isnt a purely time travel au cause its gonna be same physical and mental age nico just given insight into a potential future so theres still negligible age gap between nico and will

leave c!phil out of bullshit 2k21 -- a not so tiny post by a new enthusiast

As someone who finds both common fanon and actual canon to be quite fun, I really think the general DSMP fandom would benefit greatly from a few things in general: the greatest, in my opinion, is learning to accept that popular fanon won’t usually be the canon you receive. Another, of course, is that POVs are golden, but with these two things being flimsy in being accepted, they are the major flaws that cause about 90% of the absolute messy takes that gain traction, oftentimes poisoning a canon character's ability to exist in the story.

My biggest beef regarding this comes from how y’all treat c!Phil, so here I am, being annoying on main side! 

TL;DR... Just because someone acted like like a guidance to others, doesn’t always mean that they'll want to be the father figure role for everyone that breathes. Similarly, pinning down a character on a single trope is wack, so don't be surprised if they grow away from it.

Baby’s first little dsmp rambling below!

(Warning: it's long as hell)

The Dream SMP plotline is not written out like most popular media. With so many moving parts in the form of daily streams and the wonderful tool of live improvisation, it makes perfect sense that such a giant cast would not always be on the same page. Adding onto that, it also makes more sense that a vast majority of the cast will be placed into supporting roles, as the story needs to have characters that serve as narrative anchors and others that function as the links in a chain, all weathering the storm that is the plot.

Screentime, of course, plays a major factor into canon exposure -- in terms of the Dream SMP, POV matters equally, if not more, too. 

It’s a pretty neat way of showing things, but in the end, the fanbase has a lovely (read: godawful /lh) way of analysing characters, particularly when it relates to how they interact with others from their fave character’s POV. The tendency to analyse things from a single character's POV is fine, but not when attempting to critique the greater whole of a conflict. Both sides, no matter how wrong they may seem to be, matter.

Adding onto the fact that everything is live, there are things that will spiral out of control, casual words being skewed and thus having the potential of a single line seemingly contradicting the entire ‘story’ that the fanbase has made. If it directly affects a fave's POV in particular, one is more likely to take offense, as bias immediately bars one from trying to see the other person's side of things.

POV is important. 

Which brings me to c!Phil, and how critics tend to ignore his perspective to prop up another character, or justify the tearing down of another.

Improvisation is both a blessing and a curse; the fanbase, however, loves to test out the latter. With it, the fanbase starts crafting tales to justify it...And so begins the mess that is c!Phil discourse.

Say it with me, folks: c!Phil is not supposed to be your fave’s fluffy father figure... unless you’re c!Wilbur!!!

😃☝🏾Dadza is good...👉🏾😎👉🏾 But fandom wants the excessive, idealized version.

-- birb 2k21

Family dynamics are generally loved for their potential for comfort, particularly those of a found family nature. Fandom in general tends to lean into them wholeheartedly, with most major bases having at least one prominent group present; SBI, of course, is no different. From fanart to popular fanfiction, it's arguably the biggest group dynamic alongside the Dream Team, and for that, a precedence was set. 

c!Phil, if he ever joined, would fix everything! All of the ‘kids’ would turn to their new mentor and everything would turn out fine! This all knowing, morally just character will chuckle at their antics and wacky hijinks will follow! Fun times, right? /s

The hope for it, however, has long since been shattered, and frankly, good for him!

To go a little ooc, cc!Phil has stated multiple times that, while he was friendly with a lot of the cast as c!Phil, his only paternal link (at least biologically) lies with c!Wilbur. Simple, right? It should be -- there are multiple clips of him saying this -- but fans choose to ignore it in their critiques, generally citing favouritism or downright neglect for the character’s flaws. From 'favoring' Techno (who, in canon, holds the highest link in friendship outside of c!Wilbur's familal link) to 'neglecting' to visit Tommy (who he barely knew, and also assumed, like many others, that he was fine), these critiques weigh heavily on the scale that judges Phil’s so called father figure trope. 

The story, however, has only leaned into (and persisted with) that for c!Wilbur alone, and adding onto it, there is an established acknowledgement from both ccs. That confirmation should hold the most weight, especially since both Phil and Wilbur seem alright with it. Even so, that familial has yet to be explored much for both characters, particularly regarding c!Phil, who has his debut (at least narratively) in a scene that feels opposite to the classic fatherly role.

c!Wilbur denounced accepting that helping hand to fall entirely into his explosive end, setting a precedence unlike most fatherly types arriving to save their kid. Usually, fandom narrative would love a close save, father and son uniting to heal and build up what was broken, but c!Phil’s entrance inks his story in failure. Angsty, right? We love angst!

And yet, as the story ticks on, the bad takes pile up.

Why? Well, I’l used to think that it is a “funny haha” type thing; a way to grieve for a character that was lost, as Alivebur was genuinely a great character. However, with the plot slowly progressing c!Phil’s story to evolve away from the ‘mentor the kids’ trope , I should have seen a storm on the horizon.

It should have been seen from the moment he stabbed c!Wilbur in the chest, but optimism is one hell of a smokescreen.

Built up fanon, however, is probably the greatest fog to ever exist.

There are lines before the button room confrontation that paint a picture of Wilbur seeking out the approval of his father (who seemed distant, at least from his POV), as well as hints to the SBI dynamic, but with the countless dismissals/retcons from CCs involved, as well as little to no consistent canon acknowledgement of this team dad role...Why base an entire hate piece of c!Phil just because popular fanon isn’t real? 

Why, for the sake of building up a well rounded character, would one place the title of a communal parental figure on a grieving father who has little attachment to the community involved, especially when most of them are too busy delving into their own issues?

Furthermore, why go for Mr. Philza Minecraft: Angel of Death, CEO of KEKW, Functioning Immortal????

It’s madness, luv, and frankly, antis cannot let c!Phil process any of his grief (or flesh out his character) without his contributions being fatherly. His role has been idealized to the point where he is not a character on his own, but an accessory to the happiness of other characters. That is not how the world works, and in a conflict riddled server like the dsmp, arguing that it should be like that is counterproductive.

c!Phil had his own shit to deal with, and as he slowly uncovers how fucked up the server actually was, he merely adapts to it. He learns to play the game by his own rules, and people become mad that he’s succeeding in his own way. It's as simple as that, particularly when referencing his initial exposure to the world he now inhabits.

c!Phil is a man who used to hear of his son’s success from the letters he received, words spinning tales of won revolutions and newfound friendships. To a father, those letters are more than enough to assume that all is well, and with it, he had no reason to check on his son, who was already old enough to be carving his path alone. For him to arrive and see just how broken his son actually was, and then, in front of faces he only vaguely knows, kill said son... There's a lot to take in.

He shouldn't have had to care about L'Manberg in those moments, not when he had his son in his arms, dead by his own goddamn weapon; his son who, to his knowledge, was doing pretty well up until he caught wind of his plot. Yet, he does.

He gives them the benefIt of the doubt, even ignoring the one person he has shown to have deep history with (c!Techno) to assist the nation in defeating the withers and rebuilding what was lost.

c!Phil stays in a nation that has seemingly brought his son right into his demise, holding in that grief to help people who he assumes have the chance to rebuild, to reform. For a moment, he trusts that the system can turn into something positive, offering to hunker down and do what he can to help. That’s the start of a fatherly type role for most -- with many expectations rising from fans to ‘fix’ all these traumatized characters.

In another plot, perhaps critics could have gotten the tropes they want from c!Phil, but to blame the character for reacting negatively to a world he barely knew, right after seeing it ruin his son and target a friend...Maybe the need for a "father figure" only stems from making their faves happy.

Characters that don't directly support your fave are not inherently awful characters. Critique based on that alone is...flimsy, really, but honestly, you can use to to show how they process things.

Which brings me to the events leading up to Doomsday, and with it, the steady rise of c!Phil’s defining traits.

Say it with me, folks: c!Phil is one of the most loyal members on the server, but loyalty doesn’t mean he's blindly following along!

😃☝🏾Butcher Army take this L👉🏾😎👉🏾 Found it in the L’Mancrater

-- birb 2k21

The butcher army arc, while nestled among the mainline story of Tommy’s exile (which I will not even mention, because those dadza takes about visiting may deserve a post on their own), allows for c!Phil to see into the minds of those who had once been with (or even against) his son’s plans. Sure, he may be witnessing them after the eve of their newfound traumas, but this is an important observation to make when comparing how easy it was to denounce his affiliation to them and side with c!Technoblade.

Unlike the new Administration, slowly dipping deeper and deeper into their own form of power hunger, c!Technoblade’s base desires had never wavered. His trust in others, however, had, still nursing the sting of a betrayal, but with no conflict in sight. He is reforming, finding comfort in his solitude, and still maintaining contact with those he trusts.

Techno's Compass, for one, is a major example of their mutual trust. Despite being on opposing territories, they are civil enough to trust each other, just like old friends.

Thus, when you take two old friends who are more than used to conflict -- one grieving and one betrayed, but both seeking neutrality -- it shouldn’t have surprised the antis that c!Phil would place c!Techno’s whereabouts (and life, mind you) over some government he barely knew. 

And yet, above all else, c!Phil starts off as a neutral party for everyone's sake, forgoing potential conquest for peace.

To c!Phil and c!Techno, it’s like fighting back to back, knowing that one can always trust the other to fend off those just waiting to take advantage of your blindspot, while also quelling the need to imagine your partner turning around and doing the same. That sort of friendship is forged through many, many hardships.

They betray what little trust he had built in them. That’s on them.

c!Phil is aware how untrusting c!Techno is, and while c!Techno feels safe enough to give his all for c!Phil, he never exploits it to get ahead, which is something L'Manbergians felt okay with doing.

They take a book out of the playbook used on c!Techno, for c!Techno.

They went after yet another person who was close to him, using their power and influence to hold an execution under the guise of seeking justice. If c!Wilbur, at least pre-corruption arc, sent letters to his father, one would at least expect some of his old ideals of freedom and fairness to leak through into his friends, right? To see those c!Phil assumed would hold similar ideals immediately skew towards a darker, brutal side, particularly in threatening others to get what they wanted...Well, shit hit the fan.

c!Phil does not have that strong relationship with any former L’Manbergians, and despite there being potential for such, it didn't work out that way; instead, however, those characters manage to mistake his kindness for weakness. They take his preferred neutrality as a way to exploit him, to gain in such a way that he lost agency...

No more Mister Nice Dadza, and honestly, he’s justified in that notion.

They’ve lost his trust, time too short to have gained that strong link like c!Techno’s or c!Wilbur’s, and with it, came the inevitable association with Doomsday.

c!Phil knew c!Techno’s intentions from the beginning -- which had only wavered into dormancy because he had grown tired of fighting, understanding that the cycle he wishes to break is not worth his efforts -- so the agreement in participating is effortless. 

c!Dream was there too, of course, but in their mutual quest for eradication, it’s made canon that c!Techno and c!Phil hid away most of their arsenal, despite seeming overprepared. They have no loyalty to c!Dream; they’re smart enough to play along, however. He was a means to an end.

There’s no lies present in their relationship; c!Phil needed someone who didn’t try and pull wool over his eyes, and c!Techno let him see.

c!Techno needed someone who wouldn't stab him in the back, and c!Phil stayed true as his hidden sword.

Which is why, as the two joined forces, ideals aligning and power synergized, they didn’t think twice about nuking the nation to bedrock. Mutually agreeing that the system needs to die, they did what they could, and they succeeded.

How cool of them, tbh LMAO.

New L’Manberg tugged too hard at the sleeping tiger’s tail; they shouldn’t have expected it to roll over.

Their openness to each other was known.

There was no need for underhanded plays, for hidden betrayals, for undisclosed words.

Their loyalties were strong.

They were in sync.

In conclusion (maybe, maybe not...this shit is long holy heck)

😃☝🏾 I may hate this analysis in 30 minutes👉🏾😎👉🏾 Or I may make a part 2. Fuck it!

-- birb 2k21

And that’s what makes c!Phil an interesting character: He tends to be critiqued in reference to chatacters who have very well wronged him, have no affiliation to him or get associated to him through popular fanon. There's a lot to cover that I haven't (from Ghostbur to the whole Tommy 'dilemna') but overall I'm digging what I have now and if I ever get more energy, I'll continue!

c!Phil enthusiasts, I hope I did you proud LMAO. It's my first forray into this side of tumblr 👉🏾👈🏾 I'm a lurker.

c!Phil antis, you can either act respectful or go argue with a wall. I got experience dealing with antis on Tumblr; I am immune to BS.

Anyway, I hope you all enjoyed. Signing off!

- BIRB.

Re: cultural appropriation

Some things I’ve picked up over the years. Can’t say I really have a comprehensive understanding on this.

Caveat: white person blind spots

Also it’s first thing in the morning and my words might not be working yet.

It’s about power. Sure, cultural exchange and influence is normal and universal, but “everybody is influenced by everyone else!” isn’t the same as your boss taking credit for your work.

So, one aspect is who gets the credit

Another aspect, related, is who gets the money.

Another is…when things cross cultures it’s often like a game of telephone. Which isn’t a huge deal if the original thing is something light or funny that nobody really minds getting distorted. But if it’s something that people do mind, religious stuff for instance, that’s more of a problem.

There’s an ownership/control aspect, where people who feel like everything else they had got stolen can get more possessive about what’s left. If that makes sense.

Basically this is one of those things where you can’t sit in a room and figure out first principles and assume they apply to every potential instance of appropriation the same way. Different cultures have different attitudes about appropriation and logic is inferior in this case to actually listening to people. (It seems like white people figuring out appropriation often want one universally applied standard, and that’s just not possible.)

Sometimes appropriation is a hell no. (Some people say “misappropriation” to distinguish between appropriation that’s just kind of funny or otherwise not really a problem and appropriation that’s bad. In practice I’ve found people making a distinction between cultural exchange and cultural appropriation are always dismissing bad-appropriation as a concept.) Native American sweat lodge ceremonies for instance. Another example that’s been talked about a lot in recent years is racist Halloween costumes.

There’s other things where it’s more subtle. My understanding is no one actually has a problem with Westerners doing yoga, but there is some general exasperation with yoga done just as exercise, without the spiritual context. Generally people don’t really object to their cuisine getting around either, but the “who gets the credit and who gets the money” issue is still active. So people will still talk about cultural appropriation in a food context even though they don’t mean “don’t eat food from other cultures.”

I have not been able to get a definitive answer about chakras, beyond “the rainbow colors thing is kind of an add-on.” There may be an answer but I don’t know what it is.

Sometimes (mostly white) people apply the concept of appropriation where it’s not relevant in a way that’s harmful. For instance, some people got the idea that the Black Panther movie was “for black people” and therefor white people shouldn’t watch it. This is backwards and counterproductive. (And possibly a way to get away with “I don’t want to watch it because watching a movie with that many black characters makes me uncomfortable” while sounding progressive.)

This has two applications: firstly, that if you want to do something about appropriation and it’s not your culture, you have to let people from that culture take the lead, or risk doing more harm than good. Secondly, that people who aren’t from a culture who say “this is appropriation” might be wrong and you don’t automatically have to listen to them (although what usually happens is people feel like they either have to do what those people say or else reject the validity of entire concept of cultural appropriation; I would like to see more of “That doesn’t sound right to me, but I’m going to look into that because I do take cultural appropriation seriously.”

I wanna give you a further reading link list, but honestly my sources here have been so disparate I don’t know what to say.

I would recommend seeing recognizing cultural appropriation as one facet of anti racism work and not making it the main focus. It gets blown out of proportion on social media where people are looking for someone to be angry at, but it’s not what’s doing most of the harm racism wise. (Gonna repeat white person blind spots caveat, I could be wrong (and definitely don’t use my stance as a gotcha when arguing with someone else), but I’m pretty sure about this one.)

One aspect of that is focus on cultural appropriation almost always focused on individuals and very small groups, and takes attention away from seeing racism as a collective problem requiring collective solutions. For instance, the problem of police officers killing black people has nothing to do appropriation, and everything to do with systemic racism (and systems of power that impede accountability.)

For paganism and witchcraft specifically: we’ve had appropriated stuff being circulated around for decades and it’ll take a while to figure out where we’re going from here. In the meantime, apparently the white sage thing is a big deal; being sensitive to which traditions are open to you and which are closed to you is a good idea (sometimes you might see a specific person use an element of a tradition they’ve been initiated into that you haven’t been, be chill); be aware that “spirit animal” is a serious business thing and not a synonym for “guide that takes a shape of an animal”; keep in mind that not all Witchcraft is Wicca or Wiccanate so be cautious about general “this is how witchcraft is done” statements.

In general just be a person interacting with other people, you know? Sometimes people present as super angry because they’re assholes, but other times it’s because you said something really out of line, and if you can’t tell which it is try to not assume it’s the first.

But if you do get dogpiled on and later realize they had a point, it doesn’t mean you’re utter trash. Things are less about you than you think they are. Sometimes the kindest thing you can do is respond as though you got the nice patient “here’s what’s wrong with that” even though you actually got the yelling version. (Respond as in how you live your life. If someone’s yelling at you or making personal attacks, I would recommend disengaging as soon as possible. There’s…kind of this weird fetish in social justice circles for perfect instant apologies. If you can do that and you think it’s right, fine, but disengaging and not interacting is also fine, especially if you don’t even know anyone who’s being angry at you. If you do know someone and want to mend fences, chances are they’ll understand if you need time to cool down/for them to cool down.)

I found an article once on this white guy who went to India and got attacked by a mob because he had a tattoo of a Hindu goddess on his lower leg. The problem wasn’t the tattoo, but the location, which was a big no. This is an example of the closed tradition/open tradition model being not entirely sufficient; often what people get mad about isn’t whether outsiders are interacting with their tradition, it’s about whether they’re doing it respectfully. (Christian churches tend to have rules about who can take communion and what you should wear; other religions have rules that are important to them but are open to outsiders who respect the rules; others have had too many outsiders showing up and talking through the service so they’re closed, and the one thing all these groups have in common is the people in the groups get to decide what their rules are. (And sometimes people in the group disagree on what the rules should be and that’s normal…but you wouldn’t show up to a church service in a bathing suit snd go “well, this one person said it was ok, I guess the rest of you just have to deal with it”, I got no social skills and hate conformity (and dress codes) and even I can get my head around that.))

Anyways, at its basic level the opposite of cultural appropriation is respect and treating people like people and … basically the golden rule applied to cultures or religions rather than to individuals, you know? Believing that other cultures are on the same level as Western culture and deserve to have their own standards respected, believing that other religions are fundamentally as legitimate as Christianity and deserve to get their rules respected — rules about who is a member of that religion, rules about how outsiders should behave when interacting (including rules that say no interaction at all.)

And about power and credit and money, and acknowledging that while everyone’s on an equal plane in terms of deserving respect, not everyone is on an equal plane in terms of ability to fuck the others’ lives up.

It is about being a guest, and being respectful as a guest, and recognizing when other people like you (or even you yourself) have been terrible guests so you’re not getting the benefit of the doubt, and recognizing when the power dynamics are all wonky so that there’s an inequality around who can get away with what.

For two decades, most of the LGBT movement’s highest-profile victories have come at the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2003 the justices issued a ruling legalizing gay sex that dissenting conservative Justice Antonin Scalia warned would set the stage for nationwide legalized gay marriage. Within 12 years, his prediction was realized. The court made marriage equality the law of the land—reflecting, and also accelerating, a sea change in straight Americans’ views and treatment of their LGBTQ family members and neighbors.

But next year the high court could deal LGBTQ people a painful blow: wiping out lower-court rulings that shield them from getting fired for who they are.

In a trio of cases this coming term—involving a child welfare worker, a skydiving instructor, and a funeral director—the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether it’s legal for bosses to discriminate against LGBT employees. Contrary to what many Americans now assume, no federal law explicitly prohibits firing workers simply for being gay or transgender. Nor do the laws of most states—including some populous ones such as Texas and Ohio. (Only 21 states and Washington, D.C., have laws that explicitly prohibit private companies from firing workers for being gay or trans; another one restricts anti-gay firing but not anti-trans dismissals.)

On the Basis of Orientation or Identity

*Some states with laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of orientation or gender identity are also in a federal circuit with a ruling that says the federal sex discrimination ban effectively prohibits discrimination based on orientation or gender identity.

Data: Movement Advancement Project

Jimmie Beall learned that the hard way in 2003, when she was abruptly terminated from her position as a public school teacher in London, Ohio, a couple weeks after receiving a glowing evaluation. Beall, a lesbian who taught government to high schoolers, says she learned from local parents about rumors she was fired for being gay and was shocked to learn there was no law specifically prohibiting that. An email later surfaced from the superintendent to the school board alluding to Beall’s sexual orientation while discussing not bringing her back for another school year. “I thought, They can’t do that, because that would be illegal—there’s protection against discrimination,” says Beall. “It never occurred to me that there wasn’t.”

Despite the lack of explicit protection for LGBT workers, Beall filed a lawsuit arguing that because she was a public employee, firing her for her sexual orientation violated the Constitution. In 2006, after a new superintendent took over and a judge ruled Beall’s case could proceed, the school district agreed to settle the case and establish a nondiscrimination policy. But Beall says she assumed that before too long the state of Ohio or the federal government would prohibit anti-gay discrimination across the board. “I never imagined that, this many years later, we still would not have the same protections that everybody else already has.”

In recent years, some courts have ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s ban on sex discrimination also implicitly prohibits bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. “When a male employee is fired because he has a husband, and he would not be fired if he were a woman who had a husband, then he was fired because of his sex,” says Jennifer Pizer, law and policy director for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a nonprofit that pursues LGBTQ civil rights cases. “When a trans woman was acceptable at work presenting as a man, but was fired when she presented her true gender, which is female, she was fired for being the wrong kind of woman.”

Citing past precedent that discrimination for not conforming to sex stereotypes is a form of illegal sex discrimination, several federal circuit courts have embraced such arguments, creating a patchwork of protections covering their jurisdictions. Next year the justices could either extend those protections nationwide or wipe them out. So in states that haven’t passed laws prohibiting anti-LGBT bias but have been covered by federal appeals court precedents restricting it—including Florida, Georgia, and Indiana—a Supreme Court ruling could give companies that don’t want LGBT people in the workplace a green light to fire them. “There won’t be a question mark anymore,” says Beall. “And because of that, I could see a whole lot more people discriminating.”

President Trump’s appointment of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, which made the Supreme Court more conservative than it’s been in a generation, could turn the tide. “My instincts suggest that this is an uphill battle,” says Anthony Michael Kreis, a visiting professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law who’s helped draft pro-LGBT legislation. The prospect of a loss at the Supreme Court raises the stakes for action in Congress, where Democratic allies have tried unsuccessfully for decades to pass a law that would explicitly ban anti-LGBT bias. “I don’t have a lot of confidence that the court will protect LGBTQ Americans from discrimination,” says Rhode Island Democratic Representative David Cicilline.

On May 17 the House finally passed the Equality Act, a sweeping bill Cicilline sponsored that would beef up the Civil Rights Act by prohibiting sexual orientation and gender identity bias in employment, as well as in education, credit, federal programs, housing, jury service, and public accommodations such as hotels and restaurants—even if the Supreme Court rules that the original law didn’t do any of those things. The bill’s supporters include more than 200 large employers such as Amazon.com, Apple, Coca-Cola, and Marriott. Facebook Inc. Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg said in an online post that the legislation “is true to what we’ve always valued at Facebook for our employees and the people who use our products around the world. No one should face discrimination because of who they are—and we hope Congress passes this legislation.”

After proposing narrower bills and fighting among themselves on questions such as whether to pursue the rights of gay employees separately from those of trans workers, liberal lawmakers and activists unified in 2015 behind the more-ambitious Equality Act, which they say better highlights and addresses the full spectrum of discrimination LGBT people still face. In a survey this year by the Public Religion Research Institute, 69% of Americans—including majorities in all 50 states—expressed support for legislation protecting LGBT people in hiring, public accommodations, and housing.

But in Congress, like the Supreme Court, the fate of anti-discrimination protections now rests with conservatives. Republicans command a 53-47 majority in the Senate, and even if Democrats were to take back that chamber and the presidency, advancing the Equality Act would require either abolishing the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster rule or mustering enough GOP support to reach the 60 votes. The same day the Democratic-controlled House passed the Equality Act, Mike Lee, a Republican senator from Utah and a Judiciary Committee member, called it “counterproductive” legislation at a time when “Americans are becoming more tolerant every day” anyway. “It unnecessarily pits communities against each other and divides our nation when patience and understanding are so sorely needed,” he tweeted.

Conservative groups including the Heritage Foundation, the nonprofit that Trump said helped develop his roster of potential Supreme Court picks, are hoping LGBT activists get rebuffed by both the judiciary and the legislature. For the justices to rule that the Civil Rights Act already covers sexual orientation and gender identity “would be usurping the power of Congress,” says Emilie Kao, who directs Heritage’s Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society. If Congress did pass the Equality Act, she says, it could infringe on management prerogatives such as the ability to dictate what’s worn by an employee, including those who have “a belief that they are of the opposite sex.”

Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley, who sponsored the Equality Act in the Senate and is working to secure GOP support, says he hopes the Supreme Court’s coming LGBT cases will help draw national attention to the bill: “The issue of having full opportunity in our society, of having full freedom, shouldn’t depend on the whims of a conservative court.”

How do nervous cats learn to trust?

Do you have an anxious cat and want it to become more trusting? 

Well, first things first: You are not alone the issue you are facing is not unusual!

Many cats are shy or nervous and react anxiously in certain situations. 

The typical signs of signs of stress in cats are:

Flight shock-induced paralysis cowering position tail flat alongside or underneath the body tail bushy and a tad bent ruffled fur, standing on end hissing growling wide opened eyes widened pupils flat, bent ears trembling rapid breathing vomiting release of urine or faeces

Within a natural environment, anxiety has a vital function: Fear induces flight, threat induces aggression, and both serve survival.

Whilst bold or daredevil cats do not enjoy a high life expectancy, careful and alert behaviour acts as a life insurance for others. 

It’s better to pull back once in a while and to always stay alert to potential danger waiting around the next corner. Fear as such is useful and serves the survival of the species. 

However, if fear becomes a habit, we are no longer dealing with self-protection.

In those cases, harmless incidents or encounters can become triggers, igniting violent reactions or attacks which make life harder for both cat and human. This can even lead to complete withdrawal, during which the cat may reject its food and stop interacting with fellow cats. 

Many cat carers find themselves devastated and at a loss.

Why is my cat anxious?

Fear has a lot of facets.

On a wide scale, ranging from insecurity to panic, anything can apply.

These feelings have one thing in common, though they are perceived as negative.

Cats who have been self-confident in the past, can become fearful as a result of certain events. For us it often seems as if nothing big has happened – for a kitten however, it may be the end of the world! To be able to help your cat, you need to analyse the cause: 

What could have induced the anxiety?

Often, it is not easy to recognise what the trigger is, or was. Maybe your cat has lived through a bad experience and is afraid that it might reoccur.

Fear induced by negative experiences You know the phrase once bitten, twice shy – if you’ve touched a hot stove you won’t do it again! 

The same goes for your cat!

Your cat wants to avoid the recurrence of bad situations. 

Fear is a biological principle for self-preservation, which tells the cat:

Fear is a biological principle for self-preservation, which tells the cat: “Avoid danger and pain – it could be your very last experience! You do not want this, because you are here to procreate and maintain the species.”

And because cats – unlike humans – trust their instincts, they are clever and fearful. 

Negative experience with humans Cats who have endured bad experiences can be very suspicious: This concerns strays as well as house cats who may have experienced aggression at home.

Many a cat holder never wonders what a species-appropriate “handling” of their cat should look like – malicious intent is rare, many simply don’t know better.   

Either way – what some cats endure is a very sad chapter and sometimes exceeds our worst imaginations. It is a miracle that cats can actually learn to trust humans again by experiencing a lot of love and patience.

Negative experiences with vets    “Oh if I could hermetically shut off all orifices...” many a cat might think during a visit at the vets. 

“First they cram me into a tiny basket inside of which I cannot even turn around; then they rudely drag me out again and my body is examined all over in a bright lit room. And all this in front of complete strangers! And then there is this horrible smell! A smell of fear and pain – here they torture you – maybe it will end up really painful? 

Or do I have to stay here again? In such a cold dungeon with just food and water. The last time it was horrifying! – Just wake me when it’s over!”

No matter how you do it – an appointment at the vets is always a more or less gruesome experience

Negative experiences with transport boxes

“Sooner a camel would pass through a needle”...If your cat has any bad memories concerning a transport box, it will become a real challenge for you to get it anywhere near the intimidating thing again!

In itself, a box usually doesn’t present a problem: Cats love caves! Cartons of any kind will be happily adopted by your cat; just unpacked the new food processor? Whoosh – the packaging is now occupied.

And it may well be narrow – a cat squeezes through any gap – and if it has to be, into a shoe box!

However, a transport box is a reminder of unpleasant experiences:

Getting mobile has effects on a cat which it rarely enjoys. Agitation, stress, the unknown – all experiences which your cat would like to avoid.

By the way, your cat will smell what’s up even before you get the box out – and suddenly will be nowhere to be found.

Negative experiences during a car journey One cat doesn’t mind it, another hates it. Little children whine on longer drives: “Are we there already?” – “I am thirsty!” and so on…

So does your cat! – But in its own way:

Protest songs are intoned, all of which are piercingly loud and full of resentment. Too long, too hot, too little control – just imagine yourself in your cat’s situation.

Also, a cat does not know how long the trip will take or where you are heading. There is restricted view from inside a box. 

Maybe you have to slam on the breaks and your cat will be thrown about. Or it will get a queasy feeling during a car drive: Some cats can’t deal with the rocking movement and that means a mishap is likely to occur...

Tip: Only drive your cat around when there is no other option. Feed it for the last time around 6 hours before start, and better not in between!

Fear of the unknown  Your cat is a creature of habit – literally! It does not appreciate change.  

Permanently changing circumstances equal stress for your cat. This is logical, as cats always check their territory for dangerous signs and can only relax when everything is well and under control – otherwise high alert is the given state. 

For you, new furniture or the new blender might be pleasant additions – for your cat however, those items are “intruders” into their safe habitat which must undergo a thorough examination.

Such behaviour may sound paranoid, but for a cat it is normal and completely justified.

Moving anxiety New home, new happiness? Not for cats really. Especially if they have trouble finding their way around in the new place: “Where is my beloved scratching post? The new one does not smell like me and it is sitting in the wrong spot, not where I would like it to be. 

And anyhow – everything here is so different. Nothing is the same as before!

And my human is only busy with packing and unpacking boxes! When I turn up, I am being pushed aside, as if I were one of the boxes!”

All of the latter can get on your cat’s nerves, a lot. 

Fear induced by strangers and other animals For cats, fear is a survival instinct. A bold, fearless cat – even though cats are known to be curious – will be easy prey for predators or assault.  

Consequently, it is better to flee first then check the situation from a safe spot. 

Your cat may live with you in the safe surroundings of your home but even a domestic cat is still a wild animal, with basic instincts.

Suspicion towards unfamiliar humans and animals – even on velvet paws – is completely justified. 

From a “domestic” cat however, the exact opposite is expected: It is supposed to be friendly, cuddly, and affectionate right from the start. 

Fear induced by unfamiliar sounds Cats are excellent hunters. Their senses are highly refined. If this wasn’t the case, they would not be successful in their search of prey and simply starve. 

Just imagine having an amplifier inside your ear which makes everything more audible and louder. Loud and unfamiliar sounds would definitely scare you as well. 

Unfamiliar sounds are especially hard to classify: And there it is again - the fear of the unknown. What could this strange sound mean? A gigantic monster, ready to leap, or just a harmless butterfly?

If you, like your cat, could hear a pin drop, you would be anxious about such a sound, wouldn’t you?

Habituation – Phase 1     

You have a new cat and want it to settle in quickly? It is behaving anxiously and you would like it to trust you more? It is hiding as soon as you are approaching?

Or even running away from you? – Do not take this behaviour personally and first and foremost, leave them alone!

 Move slowly while you are approaching your cat.

Allow your cat ample time to get used to you

Never try to trap or force them – this will be counterproductive: Your cat may become aggressive, because it feels threatened.

Create a stress-free environment To cats, change is never a good thing. They love rituals, their habitual places, and cosy cat naps. All of this, however, is only granted if the procedures around them are known and remain the same. 

To increase your cat’s feel of ease, you can create little havens of peace – these may be elevated or cave-like spots where it feels safe, especially if “the outside world” does not seem entirely trustworthy yet. 

You cannot keep away everyday life entirely but you can avoid loud noises or stressful situations – this will help a shy cat immensely! Leave the rooms and allow your cat to explore the new territory: That way it will be easier to check the terrain, make it its own and feel safe. 

Only when it is absolutely clear that there is no imminent danger, your cat will begin to trust and allow (more) proximity.

Arrange for sufficient free space and hiding spots 

Provide possibilities for withdrawal so that your cat can leave a situation which seems “too tight”.

Anxiety normally produces a flight reaction – a safe hiding place will therefore relax the situation. This is your cat’s retreat waiting for it when it feels threatened and allowing it to feel at ease. 

These are also the places for a healthy snooze or a cat nap. An exclusive hiding space. Here your cat can feel at ease and relax completely. 

Cats love elevated hiding spots. However, anything resembling a cave will also be appreciated. If there is room under the bed or a niche between two cupboards, these might become favourite spaces as well.

Your cat will pick its own favourite spots though, just give them plenty of options by leaving the hiding spaces clear of clutter. 

Allow for peace and quiet Humans often think it helps to look after someone permanently – to a shy cat this can mean hell. The more you start coddling your animal, the more it might run off.

Tracking your cat down or playing with it continuously will not help the case. 

Cats do not understand these therapeutic approaches and will become even more invisible.

The best option is to pursue your own daily tasks: Proceed as always, but take care to avoid the loud noises – this phase should be free of vacuum cleaners and other loud household appliances – and don’t worry, this will only last until your cat feels more at ease in the new surroundings. 

Give it time Baloo from The Jungle Book always knew that the “bare necessities” include calm and ease! Give your cat all the time it needs. This can be entirely different for each cat – one may overcome it’s reserve more quickly than another.

You should create a peaceful environment for your cat throughout this phase.

Avoid – as much as possible – stress and noise.

Give your cat time and space – each positive experience will strengthen it and boost self-confidence:  “Aha! Actually, nothing bad happens when I leave my hideout!”

And so the first step has been made.The more positive experiences your cat enjoys, the more self-confident and trustful it will become. Fear can first turn into reluctance, then into confidence and ultimately into trust.

Habituation – Phase 2 

The first step has been made: Your cat is not hiding any more but has summoned up all it’s courage and actively entered the new territory? 

If so, do not make the mistake to follow it, as in: “Ah, here you are finally! You were looking for me, were you?”“ 

This could mean a complete setback! Your cat will very likely choose the option of flight again and stay in its hideout even longer than before, making things worse for both of you. 

At this point, analyse the body language. You are already aware what your cat looks like when it feels anxious: Fur standing on end, arched back, ears flattened to the side and maybe a slightly bent tail. The pupils will be extremely wide

Try to interpret your cat’s body language in the right way By using its body, your cat will tell you all you need to know. 

Pay attention to signs:

What position are ears, tail and whiskers in? What facial expression does it show?

Often, distinctive sounds will accompany these signs…

Use language and expression for reassurance

When you speak to your cat, stay calm and relaxed and use a lower pitch of voice.

Social mimicry works with people copying the body language of their interviewer so that their counterpart registers them as sympathetic.  

With cats, this rarely applies – it is obviously hard to mimic your cat as you are lacking the respective features to do so! (Even though, the most curious approaches have been tried out...)

You are a human being, but you can show your cat that you mean well by way of a unique, “human communication”, thus putting your animal at ease. 

So – in case your cat is frightened – what can you do to calm it down by using your own body language and facial expression?

Do not stare at your cat

An eye for an eye – in cat speech: If you have observed a cat’s behaviour among its fellow cats, you will notice that staring means that either an attack is soon to follow, or at least that the situation is worsening dramatically.

Direct eye contact among cats is a sign of dominance.  “Who do you think you’re talking to? – Want to challenge me?”

However, the goal of this behaviour is to actually prevent a fight by threatening the enemy – in the best case, the opponent cannot stand the stare and will retreat. 

So, if you fix your cat with a stare, it could – in the worst case – think an attack is imminent! Or that you want to challenge it. This may be taken as a threat, leading to retreat.

Instead give a frequent wink – which, in cat speech, equals a friendly smile. 

Habituation – Phase 3

“We have contact” – though not, as Paul Hellyer recently claimed, with Aliens. But even so for a cat lover this can equal Christmas and Easter combined:

The cat has come out of its cover!

Now it’s almost done: You have put your cat at ease. The shy cat is beginning to trust you. Now you can work on connection. However, here the overall motto applies again:

Do not rush anything! Do not apply pressure!

Always let the cat make the first move! Your cat should approach you first, not the other way round.

Once your cat is ready, an invitation to more closeness will follow…

Proximity is up to the cat Stay calm and wait for your cat to come to you.

Let it sniff you for a bit – you may also extend one hand very slowly – but always cautiously and in slow motion. 

If your cat withdraws, leave it at that for the moment. 

Maybe, the cat will cautiously move along your leg or rub its cheek on it – now there is reason to celebrate! This means, that you have just been “tagged”.

With its smell, the territory has been marked – „Mein Mensch!“ The smell does not only indicate ownership but also sympathy. 

By doing this, your cat demonstrates affection.

However, do not answer with a spontaneous caress but first let it sniff your hand so that your cat can acknowledge it and accept your touch.

Start cautiously To touch without prior announcement is a no-go! This is not even liked by trusting cats and it is in no way accepted by those who are still shy!

However, there is a means to open the heart (more quickly): TREATS. 

Many a “cuddling grouch” will quickly soften up if the caressing hand also holds a treat.

When your cat comes near and even allows you to touch it, have a reward at hand. This will leave a lasting impression positively reinforced by the treat. 

Who knows? – Maybe your little pelt-nose will ask for the next cuddle quicker than you think! But always stay gentle  – never overdo it!

When you realise your cat has had enough, don’t pressurize it for more. 

Strengthen the bond through play 

Make time for playing with your cat daily. This will strengthen your relationship.

Choose games that your cat especially likes. 

Playing together is not only improving your relationship it also means your cat can live out its instincts and enjoys sufficient exercise.

Therefore, play is a must for house cats! Here, both incentives and entertainment are provided and this is at least equally important as food and water; cats with no chance for interaction wither away in no time.

The best policy is a regular playing hour as part of your daily routine, preferably at a time of day when your cat feels the most energetic and motivated. 

If nothing works

Sometimes, it is really hard to dispel a cat’s anxiety, especially if there have been traumatic experiences in the past. The overall behaviour in those cases is often hard to read, especially if the animal – seemingly out of nowhere – feels so threatened that fear turns into anxiety – one minute it is in cuddling mode and the next it bites and scratches you? Remember, there is always a good reason for your cat to behave like this, even if it may not be obvious to you. 

Please do not take it personally and never punish your cat – because its behaviour is merely the sum of its experiences and fears.  

You have tried everything and even loads of love and patience have been of no help?– then you may want to try homeopathy or pheromones.

Bach flowers for reassurance

If homeopathy is of help, or not, is a matter of belief – the cat holder who swears on conventional medicine will simply frown upon it and choose something else. Then again, people who believe that homeopathy is an approach that helps humans may be inclined to give it a go with animals as well – and consider it as an alternative.

The big psychological question “does an animal have a soul?” may have to remain unanswered at this point. However, anyone who, like founder Dr. Bach, thinks that body, soul and mind should form a harmonised unity, may try Bach Flowers Therapy. 

A single essence or a specially mixed solution may be of help to your cat.

TIP: Anxious cats: Aspen, Mimulus Aggressive cats: Beech, Cherry Plum, Holly, Impatiens 

Introducing cat pheromones 

Quotes should be avoided – true. But this one fits the context beautifully and the inclined blog reader may forgive me: 

"There are more things between the sky and earth than school wisdom will let you imagine"

– Yep! Says the cat – while the quote is by William Shakespeare – as for velvet paws this is old news: Cats communicate on different levels from the start, which to us are neither visible nor explainable in terms of bio chemistry.

Pheromones are chemical substances produced by cats. They serve communication and affect the behaviour.  

Cats produce these neurotransmitters in various glands. Each odour has its own specific meaning and will be left on strategic spots, transmitted via the face (chin and cheeks), paws or urine by the cat.

Pheromones are divided into various fractions:  

Face pheromones are spoken of as either “F3 fraction” or “feel good pheromones”, and the “F4 fraction” – or “social pheromones”.

These facial pheromones can also be produced synthetically. You can spray them onto single items or put them to use in rooms by means of a plug-in atomiser.

Well and good – you may think – but where can I get the relaxing pheromones?

Scent carriers are commercially available:  FELIWAY

Remember: Use the vaporiser preferably in the room your cat like to stay in the most, at least for a period of four weeks.  

Visit a vet or a cat psychologist

The “tough cases” – those poor creatures who have been through a lot – may not accept help easily.  

If fear rules a cat’s entire life, you may want to consult a specialist.

This can either be a vet or a cat psychologist.

A vet can check possible physical reasons and take a look at the cat’s behaviour. 

A lay person is not able to deliver such diagnostics – even if they are a brilliant cat person.

The view from the outside and the respective advice can sometimes work wonders:

Many a symptom can even be quickly and easily resolved. 

If the reasons are rooted deep within the psyche, an animal psychologist can be consulted who might be able to suggest and support behavioural therapy. 

Truth be told – there is no universal remedy that works for all cats alike; the individual animals are too different from each other. Each cat is marked by its own history – by its mum, the genetic code and the surroundings. 

The effort to make turn an anxious cat into a trusting one seems big, the problems at times insurmountable. – But it is worth it!

At the latest when your cat disengages itself from invisibility and is waiting for you for the first time, its tail bolt upright: 

You give it a gentle try and pet its head – still unsure if it will run away in panic again – But this time, the cat stays put!

– And nestles its whole body against your hand.

Here’s Why Deregulation Will Be Bad For Stocks

Deregulation was one of President Trump’s top campaign promises. Expectations for it helped spark a post-election stock rally that boosted highly regulated sectors like banking and biotech.

I’ve thought all along people expected too much. Presidents don’t get a magic wand on Inauguration Day, and they can’t bring on major change just by talking about it.

Now, formerly bullish investors and business leaders are starting to curb their enthusiasm.

Tax reform is already getting pushed back to 2018 and possibly later. And the Obamacare replacement plan—as well as the tax cuts that are part of it—is going nowhere fast. At least one GOP senator says a deal is unlikely this year.

If those are off the table, can we at least count on regulatory relief?

To some degree, yes... but we may have already seen most of it. If your investment strategy counts on deregulation to boost stock prices, you might want to reconsider.

Trump’s Wordplay

Deregulation was high on the priority list in January. Congress passed legislation reversing some of the Obama administration’s last-minute initiatives. President Trump signed an executive order telling agencies to rescind two regulations for each new one.

Except, that’s not what it said.

The actual order, which you can read right here, says agencies must identify two regulations for repeal for each new one they issue.

Identifying a regulation to repeal is not the same as actually repealing it. Many in the media and on Wall Street missed that part.

The reason Trump’s EO was so meekly worded is because even the president can’t wipe out most regulations by the stroke of a pen. There’s a legal process for both making and repealing them.

Agencies have to gather information, study costs and benefits, allow public comment, etc.

This takes time—and with good reason.

Some regulations may be bad for business, but constantly and arbitrarily changing regulations would be even worse. Stability is one reason the United States is the world’s largest economy.

It’s possible, if not likely, that this EO will ultimately get rid of some regulations. But it won’t happen until somebody sets the process in motion and stays with it to the end.

And that won’t happen until “somebody” is there to do it.

Missing Managers

Presidents appoint the top leadership in most government agencies, with the Senate’s advice and consent.

We hear about the cabinet secretaries and see them on TV, but the real work of running the agencies happens just below. The assistant secretaries, undersecretaries, etc., are critical to getting anything done… like repealing regulations.

Yet the White House seems in no hurry to fill most of those jobs.

As of last week, more than four months into the Trump presidency, 79% (442 of 559) of the key positions requiring Senate confirmation still have no nominee. Click here to see the full list.

It’s unclear what is taking so long. One theory: The White House wants to leave those jobs vacant, thinking it will paralyze the bureaucracy.

But paralysis, in this context, simply keeps the status quo in place. It cedes power to unelected bureaucrats and Obama holdovers.

If you’re a business waiting on some kind of answer from the USDA, you could be waiting a long time. Ditto at other departments.

Those regulations business groups dislike will not rescind themselves. It will happen only when reform-minded people are in place and pushing for it. And that’s nowhere near happening yet.

Winners and Losers of Deregulation

What the deregulation people are betting on might eventually happen, but we don’t know when. Will it even matter?

You bet it will—but maybe not in the way you think.

Government regulations don’t affect every business equally. Compliance costs money that small newcomers often don’t have. This protects established industry leaders from new competition, which is bad for everyone.

Other things being equal, the winners of deregulation should be the smaller players that previously lacked compliance capacity.

Conversely, deregulation’s losers should be the larger companies whose size and lobbying muscle previously insulated them from innovative competitors.

Now, add something else to this equation.

As a general rule, the publicly traded companies whose shares you might own are among the biggest players in their markets. The start-ups that might disrupt them are usually private.

Why, then, do we assume deregulation is good for stocks? It might be the opposite. And why are public company CEOs pushing for it?

The answer is that larger businesses don’t want full deregulation. They want selective deregulation that reduces their compliance costs while still hindering potential competitors.

Unfortunately for them, they may not get anything at all.

How Regulation Influences Growth

Some regulations are necessary. They ought to serve the public interest—which may not be in the interest of whoever is being regulated.

However, some regulations are outdated or counterproductive, so periodic pruning is a good idea, if it’s done wisely.

At the Strategic Investment Conference last month, Jefferies & Co. strategist David Zervos estimated that needless regulation reduces economic growth by 10%. That means our present GDP growth rate of around 2% might rise to 2.2% if we rationalized the regulatory state.

While 2.2% would be an improvement, it still isn’t stellar. Trump administration officials say their agenda of tax reform, spending cuts, and deregulation can raise real GDP growth to the 3% range.

Very few economists think 3% growth is likely or sustainable, even if Trump and the Republicans get everything they want—and I’m very sure they won’t.

Without faster economic growth, it’s hard to justify today’s stock prices, let alone higher ones in the future. At some point, this will be obvious to everyone, and markets will adjust. The only question is when.

Subscribe to Connecting the Dots—and Get a Glimpse of the Future

We live in an era of rapid change… and only those who see and understand the shifting market, economic, and political trends can make wise investment decisions. Macroeconomic forecaster Patrick Watson spots the trends and spells what they mean every week in the free e-letter, Connecting the Dots. Subscribe now for his seasoned insight into the surprising forces driving global markets.

A Case for Decriminalizing Drugs

from the article Legalize It All: How to win the war on drugs by Dan Baum

“In 1994, John Ehrlichman, the Watergate co-conspirator, unlocked for me one of the great mysteries of modern American history: How did the United States entangle itself in a policy of drug prohibition that has yielded so much misery and so few good results? Americans have been criminalizing psychoactive substances since San Francisco’s anti-opium law of 1875, but it was Ehrlichman’s boss, Richard Nixon, who declared the first “war on drugs” and set the country on the wildly punitive and counterproductive path it still pursues.

[...]  Nixon’s invention of the war on drugs as a political tool was cynical, but every president since — Democrat and Republican alike — has found it equally useful for one reason or another. Meanwhile, the growing cost of the drug war is now impossible to ignore: billions of dollars wasted, bloodshed in Latin America and on the streets of our own cities, and millions of lives destroyed by draconian punishment that doesn’t end at the prison gate; one of every eight black men has been disenfranchised because of a felony conviction.

[...]  Addiction is a hideous condition, but it’s rare. Most of what we hate and fear about drugs — the violence, the overdoses, the criminality — derives from prohibition, not drugs. And there will be no victory in this war either; even the Drug Enforcement Administration concedes that the drugs it fights are becoming cheaper and more easily available.

[...]  Depending on how the issue is framed, legalization of all drugs can appeal to conservatives, who are instinctively suspicious of bloated budgets, excess government authority, and intrusions on individual liberty, as well as to liberals, who are horrified at police overreach, the brutalization of Latin America, and the criminalization of entire generations of black men. It will take some courage to move the conversation beyond marijuana to ending all drug prohibitions, but it will take less, I suspect, than most politicians believe. It’s already politically permissible to criticize mandatory minimums, mass marijuana-possession arrests, police militarization, and other excesses of the drug war.

[...]  The government’s own data, from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, shatters the myth of “instantly addictive” drugs. Although about half of all Americans older than twelve have tried an illegal drug, only 20 percent of those have used one in the past month. In the majority of those monthly-use cases, the drug was cannabis. Only tiny percentages of people who have sampled one of the Big Four — heroin, cocaine, crack, and methamphetamine — have used that drug in the past month. (For heroin, the number is 8 percent; for cocaine, 4 percent; for crack, 3 percent; for meth, 4 percent.) It isn’t even clear that using a drug once a month amounts to having a drug problem. The portion of lifetime alcohol drinkers who become alcoholics is about 8 percent, and we don’t think of someone who drinks alcohol monthly as an alcoholic.

In other words, our real drug problem — debilitating addiction — is relatively small. [...] Dealing with addiction shouldn’t require spending $40 billion a year on enforcement, incarcerating half a million, and quashing the civil liberties of everybody, whether drug user or not.

[...]  Although treatment is a bargain — the government estimates that for every dollar spent on drug treatment, seven are saved — treatment and prevention get only 45 percent of the federal drug budget while enforcement and interdiction get 55 percent, and that’s not including the stupendous cost of incarcerating drug offenders.

[...]  The Netherlands effectively decriminalized marijuana use and possession in 1976, and Australia, the Czech Republic, Italy, Germany, and New York State all followed suit. In none of these jurisdictions did marijuana then become a significant health or public-order problem. But marijuana’s easy; it isn’t physically addictive. So consider Portugal, which in 2001 took the radical step of decriminalizing not only pot but cocaine, heroin, and the rest of the drug spectrum. Decriminalization in Portugal means that the drugs remain technically prohibited — selling them is a major crime — but the purchase, use, and possession of up to ten days’ supply are administrative offenses. No other country has gone so far, and the results have been astounding. The expected wave of drug tourists never materialized. Teenage use went up shortly before and after decriminalization, but then it settled down, perhaps as the novelty wore off.

[...]  The lifetime prevalence of adult drug use in Portugal rose slightly, but problem drug use — that is, habitual use of hard drugs — declined after Portugal decriminalized, from 7.6 to 6.8 per 1,000 people. Compare that with nearby Italy, which didn’t decriminalize, where the rates rose from 6.0 to 8.6 per 1,000 people over the same time span. Because addicts can now legally obtain sterile syringes in Portugal, decriminalization seems to have cut radically the number of addicts infected with H.I.V., from 907 in 2000 to 267 in 2008, while cases of full-blown AIDS among addicts fell from 506 to 108 during the same period.

The new Portuguese law has also had a striking effect on the size of the country’s prison population. The number of inmates serving time for drug offenses fell by more than half, and today they make up only 21 percent of those incarcerated. A similar reduction in the United States would free 260,000 people — the equivalent of letting the entire population of Buffalo out of jail.

[...] Portuguese-style decriminalization [...] wouldn’t work in the United States because Portugal is a small country with national laws and a national police force, whereas the United States is a patchwork of jurisdictions — thousands of overlapping law-enforcement agencies and prosecutors at the local, county, state, and federal levels.

[...]  We’ve grown used to living with the consequences of legal alcohol, even though alcohol is undeniably costly to the nation in lives and treasure. But few would argue for a return to Prohibition, in part because the liquor industry is so lucrative and so powerful. Binge drinkers — 20 percent of the drinking population — consume more than half of the alcohol sold, which means that for all the industry’s pious admonitions to “drink responsibly,” it depends on people doing the opposite. At the same time, Big Alcohol’s clout keeps taxation low. Kleiman, of NYU, estimates alcohol taxes to be about a dime a drink; the societal cost in disease, car wrecks, and violence is about fifteen times that. Neither the binge-dependent economics of alcohol nor the industry’s capture of the regulatory process is something we would want to mimic when legalizing substances such as heroin and crack cocaine. We’ll have to do a better job at legalizing drugs than we did at re-legalizing alcohol if we want to hold addiction to a minimum, keep drugs away from children, assure drug purity and consistency of dosage, and limit drugged driving.

[...] Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands have successfully made heroin legally available to addicts through networks of government-run dispensaries that are divorced from the profit motive. The advantages of a state monopoly over a free market — even a regulated one — are vast.

[...]  Just about everybody who thinks seriously about the end of drug prohibition agrees that we’ll want to discourage consumption. This goal could be accomplished, at least in part, under a system of regulated, for-profit stores: by setting limits on advertising and promotion (or banning them altogether), by preventing marketing to children, by establishing minimum distances from schools for retail outlets, by nailing down rules about dosage and purity, and by limiting both the number of stores and their hours of operation.

[...] That the government should profit from a product it wants to discourage could be seen as hypocritical, but that’s the way things stand now with tobacco, alcohol, and gambling. States generally reduce the moral sting of those profits by earmarking them for education or other popular causes. In the case of drugs, the profits could go toward treating addicts. 

[...]  “Without marijuana prohibition, the government can’t sustain the drug war,” Ira Glasser, who ran the American Civil Liberties Union from 1978 to 2001, told me. “Without marijuana, the use of drugs is negligible, and you can’t justify the law-enforcement and prison spending on the other drugs. Their use is vanishingly small. I always thought that if you could cut the marijuana head off the beast, the drug war couldn’t be sustained.”

[...] If it is now time to start thinking creatively about legalization, we’d be wise to remember that, like carefully laid military plans, detailed drug-liberalization strategies probably won’t survive their first contact with reality. “People are thinking about the utopian endgame, but the transition will be unpredictable,” says Sterling, of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. “Whatever system of regulation gets set up, there will be people who exploit the edges. But that’s true for speeding, for alcohol, for guns.” Without a state-run monopoly, there will be more than one type of legal, regulated drug market, he says, and the markets won’t solve every conceivable problem. “Nobody thinks our alcohol system is a complete failure because there are after-hours sales, or because people occasionally buy alcohol for minors.” Legalizing, and then regulating, drug markets will likely be messy, at least in the short term. Still, in a technocratic, capitalist, and fundamentally free society like the United States, education, counseling, treatment, distribution, regulation, pricing, and taxation all seem to better fit our national skill set than the suppression of immense black markets and the violence and corruption that come with it.”

Body Building Essentials That Deliver Fast Final results

In order to enter into muscle development, you require the right information. You have to know how you can bulk up, if this can be your goal, but you might also want to learn how to construct lean muscle mass. Without the appropriate assistance, muscle mass building may be much harder than it needs to be. Follow this advice to keep it uncomplicated. Don't attempt to focus on the two cardio exercise and durability simultaneously. This is simply not to say you should not conduct cardio exercise routines while you are attempting to develop muscle. In fact, aerobic is an important part of health and fitness. Nonetheless, you should not seriously coach cardiovascular, including getting ready for a marathon, should you be attempting to concentrate on body building. The two kinds of workouts can turmoil, decreasing efficiency on fronts. As you are strength training, do your actions slowly and gradually. Shifting too fast makes use of the body's energy rather than allowing the muscle groups carry out the operate. Likewise, don't golf swing the dumbbells, simply because this maintains the remote muscle mass from carrying out the work. This is why proceeding sluggish appears more challenging. The isolated muscles is doing its work! Many people who wish to create muscles use health proteins smoothies and dish substitutes. You should take note even so that there is a differentiation in between the two. It could be hazardous for your wellness to work with proteins shakes regularly as a food replacement. A full meal consists of many essential nutrients that are not included in health proteins drinks. Additionally, lifestyle away from healthy proteins drinks can leave your muscle mass soft which negates your muscles creating initiatives. Once and for all muscle development, you need to eat properly equally before and after an exercise. Without having the suitable gas, you can expect to reduce the improvement you need to make. Good quality food items to consume for all those pre and article-workout meals can be oatmeal, low-body fat yogurt, egg-whites and wholegrain wheat toast. Attempt the farmer's move to help make your aerobic physical exercise a far more successful part of your muscle-constructing exercises. Keep a dumbbell in every hands at your aspects whilst keeping your ab muscles sucked in small as you move. Start off with a 15-minute move, and try to improve this to 20 minutes as you process. Crank up some music. Research has shown that playing audio you like while you are weightlifting will help you do more reps than not listening to any songs by any means or otherwise not listening to the songs that you want. In addition, possessing earbuds will help distract you using a discussion with other individuals which will defer your exercise routine. Be quite mindful if you decide to use creatine with your muscles-creating system, particularly if you continue taking it for too long time periods. For those who have any sort of trouble with your renal system, you should not consider creatine monohydrate. They may also result in pains, cardiovascular disease, and in many cases some thing named muscle pocket syndrome. Young people may be at a lot more risk than adults. Always be sure to work with creatine monohydrate-containing health supplements in accordance with their directions, and not go over the advised amounts. Function opposition muscle tissues at the same time by undertaking exercises that work well the chest area and back again or quads and hamstrings. As a result, one particular muscle can loosen up as a different one functions. Using this sort of exercise routines will enable you to boost the strength minimizing the overall period of your workouts, allowing you to accomplish your final results although cutting back on your gym time. Make sure that you aren't forgetting your back again. Many people workout merely the muscle groups they can have a look at inside a mirror. As a result, they frequently have chests which can be large and powerful, but their backside are small and weakened. It is possible to solve this issue by functioning your rear using barbell rows and move-ups. When wanting to get muscle, take in meals loaded with health proteins during the path of the morning and immediately after your exercise routine. An excellent amount of health proteins is 15 gr thirty minutes before your regular workout, then a exact same quantity right after your exercise routine. To acquire a sense of just how much 15 gr is, feel a number of glasses of whole milk. Executing leg squats is vital for weightlifting routines. The squat features many different muscles. Not only are your glute and quad muscle groups triggered, but your lumbar region, hamstrings, core, and shoulder muscles can also be used. People who do squats on a regular basis have been proven to acquire more muscle mass than those that do not. Squats are perhaps the most crucial workout for muscle building mass. Over and above creating the lower limb muscle groups, leg squats are a great whole-body exercise routine. They figure out the biceps and triceps, chest, ab muscles as well as the back. By using a appropriate strategy is important with squats. For the proper squat, the hips should can come under the knees and the body ought to continue to be well balanced. To aid in constructing lean muscle mass, try out mixing up the repetition matters. When you usually do 6-8 repetitions, consider doing 4-6 reps. Your muscle mass will have to adapt in another way, and you will probably give your schedule a whole new strike. In this way, you can expect to build your muscle speedier. Compute your diet consumption to coordinate with muscle development workout routines, for faster and much better effects. Around the times you exercise routine, eat good food and consume a great deal. Consuming the ideal food items about an hour or so just before your regular workout will maximize the consequences, but make sure to never overindulge or eat unhealthy foods as this will be counterproductive to the body building endeavours. When exercising so that you can build muscles, you need to have a well-identified aim at heart. Make an effort to improve the number of repetitions you need to do, the maximum weight that you apply, or maybe the total time period of your regular workout. So that you can truly boost your muscle tissues, as an alternative to simply workout them, you must keep them consistently challenged. Regardless of how you really feel about bulkiness, there are lots of benefits to muscles workout routines. It can raise the confidence, supply your whole body with better power, enhance the functioning of your respective joints, additionally enhance your lung area should it be done in conjunction with some sort of light to average cardio exercise workout. It is vital that you just get started your regular workout by extending. The muscles ought to be warmed up ahead of workout, in order to prevent damage. Stretching right after exercising may help, also, by relaxing the muscles whilst the begin to endure the work out. Standard massages can be helpful for making it possible to relax and inspire muscle healing, which can be component of building robust muscle tissue. As we discussed out of this article, there's a lot more to muscle building than simply training daily. You have to use the best strategies possible in the event you hope to see outcomes. Combine the ideas you only read into the intend to construct your muscle tissues and shortly you'll begin to see the outcomes you're hoping for. If you have any kind of inquiries pertaining to where and how to utilize bodybuilding (sneak a peek at this web-site.), you could contact us at the web-page.

Why You’ll Lose Every Time With These Common Training Mistakes.

By Dr. Becker

I think one of the most difficult concepts for dog parents to grasp when it comes to training their canine companion is that punishment is typically ineffective, and it’s often counterproductive. In other words, you can make your dog’s behavior worse using punitive tactics. As veterinary behaviorist Dr. Valarie Tynes explains:

“When punishment is used incorrectly, it will appear unpredictable and confusing, so many pets become anxious or fearful around the owner that administers the punishment.

When punishment is used in an attempt to train an animal that is already afraid or anxious, [the] fear and anxiety are likely to worsen and may lead to aggression”.1

According to Tynes, three important rules must be met for punishment (correction) to be effective:

The punishment must occur every time the unwanted behavior occurs The punishment must be administered within a second or two of the inappropriate behavior The punishment must be aversive enough to stop the dog from repeating the unwanted behavior in the future but not be so aversive as to frighten the dog Unless your dog is physically tethered to you (e.g., you have him on a leash and the leash is attached to you in some manner), it will be extremely difficult to be on top of him when he misbehaves, and within a second or two of his mischief.

In addition, in my experience it’s the rare individual who can deliver “just enough” punishment to train a dog not to repeat the behavior without frightening him, or conversely, without teaching him to simply ignore verbal commands.

In other words, it’s easy to over-deliver or under-deliver punishment. If you allow anger into the equation, it can result in both physical and emotional harm to your dog. The flip side of the coin is punishment that’s so wishy-washy and non-committal the dog learns to simply ignore you. As Tynes points out:

“Meeting all three of these criteria can be difficult. That’s why punishment often fails to solve behavior problems and should not be the first training method of choice. Positive reinforcement training, in which animals are rewarded for appropriate behaviors, is safer and more effective.”

I absolutely agree with this, and can’t stress strongly enough the importance of positive reinforcement behavior training, not only to help your dog become a good canine citizen, but also to preserve and protect the close and priceless bond you share with him.

Why Punishment Fails, Example No. 1: Couch-Loving Dog

Tynes offers two examples of why punishment usually doesn’t work. In the first, a dog who isn’t allowed on the couch is routinely found there by her owner, who reacts by yelling and waving a rolled-up newspaper at the dog each time the behavior occurs.

The dog’s response is to get off the couch when she’s yelled at, only to return when her owner isn’t around. As Tynes points out, because the dog still gets on the couch when the owner is away, she’s being rewarded some of the time for her undesirable behavior.

Remember rule No. 1 above? “The punishment must occur every time the unwanted behavior occurs.” In this case, it’s not possible for the couch-surfing canine’s owner to be there to deliver punishment each and every time the behavior occurs, so the punishment doesn’t solve the problem long-term.

I’d venture to guess the vast majority of dog parents are in a similar predicament. Most people lead busy lives, and it’s simply not possible to keep an eye on the dog 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

In addition, punitive tactics delivered repeatedly have a way of escalating, because the dog parent grows increasingly frustrated that the punishment isn’t working. If the severity of the punishment increases, the dog may grow fearful of her owner, or a feistier dog may respond with growling or snapping.

Why Punishment Fails, Example No. 2: Jumping Dog

In Tynes’ second example, a dog greets people by jumping on them, and the owners’ response is to either knee the dog in the chest or kick him when he does it to them. As a result, the dog now avoids the husband because the kicking has caused him to be fearful. However, he still jumps on everyone else. As Tynes explains:

“Many dogs are highly motivated to greet people by getting close to their faces. In most cases, kneeing or kicking such a dog is less powerful than the dog’s desire to greet people by jumping on them.”

I think this is good information that can further your understanding of your dog’s motivation if he’s also a “jump greeter.” You know how some people greet everyone they meet with a big hug and a kiss? Seems there are dogs who are similarly inspired!

Back to the dog in the example — since not everyone he meets responds to his jumping with a knee or a kick (thank goodness), the punishment doesn’t meet rule No. 2 above: “The punishment must be administered within a second or two of the inappropriate behavior.”

It also doesn’t meet rule No. 3: “The punishment must be aversive enough to stop the dog from repeating the unwanted behavior in the future but not be so aversive as to frighten the dog.”

According to Tynes, this dog doesn’t always perceive kneeing as punishment, but rather often views it as reinforcement for his behavior because he’s getting attention (negative though it may be).

A Better Approach to Reclaiming the Couch

In the first example of the couch-loving dog, Tynes suggests blocking the dog’s access to the furniture whenever she’s home and unsupervised. A couple of options are crate training or confining her to another room in the house.

However, physically separating the dog from her beloved couch won’t teach her to stay off it, so I would suggest the crate or the separate room only while her owner is helping her learn what to do insteadof getting up on the furniture.

Positive reinforcement behavior training is about showing your dog what you want her to do insteadof the behavior you don’t want her to do. In this instance, the owner will need both a deterrent and an alternative behavior to teach.

An effective deterrent makes it uncomfortable for the dog to lie on the couch. Examples: a plastic cover over the couch (most dogs don’t like plastic), or one of those rubber carpet runners with the spikey side up.

Teaching the alternative behavior involves placing a comfy dog bed close to the couch, encouraging her with treats to lie down in it, and rewarding her each time she does. Once the dog learns to associate discomfort with the couch, and a yummy treat with lying in her own bed, the couch-surfing behavior should be gradually extinguished.

A Better Approach to Extinguishing Jumping Behavior

Kneeing a jumping dog or worse, kicking him as a form of punishment (or simply to keep him off you) is another example in which the dog isn’t learning a more acceptable behavior to replace the unacceptable one. In addition, you can cause injury to the dog and/or yourself using your knee or foot against him.

And there’s also the issue of unintentionally reinforcing the bad behavior because you’re paying attention to him when he jumps. This dog needs a replacement behavior that is equally motivating. Tynes suggests teaching him to sit to greet everyone. Sitting becomes the alternative behavior that gets rewarded with petting and/or a food treat.

While he’s being taught to sit to greet people, it’s important to stop reacting when he jumps on you. Turn your back, stand straight and ignore him. This is the opposite of what he wants (attention) and sends the message that you don’t welcome his exuberant jumping routine.

Positive Reinforcement Dog Training in 5 Simple Steps

The goal of positive reinforcement behavior training is to use very small-sized treats (pea-sized is good, and you can even use frozen peas if your dog seems to like them) and verbal praise and affection to encourage desired behaviors in your dog.

1. Come up with short, preferably one-word commands for the behaviors you want to teach your pet. Examples are Come, Sit, Stay, Down, Heel, Off, etc. Make sure all members of your family consistently use exactly the same command for each behavior.

2. As soon as your dog performs the desired behavior, reward him immediately with a treat and verbal praise. Do this every time he responds appropriately to a command. You want him to connect the behavior he performed with the treat. This of course means you’ll need to have treats on you whenever you give your dog commands in the beginning.

3. Keep training sessions short and fun. You want your dog to associate good things with obeying your commands. You also want to use training time as an opportunity to deepen your bond with your pet.

4. Gradually back off the treats and use them only intermittently once your dog has learned a new behavior. Eventually they’ll no longer be necessary, but you should always reward your dog with verbal praise whenever he obeys a command.

5. Continue to use positive reinforcement to maintain the behaviors you desire. Reward-based training helps create a range of desirable behaviors in your pet, which builds mutual feelings of trust and confidence.

If your dog is displaying undesirable behavior and you’re not sure you can deal with it on your own, talk with your veterinarian, a positive dog trainer, a veterinary behaviorist or you can shoot your questions, concerns and thoughts to me. TheGuardian

Trump, Rodiles and the Cuban Opposition

Trump, Rodiles and the Cuban Opposition / Juan Orlando Perez Juan Orlando Pérez, 1 February 2017, (re-published in Ivan Garcia's blog on 7 February 2017) — Antonio Rodiles, one of the Cuban government's most tireless enemies, or at least one of its most eloquent, has said that the arrival of Donald Trump at the White House is "good news for Cuba." It is difficult to criticize Rodiles, who every day faces the danger of State Security agents, or his own neighbors, breaking his nose — they have already done this once with exquisite precision — or of being accused of some monstrosity such as contempt of court, assault, incitement to violence or failure to attend Fidel Castro's funeral, resulting in him being cast into a windowless dungeon without light or justice. Every Sunday, Rodiles leaves his house Havana to protest against a government that he considers illegitimate. While not comparable to the battles of Peralejo or Las Guásimas, much less the crossing of the Trocha de Mariel to Majana, this action is one that does require more political and personal courage than all the deputies of the National Assembly together could muster to change a single comma in a decree from Raul Castro's government, should they even notice a comma misplaced. Unlike other leaders of the Cuban opposition and most deputies of the National Assembly, Rodiles knows how to speak correctly, in proper Spanish. Perhaps that is why foreign journalists prefer to talk to him rather than to others whom they can barely understand. But what he told the Spanish newspaper El País is dangerous nonsense. In no way can Trump be "good news" for Cuba when he is so bad for all the other countries of the world, including those whose leaders — Vladimir Putin, Theresa May, Benjamin Netanyahu — selfishly hope to benefit from the ascent of a thug to the presidency of the United States. At least Rodiles does not contend Trump is not a thug. Rodiles declined to say if Trump's victory was also good news for the United States. "I don't want to get into that," he said flatly. "It's not my problem." Perhaps Rodiles thinks that if personnel at the American Embassy in Havana or at the State Department in Washington hear him criticizing Trump's character, skills or intentions, even if the criticism is so mild it might almost be considered a kind remark, he will no longer be invited to the embassy or to conferences, congresses and seminars — one takes place every month in Miami, Madrid or Washington — where the participants ardently debate the future of Cuba, condemn Castro's wickedness and lament Barack Obama's faintheartedness. Rodiles' discretion — his refusal to express an opinion about the domestic issues of another country — is admirable, especially because it stands in contrast to foreign politicians who talk about issues in his own. In late December, Rodiles participated in a panel organized by the right-wing Heritage Foundation in Washington along with two former George W. Bush administration officials: the former under-secretaries of state Roger Noriega and Otto Reich. As reported by Diario de Cuba, he took the opportunity to explain that "the new Administration has the opportunity to reorient US policy towards the human rights and freedom for the Cuban people." Noriega and Reich are co-authors of the infamous Helms-Burton Act of 1996. More than a law, it is the list of relentless conditions that the United States would impose on the Cuban government if it were to capitulate, which one can easily imagine these two former officials recommending to the Trump Administration provided someone in the White House still remembers who they are and asks them what to do about Cuba. Noriega and Reich may express any opinion about Cuba, or about Jupiter, if they so choose. That is their right. No one in Washington is going to end up with a nose out of joint if they do so. But it is not clear why Rodiles should not in turn be able to say with more or less the same degree of tact what so many other political leaders around the world have said: that Donald Trump's brand of vicious, racist and ignorant populism is a very serious threat to international security, to the rights of other nations, to Americans' civil liberties and, of course, to Cuba. Perhaps Rodiles thinks Trump is as innocuous as Tian Tian, the giant panda at Washington's National Zoo. If so, he might as well say so. For the moment, Rodiles has refrained from criticizing Trump, though not from criticizing Obama. He believes, as he told El País, that Obama's legacy in Cuba can be described in two words: indifference and fantasy. In a video released by the Forum for Human Rights and Freedoms, Rodiles appears next to others celebrating Trump's victory on November 8 and criticizing Obama's Cuban strategy. "It was very frustrating," explains Rodiles in the video, "to see how the Obama administration was allowing the regime to gain advantage, to gain political advantage, to gain economic advantage, while leaving the Cuban people and their demands on the sidelines." He added, "Unfortunately, the legacy of President Obama on Cuba is not positive… His policy has been counterproductive. His policy has led the regime to feel much more secure and to behave more violently." It is not clear, however, what exactly Rodiles and his colleagues at the Forum hope Trump will do. "It seems to me that the new administration under President Donald Trump will give much more attention to the Cuban opposition. It will give much more attention to the subject of fundamental rights and freedoms, and the Cuban people will be able to express themselves more openly, though the regime will, of course, do everything possible to prevent that." It is likely that on May 20 — if the world lasts until then — a committee of Cuban opposition figures, including perhaps Rodiles himself, will visit the White House, as always happened before Obama, after which the president of the United States might write a Twitter message in jovial Spanglish condemning Raúl Castro and his minions. But it is unclear how tweets by the lunatic that Americans have chosen as their commander-in-chief are going to get Cubans out onto the streets. Nor is it easy to imagine the Cuban government agreeing to sit down with Rodiles or any other opposition figure just because the president of the United States demands it, even if he makes it a condition of maintaining diplomatic relations; or of continuing to allow Cuban-Americans to send money to their families on the island; or of allowing them visit their relatives whenever they want. If the members of the Forum for Human Rights and Freedoms believe that these are conditions that the Trump Administration should impose, they should say so clearly and run the risk that Trump or one of his underlings might hear and pay attention to them. An even greater risk is that Cubans might hear them. It is perfectly legitimate for some members of the Cuban opposition to disapprove of Obama's policy of normalizing relations between the United States and Cuba, at least to the degree that it is possible to normalize something that will never be normal. No one should be surprised that those who would like to see the immediate overthrow of Raúl Castro have no confidence in a plan that acknowledges the unlikelihood that the Cuban government will be overthrown in a domestic revolt. Raúl has been accepted — with indifference or resignation — as the legitimate president of Cuba by almost all the nations of the world. The plan addresses the political and intellectual weakness of opposition groups, counting instead on the slow but inexorable growth of a new post-Castro civil society that will one day reclaim political and economic rights that Raúl or his successors will never be willing to grant. It is true this plan pays no particular importance to the Forum for Human Rights and Freedoms, or to other groups with equally florid names, whose members feel they have been abruptly and unceremoniously abandoned by their old patron. But not all opposition groups have judged Obama's decisions regarding Cuba as negatively as Rodiles and his cohorts. With bitter pragmatism, others have warned that it is foolish to oppose head-on a policy that is viewed favorably on both sides of the Florida Straits. While it has, of course, benefited the Cuban government, it has also benefitted millions of plain and simple ordinary men and women. If nothing else, it means that, after two short years, Raúl can no longer blame his problems on an enemy ever ready to wipe Cuba off the map in a single, brutal blow. There was nothing fanciful about Obama's strategy, though there is in the illusion that the Cuban government would have agreed to sit down with Rodiles and other opposition leaders if Obama had insisted on it. And he will do so if Trump makes that demand with his characteristic coarseness. After so many years and so many body blows, Rodiles still has not met Raúl Castro. Before falling in line with Trump and conspiring with the most reactionary elements of the new administration — its more conservative faction, in particular, wants to break off the truce between the United States and Cuba — the Cuban opposition should take a few weeks to consider whether it would be wiser to avoid allying itself with those who have come to power with a program that not only causes a great deal of alarm within the international community but which should also disgust any person of integrity, whether one's integrity be of the right-wing or left-wing kind. The Cuban opposition would do well to maintain a relative independence from the United States, a benevolent gift from Obama, and if they are so inclined, to keep their distance from an administration which, in two short weeks, has led its country to the brink of a pernicious political and perhaps constitutional crisis. That is unless one sees nothing particularly reprehensible in what Trump says and does, or believe that his vandalism is justified because he got ten thousand votes more in Michigan and fifteen thousand more votes in Wisconsin than Hillary Clinton. It would be very bad news if opportunism led a segment of the Cuban population, even a very small one, to become pro-Trump out of foolhardiness, ignorance, a misguided sense of self-preservation or, even worse, by a genuine ideological affinity with a government that resembles a social democratic Nixon, Reagan or Bush administration. But even more troubling is the Cuban opposition's hope that the United States, Barack Obama or Donald Trump and not the island's plain and simple ordinary men and women might grant them the right to discuss Cuba's future with Raúl Castro or whatever petty tyrant happens to come after. Trump will just disappoint them. And should he fall, which is likely to happen, he will drag with him all those who have not taken great care or had the decency to maintain a safe distance. Juan Orlando Pérez Published in El Estornudo on February 1, 2017 under the title "Bad News." Source: Trump, Rodiles and the Cuban Opposition / Juan Orlando Perez – Translating Cuba - http://ift.tt/2lMJmXS via Blogger http://ift.tt/2ljnens