#i can’t imagine they’re going to get many candidates if this is how they conduct themselves. like who DOES this
Link
The New York Times is literally a propaganda outlet and Timothy Egan is a deceitful chode. His every word drips with the anxious desperation of the Democrats who know their goose is cooked.
Watching “Succession,” the HBO show about the most despicable plutocrats to seize the public imagination since the Trumps were forced on us, made me want to tax the ultrarich into a homeless shelter. And it almost made a Bernie Bro of me.
That’s the thing about class loathing: It feels good, a moral high with its own endorphins, but is ultimately self-defeating. A Bernie Sanders rally is a hit from the same pipe: Screw those greedy billionaire bastards!
Sanders has passion going for him. He has authenticity. He certainly has consistency: His bumper-sticker sloganeering hasn’t changed for half a century. He was, “even as a young man, an old man,” as Time magazine said.
But he cannot beat Donald Trump, for the same reason people do not translate their hatred of the odious rich into pitchfork brigades against walled estates.
Because powerful oligarchs that own their government murder them with impunity when they do.
>March 7 was a bitterly cold day in Detroit, and a crowd estimated at between 3,000 and 5,000 gathered near the Dearborn city limits, about a mile from the Ford plant. The Detroit Times called it "one of the coldest days of the winter, with a frigid gale whooping out of the northwest". Marchers carried banners reading "Give Us Work, "We Want Bread Not Crumbs", and "Tax the Rich and Feed the Poor". Albert Goetz gave a speech, asking that the marchers avoid violence. The march proceeded peacefully along the streets of Detroit until it reached the Dearborn city limits.
>There, the Dearborn police attempted to stop the march by firing tear gas into the crowd and began hitting marchers with clubs. One officer fired a gun at the marchers. The unarmed crowd scattered into a field covered with stones, picked them up, and began throwing stones at the police. The angry marchers regrouped and advanced nearly a mile toward the plant. There, two fire engines began spraying cold water onto the marchers from an overpass. The police were joined by Ford security guards and began shooting into the crowd. Marchers Joe York, Coleman Leny and Joe DeBlasio were killed, and at least 22 others were wounded by gunfire.
>The leaders decided to call off the march at that point and began an orderly retreat. Harry Bennett, head of Ford security, drove up in a car, opened a window, and fired a pistol into the crowd. Immediately, the car was pelted with rocks, and Bennett was injured. He got out of the car and continued firing at the retreating marchers. Dearborn police and Ford security men opened fire with machine guns on the retreating marchers. Joe Bussell, 16 years old, was killed, and dozens more men were wounded. Bennett was hospitalized for his injury.
> All of the seriously wounded marchers were arrested, and the police chained many to their hospital beds after they were admitted for treatment. A nationwide search was conducted for William Z. Foster, but he was not arrested. No law enforcement or Ford security officer was arrested, although all reliable reports showed that they had engaged in all the gunfire, resulting in deaths, injuries and property damage. The New York Times reported that "Dearborn streets were stained with blood, streets were littered with broken glass and the wreckage of bullet-riddled automobiles, and nearly every window in the Ford plant's employment building had been broken".
The United States has never been a socialist country, even when it most likely should have been one, during the robber baron tyranny of the Gilded Age or the desperation of the Great Depression, and it never will be. Which isn’t to say that American capitalism is working; it needs Teddy Roosevelt-style trustbusting and restructuring. We’re coming for you, Facebook.
Yeah, just look how well that’s worked out, you fucking idiot.
The next month presents the last chance for serious scrutiny of Sanders, who is leading in both Iowa and New Hampshire. After that, Republicans will rip the bark off him. When they’re done, you will not recognize the aging, mouth-frothing, business-destroying commie from Ben and Jerry’s dystopian dairy. Demagogy is what Republicans do best. And Sanders is ripe for caricature.
The same Republicans that got their breakfast ate by the dottering windbag cheetoman? The same Republicans that are unpopular with over half the fucking country? The same Republicans which have shown majority support for Sanders’s policies in the past? Those are the Republicans you’re talking about, right, Timothy, you fucking asshole?
I’m not worried about the Russian stuff — Bernie’s self-described “very strange honeymoon” to the totalitarian hell of the Soviet Union in 1988, and his kind words for similar regimes. Compared with a president who is a willing stooge for the Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, a little vodka-induced dancing with the red bear is peanuts.
Nor am I worried about the legitimate questions concerning the candidate’s wife, Jane Sanders, who ran a Vermont college into the ground. Again, Trump’s family of grifters — from Ivanka securing her patents from China while Daddy made other promises to Beijing, to Don Jr.’s using the White House to leverage the family brand — give Democrats more than enough ammunition to return the fire.
This is fun. Due to a complete lack of incriminating conduct, little Timmy has to invent wrongdoing to libel Jane Sanders. I suppose he’s relying on his readers being too stupid to read the article that he himself links, another NYT hitpiece that desperately tries to paint Ms Sanders as a shady character without anything in the way of tangible proof.
>Federal prosecutors have not spoken publicly about their investigation, though late last year, Ms. Sanders’s lead lawyer said he had been told it had been closed. And while doubts remain about the contribution pledges claimed by the college, the lawyer has said that neither Ms. Sanders nor her husband was even questioned by investigators, indicating a lack of significant evidence of a crime.
>After Ms. Sanders’s ouster, the college’s troubles worsened. It abandoned a promising effort she had undertaken to sell some of its new land to improve its finances, interviews show. A few years later, when it did begin selling, it was to a consortium that secretly included at least one member of its board, raising conflict-of-interest questions.
>There is little question that the college’s 2016 demise can be traced to Ms. Sanders’s decision to champion an aggressive — critics say reckless — plan to buy the land. But with potential students put off by the lack of a campus, and with many such colleges struggling at the time, her move was the academic equivalent of a Hail Mary. Her allies said she never had a chance to fulfill her vision.
>“Jane made an audacious gambit to save the college,” said Genevieve Jacobs, a former faculty member. “It seemed to be a moment of ‘change or die.’”
>In interviews and emails, Ms. Sanders expressed frustration at her dismissal and the college’s failure to continue her rescue plan.
>“They went a completely different direction in every way than what we had proposed and decided upon as a board — with the bank, with the diocese, the bonding agency,” she said. “They didn’t carry out any of the plan. It was very confusing and upsetting at the time.”
The TL;DR seems to be: Jane Sanders tried to save a struggling school with an audacious but risky plan that ended up being aborted when she was let go by by a board, some of the members of which may have had a stake in seeing it fail. At the very least, a much more complex situation than the aspersion of “running it into the ground.”
Trump bragged about sexual assault, paid off a porn star and ran a fraudulent university. He sucks up to dictators and tells a half-dozen lies before he puts his socks on in the morning. A weird column about a rape fantasy from 1972 is not going to sink Bernie when Trump has debased all public discourse.
No, what will get the Trump demagogue factory working at full throttle is the central message of the Sanders campaign: that the United States needs a political revolution. It may very well need one. But most people don’t think so, as Barack Obama has argued. And getting two million new progressive votes in the usual area codes is not going to change that.
“Ah jeez, ah fuck, he has no sexual indiscretions that I can dredge up and his Feminist polemic against pornography and the rape culture that it engenders is old news, and if I actually reported on it honestly people might actually read it and support his ideas. Oh, well, you see, despite the incredible groundswell of support for just such a thing, Barack Obama, the man that gave the banks trillions of dollars and then allowed the state apparatus to function as their gestapo-cum-storm troopers, says we don’t need one!”
Timothy Egan wants to dismiss “two million new progressive votes” after doing a little gaslighting. His Democrat masters don’t want people to remember that it was Obama’s promises of Hope and Change after 8 years of Republican tyranny that generated a record breaking voter turnout. They would also like you to forget that 2016 was a 20-year low in voter turnout. Do you think those things are related, Mr Egan? Do you think that there might be some connection between Obama taking advantage of the desperation of millions of people, betraying them, and then those people not fucking showing up next time, causing your party to lose to the dimwit that they themselves boosted to the position?
Give Sanders credit for moving public opinion along on a living wage, higher taxes on the rich and the need for immediate action to stem the immolation of the planet. Most great ideas start on the fringe and move to the middle.
But some of his other ideas are stillborn, or never get beyond the fringe. Socialism, despite its flavor-of-the-month appeal to young people, is not popular with the general public. Just 39 percent of Americans view socialism positively, a bare uptick from 2010, compared with 87 percent who have a positive view of free enterprise, Gallup found last fall.
“Just” 39 percent of Americans, up 4% from 2016. This is ignoring for the moment that due to Americans’ piss-poor education system they have no idea what “Socialism” means aside from “more government.” Looking at the breakdown of results, it seems as though they just asked people off the top of their head what they thought about X, no definition or elaboration given. Unsurprisingly, when you look at the actual numbers on specific issues, you can see exactly why Egan has to play this deceptive bullshit: of respondents 18-34, 52% have a favorable view of “Socialism,” as opposed to 47% supporting “Capitalism.” This is in sharp contrast to the 35-54 and 55+ cohorts. 65% of Democrats have a favorable view of “Socialism.” Those with a “Liberal” ideology are even more in favor at 74%, Timothy Egan, you massive shithead.
What’s more, American confidence in the economy is now at the highest level in nearly two decades. That’s hardly the best condition for overthrowing the system.
"The highest level in nearly two decades.” That’s faint fucking praise right there.
You can see the tremendous fucking crater caused by the crash in 2007/8, a reversal of a whopping -81 points from the previous year. With many economists forecasting recession beginning either this year or the next, we’ll see how long the confidence lasts.
So-called Medicare for all, once people understand that it involves eliminating all private insurance, polls at barely above 40 percent in some surveys, versus the 70 percent who favor the option of Medicare for all who want it. Other polls show majority support. But cost is a huge concern. And even Sanders cannot give a price tag for nationalizing more than one-sixth of the economy.
A ban on fracking is a poison pill in a must-win state like Pennsylvania, which Democrats lost by just over 44,000 votes in 2016. Eliminating Immigration and Customs Enforcement, another Sanders plan, is hugely unpopular with the general public.
“Medicare for all is really unpopular, except when it isn’t.”
Hmm, you know? Hmmm.
As for fracking, from his own link:
>A November poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Cook Political Report found that only 39 percent of Pennsylvania swing voters saw a fracking ban as a good idea, even as nearly 7 in 10 of those same voters said they supported the idea of a “Green New Deal” for the environment.
Democrats are whinging on the jobs “lost” to a fracking ban as though it exists in isolation. 39% might support a fracking ban, but 70% support the GND, which could potentially offset the “job loss” with industry that has the potential not to leave their state as a fucking environmentally ruined horror show. I haven’t run the numbers on this, but not living in a cesspool of polluted air and water tends to be pretty popular, Timbo.
More shellgames from Mr Egan regarding abolishing ICE.
> Only 1 in 4 voters in the poll, 25 percent, believe the federal government should get rid of ICE. The majority, 54 percent, think the government should keep ICE. Twenty-one percent of voters are undecided.
That sounds bad. Maybe it’s not such a good ide
>But a plurality of Democratic voters do support abolishing ICE, the poll shows. Among Democrats, 43 percent say the government should get rid of ICE, while only 34 percent say it should keep ICE.
Oh.
Sanders is a rigid man, and he projects grumpy-old-man rigidity, with his policy prescriptions frozen in failed Marxist pipe dreams. He’s unlikely to change. I sort of like that about his character, in the same way I like that he didn’t cave to the politically correct bullies who went after him for accepting the support of the influential podcaster Joe Rogan.
Democrats win with broad-vision optimists who still shake up the system — Franklin Roosevelt, of course, but also Obama. The D’s flipped 40 House seats in 2018 without using any of Sanders’s stringent medicine. If they stick to that elixir they’ll oust Trump, the goal of a majority of Americans.
Democrats lose with fire-and-brimstone fundamentalists. Three times, the party nominated William Jennings Bryan, the quirky progressive with great oratorical pipes, and three times they were trounced. Look him up, kids. Your grandchildren will do a similar search for Bernie Sanders when they wonder how Donald Trump won a second term.
“Failed Marxist pipe dreams.” Aaaaay lmao. You should also have an inkling something is wrong when you have to go all the way back to FDR to find someone that supports your point. Talk about “poison pills,” Obama proved himself to be as much of a snake as the rest, and the effects of that resonated in 2016 when the Dems ran on a platform of “that’s a nice country you have there, you wouldn’t want Trump to get elected, would you?” How did that work out? You ran one of the most unpopular politicians in the country—after very blatantly rigging the primaries against Sanders to do so—against one of the most unpopular capitalists in the country, and lost, dipshit!
Ironically, I think Timbob’s closing statement will prove true, though not in the way his clown ass intends. Shills like Egan are doing everything they can to try and poison public perception against Sanders and his policies, who only proves increasingly popular as time goes on, so much so in fact that the DNC is already biting its nails and muttering to itself about ways it can try and cheat his supporters again.
In conversations on the sidelines of a DNC executive committee meeting and in telephone calls and texts in recent days, about a half-dozen members have discussed the possibility of a policy reversal to ensure that so-called superdelegates can vote on the first ballot at the party’s national convention. Such a move would increase the influence of DNC members, members of Congress and other top party officials, who now must wait until the second ballot to have their say if the convention is contested.
They deny it in the article, claim that changing the rules would be “bad sportsmanship,” but one would be a fool to believe them. If anything, their ambivalence towards relying on Superdelegates would make me even more nervous at this stage. Politico wants it to seem like the DNC is bent on playing fair, but more likely than not they have no intention of changing the convention rules because they believe there’s no need. With Warren’s flagging support and the luke-warm response to Biden, I doubt they’re overcome with optimism of beating Sanders in an honest primary. With all the shenanigans from last time’s primaries in mind, it’s likely that the machinery to rig the results their way is already in place—the primary could already be over before it even begins.
#iowa#2020 election#us presidential election#bernie sanders#bernie sander for president#DNC#timothy egan#new york times#propaganda#propagandists#universal healthcare#medicare for all#fracking#marxism#socialism#capitalism#donald trump#millennials#generation z#zoomers#economy#economics#recession
8 notes
·
View notes
Text
Rewind: How a religious group you’ve never heard of influences policy in both Washington and Topeka
From KCActive.com, July 24, 2009
The new Netflix documentary The Family deals with some of the subjects I discussed with Jeff Sharlet, who was an executive producer on the series and who is one of the people discussing this mysterious and troubling group on camera.
---
Until South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford made a trip to see his mistress in Argentina on state funds and Nevada Sen. John Ensign got a bad return on the hush money he paid former lover and staffer Cynthia Hampton, few Americans had ever heard of a powerful religious group known as The Family or The Fellowship.
The Family provided spiritual counseling to both Sanford and Ensign and, according to Hampton’s husband, drove Ensign to a FedEx office to send a “Dear Jane” letter to Hampton.
While the former convent house they now run on C Street, just a few blocks from the Capitol in Washington DC, is now synonymous with scandal and seems like something from a conspiracy theory, the impact the Family has had in Washington has been real, and current and past members of Kansas’ congressional delegation have sought The Family’s support.
Ensign even lived in the C Street house while he was in DC, and in a recent divorce case, the wife of former Mississippi Congressman Chip Pickering claims he rendezvoused with his mistress within the building’s walls.
The Family’s Tree
The organization, which has several subsidiary foundations, was founded in 1935 by a Norwegian immigrant pastor named Abraham Vereide. It was his response to the rise of unions during the Great Depression. Vereide thought the economic meltdown was caused by the nation’s sin of siding with unions and “against” businesses.
In 1953, he established the annual National Prayer Breakfast, where the President and several other American and World Leaders meet every year. The meeting helped lead to the 1978 Israeli-Egyptian peace deal, but it also helped solidify America’s ties to Indonesian dictator Suharto (a nominal Muslim more interested in power than either Jesus or Mohammed), whose regime killed nearly 500,000 of his own people in a single year.
The Family’s activities have had a very public impact by keeping a low profile. Sharlet lived in their complex, named Ivanwald, for nearly a month in 2002 and later dug through nearly 600 boxes of archives for The Family at Wheaton University, and conducted dozens of personal interviews to write The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heat of American Power. The book, first published in 2008, has just been released in paperback.
“In the early days of The Family, Abraham Vereide was doing a flow chart of responsibility. One man was ‘finances;’ one man was ‘meetings.’ Beside his own name was ‘power.’ That was going to be his responsibility. And then in this really interesting move, he crosses it out. What Vereide’s great insight about power was that it can’t be had. In other words, if you have to declare your own power, you’re not powerful,” says Sharlet by phone from New Hampshire.
“If you talk about (The Family) at all, you’re breaking the rules. They believe they must practice in secrecy, which is in defiance to what the Gospels teach about openness and doing your deeds in the light. Those who do evil deeds will shy away from the light.”
In addition to the Family’s own secrecy, the author says that the American press has unknowingly been complicit in keeping The Family in the shadows.
“For a long time, they’ve been benefiting from the fact that the American political press is religiously illiterate. They don’t know how to ask these questions,” says Sharlet. “There was a failure to distinguish between evangelical Christianity in America, which is a mainstream movement, and The Family, which is a very different kind of theology: very authoritarian. It is unrecognizable to any evangelical church in America.
“They’re Washington insiders. A lot liberals are happy to bash fundamentalists when they think they’re hillbillies or backwoods and that kind of stuff, and they don’t know what to do with a group like The Family, which is establishment, which is elite and sophisticated and internationalist.”
While Ensign and Sanford are Republicans, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor, both Democrats, have also been actively involved with The Family. “It’s a rightward movement pulling on both parties,” says Sharlet.
Prayer for Power
Some of the most familiar quotations from the Gospels display a wariness of wealth and power and a deep concern for the underprivileged. In
John 18:36, Jesus states, “My kingdom does not belong to this world,” and in Matthew 25:40, he ends a parable by declaring, “And the king will answer, ‘I tell you this: anything you did for one of my brothers here, however humble, you did for me (New English Version).”
It’s also hard to forget Mark 10:25, where Jesus warns his followers, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
According to Sharlet, Vereide and his successors believe that their ministry was to the “up-and-out” instead of the “down-and-out.” One of their core beliefs is that many rulers who have come to power, regardless of wretchedness, gained their thrones through divine selection.
“This is not actually in the book. It’s in a bunch of audio sermons we found after the book had already gone to press. Doug Coe (who succeeded Vereide before the founder’s death in 1969) does this little rhetorical move where he wants congressmen to understand what he means about power.
“‘Who are the three 20th century leaders who best understood Jesus’ message in the New Testament?’ You imagine people guessing something like (South African Nobel laureate) Desmond Tutu, (German Anti-Nazi theologian Dietrich) Bonheoffer, or Martin Luther King or maybe Billy Graham even,” recalls Sharlet.
“And he says, ‘None of those guys. It’s Hitler, Stalin and Mao.’ Your jaw drops. These are evil men. He’s not saying you should commit genocide. ‘They are evil men, but they understood the bottom line of the New Testament.’ That’s a constant of all their stories.”
Kansas Connections
Two of the Sunflower state’s most prominent Republican politicians, Sam Brownback and Todd Tiahrt, have been regular visitors at the counseling sessions. Brownback is expected to run for governor of Kansas after declaring he would not run for reelection to the U.S. Senate. Tiahrt, who is the current Fourth District Congressman, is a 2010 U.S. Senate candidate for Kansas.
He received national attention when he lamented a House bill that might have led to taxpayer-supported abortions in DC, if applied to earlier generations, would have led the mothers of Barack Obama and Clarence Thomas to end their pregnancies.
U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback and Congressman Todd Tiahrt, both representing Kansas, are regular visitors at counseling sessions conducted by Douglas E. Coe, leader of The Family, a secretive Christian movement.
Sharlet says Tiahrt’s emphatic rhetoric is unusual for Family members. “They don’t like bomb throwers. That’s not their style. It’s easy to forget that Brownback can be a very subtle player. I don’t know if Tiahrt can.”
In the book, Sharlet recounts a counseling session with Coe where Tiahrt lamented that Christians were losing the race with Muslims because Muslims were having more babies and Christians were aborting theirs.
“Apparently, in Todd Tiahart’s world, there are no American Muslims,” says Sharlet. “(Tiahrt and Coe) were sitting in a breakfast nook of the C Street house. They were sipping their hot cocoa. I brought them their cocoa.”
Ironically, Sharlet’s experiences in The Family landed him an extensive 2006 Rolling Stone interview with Brownback despite an unflattering article he’d previously written about the organization in Harper’s. The author recalls that a Kansas reporter sent the senator a dossier on Sharlet warning Brownback not to consent to the article.
“Once you’ve been a member of The Family, because it is a type of bastardized Calvinism, you’re always a member of The Family,” says Sharlet. “God uses you for a purpose. In Brownback’s case, it really seemed in my conversation with him, it really seemed like he felt that if he could show me what he did and what he believed that I would be overwhelmed by the goodness of it and come back to the fold.”
Sharlet also describes a vivid example where Kansans don’t have to look far to see the impact of the Family on the state.
“A bunch of Family guys on a Senate appropriations committee are in charge of military construction. What they’ve been doing is green lighting mega-church size and style chapels across the country. And Fort Riley’s got one under construction that came through Sam Brownback. Keep in mind Fort Riley (already) has a chapel. They don’t need a new chapel for $18 million,” says Sharlet.
“At the same time, this committee couldn’t fund a much more modest and ecumenical chapel at the Dover Air Force Base that would have been for the families of the war dead. They couldn’t find three million bucks for that.”
He Never Left
Sharlet’s expertise on The Family and his first-hand observations have suddenly made him an omnipresent pundit. The week I had spoken to him, he had written a Family-related article in Salon and made his fifth appearance on The Rachel Maddow Show.
“I published the book last spring. It made it on the bestseller list for a week, but it wasn’t a big hit,” says Sharlet. “None of it took. And now come sex scandals, the great American blood sport. Americans know how to deal with it. Hypocrisy, they get. What’s been promising about all the attention is that it starts with the sex scandals but in a lot of the media we’ve been doing, we start with the sex scandals but we get to the real issues at hand, which are not about who’s sleeping with who but about where the money is going, what kind of political influence is being used, what kind of ideology is being pushed out there. I’m very glad that people are paying attention.”
10 notes
·
View notes
Text
Perfect Match, Book One. Chapter 1: True Love, Guaranteed
You walk down a bustling Brooklyn street, the sounds of the city humming all around you.
Karma: (Hope I’m not late!)
Soft music plays as you step into the hip venue of an upscale art show.
Karma: Nadia! Hey!
You spot your cousin, Nadia, among the crowd. Her face lights up as she approaches with arms outstretched and wraps you in a tight hug!
Nadia: Karma! I’m so happy you made it!
Karma: Are you kidding? The opening of your new art collection? I wouldn’t miss it for the world.
Nadia: Honestly, I have no idea how it blew up. But who am I to argue with the review of an art critic?
Karma: You mean glowing reviews from dozens of art critics?
Nadia: Oh, shush! Anyway, that’s not what I was excited about.
Karma: Then what is it?
Nadia: I want you to meet my boyfriend!
Nadia waves over to a handsome man from across the room…
Nadia: Steve! Come say hi to my cousin!
Steve: Hey! You must be Karma! I’ve heard so much about you. I’ve been dying to meet you for weeks, but I’ve been busy at the animal shelter.
Karma: Oh! Do you work there?
Nadia: Steve’s an investment banker. But he volunteers at an animal shelter. Amazing, right?
Steve: Ah, it’s nothing. I’m just a guy who likes to do some good in his free time. Nadia here is the amazing one. The way her art makes me feel… It’s indescribable.
Nadia: Aww, sweetie!
Steve: Now, if you’ll excuse me, Karma, I’ve got to replenish the hors d’oeuvres. We’ll talk later! My mini-quiches are going fast!
Steve gives Nadia a kiss on the cheek and hustles off. Nadia sighs, beaming.
Nadia: Did I mention he bakes? He bakes. So… What do you think?
Karma: No one is that perfect. I’m calling bull. How much are you paying him?
Nadia: Ha, ha. Don’t be mad that I’ve found the ultimate boyfriend!
Karma: Really though. Where did you find this guy?
Nadia: I met him through a matchmaking service. They asked me some questions, then found the perfect man for me! They’re very exclusive. Super selective with their clientele. But I’m sure they’d accept you in a heartbeat!
Nadia reaches into her purse and hands you a business card.
Nadia: You should try them out!
Karma: True love, guaranteed? I’ll believe it when I see it!
Nadia: That’s not a nooo…
Karma: I mean… What the hell? I’ll give it a shot. You’ve piqued my curiosity.
Just then, a voice calls to you from the crowd…
Damien: Don’t tell me Nadia has got you drinking this ‘matchmaking’ service Kool-Aid too, Karma. You of all people don’t need some fancy matchmaking service.
Your good friend Damien saunters over, seamlessly switching his empty champagne glass with a fresh one from a server’s tray.
Karma: I’ll take that as a compliment. But you can’t argue with the results. Steve seems like a catch.
Damien: Yeah, I talked to Mr. Perfect on the way in. Haven’t found any flaws or dark secrets yet. But give me time.
Nadia: Really, D? We’ve known you for like, four years. I thought you would’ve dropped the tough, cynical act by now.
Damien: I’m a private investigator. I catch liars and cheaters for a living. ‘Cynical’ is basically my job.
Nadia: Don’t listen to him, Karma. He’s like the Grinch when it comes to love. Eros is the best matchmaking service ever! I’ll schedule you an appointment for a consultation!
Damien: Yeah! A vague, secretive company providing little to no contact information… What could go wrong? Just keep your guard up, Karma… Maybe bring pepper spray, or hold your keys like claw.
Nadia: Ignore him. It’ll be amazing! I know you’re gonna find someone perfect for you!
Karma: Can’t wait!
Later that week, you arrive outside the address Nadia gave you. A sleek, unlabeled complex towers above you…
Karma: (Okay, this is a little weird. Not so much as a logo on the door. But the address looks right…)
You push through the glass doors to enter a warm, inviting lobby. A stunning woman strides gracefully across the room, the steps of her heels echoing through the halls.
Cecile: Karma Park? My name is Cecile Contreras. I’m the Head of Matchmaking here at Eros. Welcome! You got here on the J train, didn’t you? I hope getting to the new Quincy Station wasn’t too much of a hassle.
Karma: Uh, thank you… How did you know--
Cecile: We’ve done our homework. Eros has been expecting you, after all. Your cousin Nadia gave you a glowing referral. I’m excited to begin. Please, follow me.
You follow Cecile through the pristine halls of Eros Incorporated…
Karma: I’m still a little overwhelmed by this whole thing. How can you guarantee true love?
Cecile: A good question. Love is a complex thing. But here at Eros, we’ve used the latest in behavioural science and technology to devise the most sophisticated matchmaking system in the world.
Karma: So you think you’ve got people figure out… with some algorithm?
Cecile: Your personality, your wants, your needs… All of that makes you unique, like a puzzle piece. But somewhere out there is a piece that fits flawlessly with you. An exact complement. A perfect match. Our technology helps sort through the pieces to find yours. Simply put, the human heart is precisely out expertise.
Karma: Sounds like a sales pitch. I’m not so easily won over by the slogans and buzz words.
Cecile: Touche. But we stand by every claim. Give us a chance to convince you, and I promise you’ll be satisfied.
Karma: Well… I’m already here.
She leads you into a peaceful, softly lit room. A sweet, floral aroma and calming music fill the space around you.
Cecile: Welcome to our consultation room. This is where we’ll be conducting our Perfect Match questionnaire.
Karma: Is this the part where I tell you my middle name, my hobbies, and where I went to high school?
Cecile: Nadia sent us the personality profile you filled out, so we already have the basic information we need. Today will be all about finding out what you’re looking for in a match.
Karma: Oh… Okay… So why does this place look more like a day spa than a quiz room?
Cecile: Oh, I assure you, our questionnaire is more than just a quiz. It’s a comprehensive interview, monitoring not just your words, but your biorhythms, your excitement, your emotional engagement… As such, we want you to be perfectly at ease.
She invites you to sit on a reclining chair in the middle of the room, and instantly your mind drifts as you sink into the shockingly comfortable seat. Cecile sits on a chair beside you with a tablet in hand.
Cecile: Simply place your hand on the palm scanner, and we can begin.
You place your hand on the smooth surface of the chair’s arm. It hums and glows, and soon a soft chime sounds in sync with your own heartbeat. The lights in the room dim as your mind drifts, peacefully…
Cecile: Now, relax. Close your eyes… focus on the sound of my voice… and speak from your heart…
Cecile taps on her tablet. You hear her voice from a distance as your eyes close…
Cecile: I have twelve brief questions. Please answer as honestly as you can.
You’re on a first date. Which makes you want a second:
Talking for hours about everything?
Being intrigued and left wanting more?
Karma: Being intrigued and left wanting more.
Cecile: When traveling abroad, your perfect match would rather take you:
To explore ancient ruins, just the two of you
To a lively festival, bustling with locals
Karma: To explore ancient ruins, just the two of you
Cecile: You’re transported into a fantasy novel. Which character is more attractive?
A magnetic ruler, leading and inspiring the people
A silent, formidable warrior, fighting evil from the shadows
Karma: A silent, formidable warrior, fighting evil from the shadows.
Cecile: Your favorite childhood playground is being torn down. Your perfect match:
Takes you there for a farewell picnic
Steal you a piece of it to keep forever
Karma: Steals me a piece to keep forever.
Cecile: Who do you imagine your partner hung out with in high school?
A close-knit group of friends
A rowdy bunch of outcasts
Karma: A rowdy bunch of outcasts
Cecile: Your match appears in a dream with an animal companion. What kind is it?
A fierce, wild hawk
A loyal, noble golden retriever
Karma: A fierce, wild hawk.
Cecile: Complete the sentence. My perfect match can always:
Makes me laugh until I cry
Say the right thing to comfort me when I’m down
Karma: Say the right thing to comfort me when I’m down
Cecile: What would your ideal partner sing during a karaoke date?
A love song dedicated to you
A ridiculous theme song, just to tease you
Karma: A love song dedicated to me
Cecile: Your perfect match has just defeated a supervillain. What do they do next?:
Righteously condemn the villain’s actions
Spout a witty catchphrase
Karma: Righteously condemn the villain’s actions
Cecile: Your travel plans have fallen through. What does your partner do?
They point blindly to a map, and plan a new adventure on the fly
They have you covered no matter what, backup plan and all
Karma: They have me covered no matter what, backup plan and all.
Cecile: How would your partner clear out a building full of zombies?:
They devise a brilliant plan and execute it flawlessly
They charge in, guns blazing!
Karma: They devise a brilliant plan, and execute it flawlessly.
Cecile: You’re at a casino, and your partner is winning big. Why is that?
They take big risks, and it pays off
They’re savvy and calculating, and play the odds
Karma: They’re savvy and calculating, and play the odds.
Cecile: You’re doing wonderfully, Karma. We have enough to find you a suitable match, but first, I’d like to ask if there’s anything in particular you’re looking for… I’m going to list a few traits that your potential match may possess… Let me know if any of them resonate strongly with you. For those who prioritize physical intimacy, we have many candidates with massage skills. We can refine our search to animal lovers and pet owners, who are often compassionate and kind. If you’re drawn to creative, artistic souls, we can match you with musicians. Last but not least, many people seek the culture and intelligence of someone who speaks many languages. Which of these appeals to you?
Karma: I’m looking for someone with a magic touch.
Cecile: An excellent choice. Would you like to distinguish your preferences further? Remember, there’s no shame in being picky when it comes to love. You’re absolutely worth it.
Karma: I’m fine with my selection.
The lights in the room brighten, and you are suddenly aware of your surroundings again. Cecile looks up from her note-taking and smiles warmly at you.
Cecile: That concludes the questionnaire. Not so bad, was it? Based on your responses, we’ll determine which of our sixteen personality types best describes your Perfect Match. I’ll have your results in a moment…
Cecile taps on the tablet before turning it to show you the display…
“Your perfect match is an Activist… - mysterious, rebellious, sincere, logical - … Someone with passion, drive, and vision, an Activist fights to change the world… and will fight just as hard for you!”
Karma: Wow. Just like that? Are you sure this type is the match for me?
Cecile: Skepticism is completely understandable. But I encourage you to trust the system. I think you’ll find that our system may surprise you.
Karma: Well… I guess I could give it a shot. So… What next?
Cecile: Next? Simply leave the rest to us. We’ll find the most compatible partner for you in our database and arrange your first date. You’ll be hearing from us soon!
Karma: Sounds like a plan. And what happens after that?
Cecile flashes you a wink.
Cecile: Why, true love, of course.
You step out of the Eros building into the brisk night air, the New York City skyline towering above you.
Damien: Made it out of the Mystery Company in one piece, huh?
Karma: Damien? What are you doing here?
Damien leans against his old muscle car, pulling his jacket tight against the cold.
Damien: Check your phone, lovebird. I called you a couple times. Wanted to make sure you hadn’t joined a cult, or bought a timeshare or anything… And also offer you a ride home.
Karma: You just wanted the dirt on this Mystery Company, huh?
Damien smiles.
Damien: Wow… You know me too well, Karma. Come on.
Soon, you’re watching the city lights streak by through the passenger window of Damien’s car as you catch him up on your day.
Damien: So, really… this Eros thing. You’d think you’d just swipe left and right like other apps. No, you know, go to a day spa for a fancy interview.
Karma: Maybe it’s a little… unconventional, but it seemed legit to me.
Damien; Unconventional is an understatement. But hey, whatever makes you happy.
Damien pulls the car to a stop outside your apartment building.
Damien: … I actually mean that too. I want you to be happy.
Karma: Oh, really? No sarcasm this time? No snarky retort?
You catch Damien’s eye as a slight smirk spreads across his face…
Damien: Despite my unflappably cool facade… I do have the capacity to care about someone. Occasionally.
Karma: Don’t get sappy on me now, Damien.
Damien: Wouldn’t dream of it.
One afternoon that weekend, you’re lounging in your apartment when a knock sounds on the door. You open it to find…
Nadia: Karma! I’m guessing you haven’t left your apartment today.
Karma: What makes you say that?
Nadia: Because if you stepped outside, you would have noticed this on your doorstep!
Nadia hands you a pristine display of flowers with an envelope attached! You open the card inside…
Karma: It’s from Eros! ‘Dear Karma, True love awaits! We’ve found someone special for you, and have already arranged your first date. At the end of the night, we’ll survey you both separately. If you both feel a connection, you’ll be declared a Match! You need only come with an open heart… and leave the rest to destiny.’
Nadia: Well, I came here hoping to ask how your appointment went, but I guess I have my answer! I remember when I got my letter from Eros… I was so excited! This is gonna be amazeballs! Right?!
Karma: I think there better be a money-back guarantee.
Nadia: Ugh, you’ve been hanging around Damien too much. Let yourself be hopeful! This match they’ve found is going to be great for you!
Karma: Let’s hope so. The details on the card say that Eros has scheduled our first date… For tonight!
Nadia: Wait, what? We’ve got to get you ready!
Soon, Nadia is leading you on a last-minute shopping trip. She pores over the card from Eros as you browse through outfits.
Nadia: Tonight could be the start of your beautiful, perfect love story, Karma! You’ve got to make a good impression! Luckily, Eros has you covered!
Karma: What do you mean?
Nadia This card from Eros includes some style suggestions based on your Perfect Match’s taste! Perfectly tailored to impress him!
Karma: They can do that?
Your cousin pulls an outfit from the rack…
Nadia: This one! It fits the suggestion perfectly! Try it on!
Karma: I think I’m just going to go as I am…
Nadia: Well… if this person really is your perfect match, they should love you regardless! I trust in the system!
As the afternoon goes on and the sun starts to set, you finish prepping with Nadia… When a sudden knock at the front door sounds! You hurry over to the living room with Nadia in tow!
Nadia: Ohmygod, ohmygod… He’s here. Answer it, quick! Tonight will be the start of your beautiful storybook romance!
You try to calm your cousin as you open the door…
Karma: Relax, Karma. It doesn’t have to be a ‘storybook romance’. No one is expecting this night to be--
Hayden: Hi, I’m Hayden. You must be Karma….
Karma: I… um… wow.
1 note
·
View note
Text
The Hidden Truth About Questions to Ask by a Specialist after a Phone Interview Revealed
Make certain to have a process prior to the interview which you are in a position to rely on to deconstruct questions. It is not possible to know all the questions that will be asked of you, however, it does not indicate that you can't try. Clearly, from the fact you have asked that question, reveals that you are interested in the organization and job role that you need to have dedicated to study. As you wish to finish the interview the questions that you ask at the close of the interview are of most importance. They're equally as critical.
At the end of the interview, even if you missed a couple of questions, the general feeling the interviewer had of you should be positive. Comparable to choosing a test, although you do not know the questions, you must know about the types of questions which are asked. Bear in mind you have one completely free question.
Not all the questions are simple to answer if you concentrate on transmitting that you truly require work but there'll be no problem and you could possibly be dedicated to it. The first and most normal question is, tell me a bit about yourself. You will probably find that many of the common questions in a telephone interview will probably fall into at least into one of the eight areas.
Questions to Ask after a Phone Interview Fundamentals Explained
Receive the interview comments and You'll have to satisfy the company after an interview that is unsuccessful. The moment it is understandable an employer want to ensure they're investing in the perfect person, the workload should not be time consuming. What employers want is somebody who can secure the company and resolve problems for the company. On the day of the interview, with a tour of the provider may supply you one of the companies. They are looking to become dedicated members of the organization. You have spent the opportunity and show the company that you care about the company by doing this.
Make you're going to demonstrate that you're ready and coachable to improve and the changes suggested by the supervisor. The manager doesn't want to employ someone who talks more than they listen. mork-gryning After the role-play, be sure you ask the manager to get an honest evaluation of your own performance. Hiring managers are usually happy to answer any questions that may have, simply make sure the info is not already on the site of the business or in the job description.
Ruthless Questions to Ask after a Phone Interview Plans Exploited
It isn't important whether you need to consult with a sheet of paper, when you have completed a good deal of work, it seems a fantastic deal better than various other answers the man or woman is likely to get. You will not have to question your work, and you're going to know the regions where you'll need to improve. You trying to find a job and you chose to try out the unemployment office of your state, but it doesn't imply you do not have to acquire the interview that is conventional. http://cutt.us/s8eLL From a glance you're firstly showing that you're interested in the task, get on with it and you wish to observe the phase. mork-gryning It'll be useful to recall what they are trying to find if you take the job.
Just Questions to Ask after a Phone Interview?
mork-gryning In case without providing you a chance to ask the questions you've got, say, Before we proceed now, the interviewer appears to be ending the interview, I'd really like to ask you a few questions I have about the job. The interviewer does not wish to hear about how good it will be for one to work to their company or how that they have the capability to profit you. Interviewers wish to probe for those advantages of the ability of a candidate. Any halfway interviewer that is good ought to be fully comprehension and would rather speak to somebody who is distracted or uneasy.
Locating Questions to Request on the Net after a Phone Interview
Each interview has a specific intent. DOget to wherever you intend to select the interview more or five minutes early and make sure your phone is charged. Interviewing is imaginable for most people. Bear in mind that a poor interview is that, and gear up for your next. While in various companies it is conducted by way of a worker of the organization in some companies the second interview is usually a panel interview you're applying at. The interview supplies you the opportunity to reveal to the company you have learned something.
1 note
·
View note
Text
SnK 102 Thoughts
Any of you ever watch Imagine Me & You?
In it, some small child whose name I can’t remember asks what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. The answer given by one of the romantic leads whose name I remember slightly better but am pretending not to is that they can’t both exist.
Taking all bets, folks.
First thing’s first, and oh my gosh, it actually comes first in the chapter! What witchcraft is this!
That’s way more visually appealing in the manga, but. ...I mean, looking at it, all of my reasons seem very silly, because that is horrible and I could probably be spending this time making it better, but I’m not going to, so now we’re all sad.
It’s a metaphor.
(it wasn’t supposed to be)
Anyway, the in-universe confirmation that wow, this is all a bit much, are you sure any of this was a good idea? is greatly appreciated. Expected, on some level, but when the story starts going dark places, it’s easy to distrust the motivation. So I remain a mostly unhappy camper at this getaway, but canon taking a moment to pause and wonder why someone thought this was a good plan is nice.
I’m going to get lost in questions and character stuff very quickly, so for the sake of making sense of what is going on in The Plan, bullet points are my new friends.
Jaws and Cartman are were contained
Scouts are closing off the streets and killing enemy combatants
Civilian casualties are considered un-ideal--officially
Lamps are being positioned on high buildings
The plan is contingent on disabling the War Hammer Titan ‘in time’
Eren nomming the War Hammer is in his book as a Good End
Survival is emphasized over everything else
My guess is that no one wanted this (whatever it is) to turn into a Titan brawl. If everything had gone according to plan and stayed that way, Pieck and Galliard would be imprisoned, no Marlyean soldiers would be left alive within the internment zone, and the War Hammer and an impressive number of prominent government officials would be dead.
Currently, the Panzer Unit is live, Galliard’s running about, War Hammer is not contained, and the Beast Titan is here.
The Beast Titan would have appeared either way (like the lamps, which have me wondering if Armin is showing up), because no steps were taken to contain him. Both sides have been counting on the Beast Titan to be available in the coming something or other.
Zeke has been kept in the shadows as far as a lot of his feelings on things. He disdains war and copes by treating it as a game, and he loves his family. The inner workings of all of that isn’t readily available, making him a potential wildcard. Since Eren’s taken up baseball, the thought of something being up with him has been a topic of active discussion.
If things went as planned, the Survey Corps + Eren would have unfettered access to Zeke. Titan holder, primary instrument of the most vile Marley offenses, and someone with royal blood. Only two people alive can say that last one, and one of them is presumably still an ally to her military.
Confronting Zeke is a reasonable plan in most every category you could ask for. Wanting to face him in isolation makes perfect sense, and you can’t say that about many of the known quantities here. My questions are if what he knew what he would be walking into, if Eren wants something different from what the Scouts want out of him, and if Zeke’s commitment to Marley’s side is as plain as it looks.
Since the Yeager boys have been so hush hush about what they’re up to lately, I’m not very interested in speculating (Zeke’s face has Isayama lines, but to be fair, a lot of people just died, and he does dislike war), but I am looking forward to the answers.
...Well, I say that. However
If nothing comes of Galliard trusting Zeke’s presence to be a good thing while his frame emphasizes light next to Pieck’s silent shadow... I will be disappointed. If anyone’s keeping score, Eren’s frame is more of a midtone shadow. I believe Pieck’s is darker, but that could be an optical illusion since her frame is descending into darker tones, and Eren’s lighting is evenly dispersed within his frame.
And since there’s only three panels left on the page, the other people having flashlights on their faces are Magath and his surviving troops and Gabi.
Symbolism.
Or not, but I’d like it to be.
Let’s move on to angry children, also known as Gabi and Floch. With Gabi first because oh hell, kid. Kid. Her friends are dead. People she saw every single day on her way to achieving her greatest pride are dead. There’s no rhyme or reason to it that she understands, or even maybe could understand, given what Marley’s done to her, she’s still alive, and she’s angry.
We’ve seen that anger in the exact person it’s aimed at. Hopefully Gabi learns a thing or two from it, preferably without getting killed in the process. Her cousin’s still MIA (Reiner is either having a horrific mental breakdown, going to go full Warrior mode and make everyone’s awkward planning more awkward by exploding out of the ground, or unconscious, and all of these choices make me feel really bad for Falco--who is a character who can still have a worst day of his life instead of stopping to debate which one was truly worst), and...
Gabi may have no problem committing war crimes to win a fight, but she’s a child who wants to be a Warrior so she can help her cousin. She’s not innocent in the usual sense that children are, but she is a child, and she has a very soft heart.
Sasha spares her life, but Gabi’s living a nightmare, and the devils of Paradis brought it to her.
-rewards Sasha a “You Tried” star-
Our other angry child should know better, but even though it hasn’t been explicitly stated, it’s basically been established that therapy does not exist in this world. Floch is where he was four years ago. He’s upset at the injustices he’s suffered, and willing to lash out at anything connected to what’s responsible.
Jean’s best feature as a leader has always been understanding people’s weakness. But I think with Floch, he’s found something of a barrier to communication. We’ve seen Jean try to talk to him before, and if their interaction here is anything to go by, he hasn’t stopped. Except as much as Jean knows about personal weakness, hate isn’t something I think he gets.
Arguably, it’s because he knows so much about personal weakness that his feelings don’t fester into something dangerous (Connie has a similar moment when he says he understands why someone would kill Sawney and Bean).
Jean sees the big picture. He knows there are more victims than just them here.
Floch sees his personal pain, and bleeds all over everyone. He’s destroying a zone full of people who have been more warped and abused than he has any empathy for, and feels he’s in the right because look at what they’ve done to us.
And look at what their side has done to someone like Gabi.
I don’t think the two situations are the same, thanks to Marley’s copious awfulness getting into every potential interaction both sides of Eldians can have, but the emotional response is easy to see:
These people did a horrible thing.
They should be punished.
Only the root cause of everything goes so much deeper than all of that, and it’s not something that can be fixed by lopping off flowers. Gabi is like. twelve, and her emotional trauma just happened. Floch is like. twelve, and he was getting by just fine before the mess he survived four years ago.
And it is painfully obvious how much that specific event has trained Floch’s thinking. He wants Erwin to survive the Serum Bowl because Erwin is the devil humanity needs to break them free of their cage.
He’s grown up since then. Humanity doesn’t need Erwin to be their devil. Humanity just needs a devil.
Look. Eren?
Floch_is_agreeing_with_things_you_did.
Mikasa is not.
Regardless of what this plan is, you have made your mistakes and they are many, and the first statement does keep in mind that those mistakes might very well be the whole point but come on.
This chapter is hard to read, and I really wanted to open this post saying thank you for Mikasa Ackerman’s existence, because I don’t think I have ever been more grateful to see her.
I haven’t bothered obfuscating how much I loathe Marley. I think their conduct is evil, and the world would be better off if they got wiped off the map. All those angry child feels from above are actively present when I consider what they’ve done with their nation.
One of the recurring... is it a theme? It feels like a theme, but it’s also sort of just a random thing I’m pointing out, and the language I want to use implies things about the story that I’m not sure is really an objective. In any case, something we see over and over again in this series is that monsters are human.
Gabi watches a whole squad of soldiers get demolished. Among them is a man who watches the gate she passes in order to train to be a Warrior. He treats her as a child more than an Eldian, and knows enough about each individual Warrior candidate ask about their progress and laugh about Falco’s crush.
He’s a human being.
The children he’s being friendly with have been coerced into indentured servitude and live in internment camps that are under constant watch, where leaving is punishable by--well, people like him. He’s a cog in an abhorrent machine. One small piece that helps keep it running.
Humans do evil things. You could probably have a lot of fun arguing that a human’s capacity for evil is part of what makes them human. Evil monsters aren’t always creatures beyond understanding or sympathy. Sometimes they’re just people who take the easy path that someone else burned down a forest to make.
You could also argue that part of what makes a human human is their capacity for goodness in the midst of evil. The guard spends the last moments of his life trying to keep a little girl safe.
I don’t like Marley, but I like seeing the sparks of decency in people start a flame. You want to believe that if people can be good to each other even when they’re covered in muck and sin, that goodness deserves a chance to make it out alive and flourish. You want to think that if everyone could just be convinced to be their best self, the world would be okay.
A lot of sparks are snuffed out during this attack.
Marley getting wiped off the map without devastation and heartbreak is a nice pipe dream, and I might still daydream about it or hand-wave things in fics, but regardless of my personal angry child feelings, there’s too much death here to feel good about any of this.
So I really, really appreciate that Mikasa Ackerman exists. She’s here for Eren, and she’s actively participating in this operation, but you can see her heart breaking at what’s been done. People are dead. Civilian people. Children. This is something that’s happened, and there’s no fixing it. There’s only pain at the result.
Mikasa is the stoic badass. But all she’s ever wanted is for her family to be at home with her. However she counts them, they’re what’s nearest and dearest to her heart. She has extraordinary combat skills, and if she could go the rest of her life without needing them, she would be happier.
Someone suggested that one of the Scouts present could be the little girl that Mikasa saves in Trost. I have no idea if that will pan out or not, but I love the idea.
The anime’s handling of Mikasa deciding to live during Trost is what hooked me in this series, but the moment with that little girl is one of my favorites for her. She charges in, kills a titan, threatens a dude, and leaves. Perfect hero is perfect even with only that, but the little girl and her mother, instead of running to evacuate now that they can, stop and thank her. And Mikasa turns back and salutes them.
Their salute in this world is meant to represent offering up their hearts to humanity. Mikasa has select few people she loves beyond all else, but whenever she steps in to fight, she does so wanting people to be safe. She feels her responsibility towards her comrades more keenly and openly than many of the characters we’re familiar with.
Mikasa’s line about the world being cruel, yet beautiful, is one of the more memorable ones in the series. As a theme, it’s marvelous, but as something that comes out of a character’s head, it’s... very gentle and touching. The world is cruel, but while it’s being cruel, there’s still warmth. Even from people who are now gone.
Mikasa is a kind person who gives small children her time and nearly cries at her friend’s joy when he finally gets to play in the ocean. She’s known terrible cruelty at the world’s hands, but she also loves the world’s beauty. It isn’t an empty acknowledgment. She sees it, and she feels it, and she fights for it.
What Eren just did is... abominable. She loves him, but... hell, every beautiful panel of Mikasa and Eren before the War Hammer gets back up is a testament to how much pain he’s caused, and how much heartbreak is involved.
Mikasa is compassionate, and this arc... really needs that.
Even if now I’m wondering if “Too Little, Too Late,” is referring to her instead of one of the larger sides. That title really works for anything you want to stick it to, since the phrase is basically shorthand for “everything’s fucked.”
This series has gotten painful in ways I didn’t exactly need it to.
Monthly serials hurt.
#Shingeki no Kyojin#SnK 102#Mikasa Ackerman#shingeki no spoilers#SnK spoilers#spoilers#tl;dr#chapter post
305 notes
·
View notes
Text
DOTV AU: An Exercise in Alternate History (Part VIII)
Parts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII offer more detailed context. (To briefly sum up why these posts are happening: alt history – as in sci fi, not “alternative facts” – buff, one day got the idea that DOTV could have turned out hella different if Jim Steinman looked for a star lead in other places, decided to reason out how that might work.) This is still getting a good response, so I’m gonna keep the train rolling.
Parts of the AU timeline established so far:
Instead of stopping at recording two songs from Whistle Down the Wind on a greatest hits compilation, Meat Loaf wound up taking more of an interest in Steinman’s new theater work than he did in our timeline, and through a series of circumstances found himself volunteering to play Krolock in the impending DOTV when Jim poured out his woes to him about needing to find some sort of star to attract investors. At a loss for any better ideas, Jim accepted Meat’s impulsive proposal, but not without resistance from his manager, David Sonenberg, who proposed Michael Crawford as an alternate candidate. Through quick thinking on Meat’s part, and inspiration on Jim’s, Crawford left the room accepting an entirely different role than he walked in hoping to get, leaving Krolock still open for Meat.
There was a brief speed bump, when Meat disliked Jim’s English script for the show, but after meeting with the original German author Michael Kunze and convincing Jim to compromise, things were on the road to being back on track… at least until 9/11 occurred.
Following a brief hiatus, everyone involved met to re-assess their options. The current game-plan was to put the new script on paper, schmooze with potential investors or producers, and put together a new creative team. Preferably not all at the same time, but with the crunch on, they’d do whatever needed to be done.
Schmoozing went well, but everybody that Meat, Jim, and the crew wanted to be involved was tentative. The conclusion reached was that they needed to show them there was a working show, which resulted in a concert of selections from the score paid for by none other than Courtney Love (!) that received some in-depth press coverage.
Now we join our heroes as new wrinkles emerge in the path to Broadway.
A week after the concert of selections from Dance of the Vampires (and after Michael Riedel noting that Meat Loaf has yet to sign on the dotted line for the show), a brief story appears in Rolling Stone’s Random Notes section: “Rocker Meat Loaf announced this week that he has terminated the management services of Allen Kovac and is currently seeking new representation. Kovac, who is in the process of leaving Left Bank Management to form his own firm, issued the following statement which is believed to be a comment on the heavyset singer’s departure, though he is not mentioned by name: ‘I don’t tell artists what they want to hear, I tell them what I know to be true. When I first sign an artist I let them know that I’m not their friend. Too many artists don’t measure their manager on their performance; they measure them on how many times they’ve been invited to their house. That’s not my style. If an artist is going to be successful, you need to tell them how to run their business -- not ask them how to run their business. Does it work? Look it up: no artist has ever done better after leaving my company.’” Requests from the Vampires team to speak to Meat about what’s up are met with total radio silence.
Meanwhile, the business side of Vampires continues to shore up. Jim Steinman receives delighted reports from his manager, David Sonenberg, that Jerry Weintraub and the Weisslers are ready to commit, bumping the total number of producers thus far up to nine. “How’s it looking now?” Jim queries. “Well, remember we’re trying to raise 15 million,” says David. “I don’t mean to be pessimistic, but it will be an uphill battle.” “What else is new in the theater?” Steinman grumbles in response. “On the bright side, we can now tighten the list of how many producers we need to seven.”
The representatives from Concerts West, based in L.A., get back to them within the week. Reports Sonenberg to all parties by e-mail: “They’re interested, but only if it tours. Live touring events are what they do, and the theatrical market is something they haven’t explored; they’d be more comfortable with a national tour than a Broadway run, it’s more similar to what they do at a nuts-and-bolts level.” A decision is ultimately reached by quorum to make Concerts West’s involvement in a national tour contingent on investing in the Broadway run first, and the counter-offer is duly sent their way.
As the business side shores up, the creative side is beginning to percolate as well. Meetings are had with John Rando, the Urinetown director who attended the concert and spoke very enthusiastically about the show in Riedel’s column. He’s very excited about the chance to work on the show, both to work with David Ives again (having done numerous shows at Encores! together, he feels working with David will be really special and help focus the play) and especially to work with Meat. “I’d get to hear him sing every day,” Rando enthuses. “That’s a blessing. Can you imagine that? Every single day of your life you get to hear that voice.” He also ticks the right boxes when it comes to the commercial appeal of the piece and how it meshes with his vision for the show: “It’s such a different reality. It’s silly and fun and kind of glamorous, too. These vampires sort of pull you in and you find you’re turned on by them, too! It’s a wonderful, Gothic playground.” When asked for suggestions for a choreographer, and more specifically if they should ask his choreographer on Urinetown, John Carrafa, to be a part of the show, Rando is mildly hesitant but mostly enthusiastic. Jim is admittedly happiest when it comes to Rando’s assessment of how much creative control he should be allowed to have: “Look, Jim, what are you worried about? It’s your baby! You’ve been working on it forever! The quality, the tone, the ideas, the music... this play is all you! You’d be very much a part of it.”
More progress is made when a new set designer is engaged: David Gallo. Jim immediately likes him instinctively, when, upon meeting him for the first time, Gallo stops the interview process dead. “I have two things to tell you before we continue. Number one: I’m probably the only set designer in America who still subscribes to Heavy Metal Magazine. Number two: I bought Bat Out of Hell because I saw the album cover artwork and decided I had to have it before I even heard the music.” This is no idle compliment, considering the album cover was conceived by Steinman and executed by Richard Corben... and a sequence very similar to the events depicted on the cover forms the shape of one of Vampires’ opening scenes. His sample sketches of the sets are surprisingly atmospheric as well.
The more things shape up on the creative end, however, the more everyone on the business side of the table nervously eyes the chair where Meat Loaf should be. Since his firing of Kovac, who was more a hindrance than a help so is not really missed, he hasn’t said word one to anybody. Irving Azoff, widely proclaimed the biggest agent in the world, who attended the concert and may be interested in the show, is sending them queries about who is managing Meat now, hinting that he has his eye on Meat as a client. But nobody knows what’s going on with him. When he is finally able to get him on the phone, Jim pleads with Meat to see him, one on one if need be. Meat agrees.
The scene: Le Bar Bat, in Hell’s Kitchen on West 57th. Only 9 years prior, Steinman had conducted an interview for Bat Out of Hell II at this very establishment, celebrating his and Meat Loaf’s long-awaited reunion. Plastic bats still hang from the ceiling, and the bar is still sparsely attended. A deafening fusion group still plays a seemingly endless set. Steinman greets them, as per tradition, with a cheery “fuck off!” as they finish a tune. Meat sits alone in a booth, awaiting Jim’s arrival. He rummages through his CBS Records holdall, his shoulder juddering as if it were a pneumatic drill. His graying hair could do with a shampoo. Finally, he finds what he is seeking: a couple of throat lozenges, which he pops. “Jimmy, I don’t think I can do the show.” Immediately Jim’s heart is in his throat: “WHAT?!?” “What we’re about to do is insane! Lunatic. Totally insane. We’re just gonna go out there in front of everybody with our pants down!” Jim, searching for a way to respond, can only come out with “Think of it as a character-building experience! It’ll be amazing!”
“Have you read what your fans are saying about this on the Internet? They’re saying you should be sticking aside all the old, fat guys named after a dinner dish! ‘Get rid of Meat Loaf.’ They don’t want to see me do this!” “Now, Meat, come on. You know better than to buy into their bullshit. If I believed what I read on the Internet about anything I should do, I’d never get anything done. You’re going to be glad that you stuck with it.” “Well... we need to go out of town first. New York is the hardest when it comes to people being critical. We’re gonna be judged. A lot.” “Meat, you know we can’t afford to do that. Besides, every musical that you’ve done on Broadway has opened cold in New York. I like having the preview audience be the New York audience. There’s no BS -- they’re right there telling you what you need to fix. It’s great.”
Meat heaves a sigh: “Jimmy, I’ll be honest with you; I’m more tired now than I was when Amanda was two months old!” “Meat, listen to me. We have a lot of time. We’re gonna work very hard and very slowly. I know you’re not good at dealing with change, but you really have to stay focused and believe in the project.” “But Jimmy, it’s huge! It’s got to be one of the biggest shows on Broadway right now without even opening yet. And there’s still so much to work out.”
“What happened to Allen?” “He never believed in the show. You saw what happened when he kept the door open for Night of the Proms. After the concert, I called him to ask why he wasn’t there, and he said to me, ‘Y’know, an album and a tour are still possibilities, so why not do that instead? At least you know that will sell.’ We got into it pretty hard, and he called our show garbage. He said I did better off away from you, and that if I did this album and the tour, I could retire, or I could come back afterwards if you wanted to talk Bat III, but he was adamant that I was not doing this show. It became pretty clear to me that it was going to come down to either you or him.” Jim, touched, perhaps even a little misty-eyed: “And you chose me?” “As if I had a choice! Jim, you’re my brother. I love you... more than you’ll ever know.”
A beat of silence, awkward, emotional, and then... “Irving Azoff liked the concert.” “Yeah?” “He keeps calling us. I think he wants to sign you, and he wants to do the show too. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a manager who was on the same page?” “...will it get him to produce if I sign with him?” “I dunno. Maybe?” “I’ll give him a call. What else is going on?” Jim proceeds to update him on everything going on with the show, culminating in the reminder that they have a meeting with John Carrafa coming up to decide his suitability to the choreographic duties. “Can I count on you to be there?” “Jim, I’m signing the contract for a year, manager or no manager. If we’re fortunate enough to run, that’s how long I’ll be here. And then I’ll be in a nursing home, no doubt!” For the first time all night, both men laugh. A rosy future may well be in sight.
TO BE CONTINUED!
1 note
·
View note
Text
Perfect Match, Book One: Chapter 1 - True Love, Guaranteed
(NOW PLAYING AS KARMA)
You walk down a bustling Brooklyn street, the sounds of the city humming all around you.
Karma: (Hope I’m not late!)
Soft music plays as you step into the hip venue of an upscale art show.
Karma: Nadia! Hey!
You spot your cousin, Nadia, among the crowd. Her face lights up as she approaches with arms outstretched and wraps you in a tight hug!
Nadia: Karma! I’m so happy you made it!
Karma: Are you kidding? The opening of your new art collection? I wouldn’t miss it for the world.
Nadia: Honestly, I have no idea how it blew up. But who am I to argue with the review of an art critic?
Karma: You mean glowing reviews from dozens of art critics?
Nadia: Oh, shush! Anyway, that’s not what I was excited about.
Karma: Then what is it?
Nadia: I want you to meet my boyfriend!
Nadia waves over a handsome man from across the room…
Nadia: Steve! Come say hi to my cousin!
Steve: Hey! You must be Karma! I’ve heard so much about you. I’ve been dying to meet you for weeks, but I’ve been busy at the animal shelter.
Karma: Oh! Do you work there?
Nadia: Steve’s an investment banker. But he volunteers at an animal shelter. Amazing, right?
Steve: Ah, it’s nothing. I’m just a guy who likes to do some good in his free time. Nadia here is the amazing one. The way her art makes me feel… It’s indescribable.
Nadia: Aww, sweetie!
Steve: Now, if you’ll excuse me, Karma, I’ve got to replenish the hors d’oeuvres. We’ll talk later! My mini-quiches are going fast!
Steve gives Nadia a kiss on the cheek and hustles off. Nadia sighs, beaming.
Nadia: Did I mention he bakes? He bakes. So… what do you think?
Karma: He’s too good to be true… what’s the catch? Comeon. Be honest. There’s gotta be something wrong with him. Secret criminal past? Crippling gambling debt?
Nadia: No! Nothing like that!
Karma: Then what’s your secret?
Nadia: I met him through a matchmaking service. They asked me some questions, then found the perfect man for me! They’re very exclusive. Super selective with their clientele. But I’m sure they’d accept you in a heartbeat!
Nadia reaches into her purse and hands you a business card.
Nadia: You should try them out!
Karma: True love, guaranteed? Sounds amazing. Sign me up!
Nadia: Yes! I was hoping you’d think so!
Karma: Are you kidding? It sounds great!
Just then, a voice calls to you from the crowd.
Damien: Looking good, Karma. Next time warn me when you plan to show up dressed like a celebrity. I would’ve brought my good suit.
Karma: Not so bad yourself, Damien.
Your good friend Damien saunters over, seamlessly switching his empty champagne glass with a fresh one from a server’s tray.
Damien: And don’t tell me Nadia has got you drinking this ‘matchmaking service’ Kool-Aid too. You of all people don’t need some fancy matchmaking service.
Karma: I’ll take that as a compliment. But you can’t argue with the results. Steve seems like a catch.
Damien: Yeah, I talked to Mr. Perfect on the way in. Haven’t found any flaws or dark secrets yet. But give me time.
Nadia: Really, D? We’ve known you for like, four years. I thought you would’ve dropped the tough, cynical act by now.
Damien: I’m a private investigator. I catch liars and cheaters for a living. ‘Cynical’ is basically my job.
Nadia: Don’t listen to him, Karma. He’s like the Grinch when it comes to love. Eros is the best matchmaking service ever! I’ll schedule you an appointment for a consultation!
Damien: Yeah! A vague, secretive company providing little to no contact information… What could go wrong? Just keep your guard up, Karma… Maybe bring pepper spray, or hold your keys like a claw.
Nadia: Ignore him. It’ll be amazing! I know you’re gonna find someone perfect for you!
Karma: Can’t wait!
Later that week, you arrive outside the address Nadia gave you. A sleek, unlabeled complex towers above you…
Karma: (Okay, this is a little weird. Not so much as a logo on the door. But the address looks right…)
You push through the glass doors to enter a warm, inviting lobby. A stunning woman strides gracefully across the room, the steps of her heels echoing through the halls.
Cecile: Karma Park? My name is Cecile Contreras. I’m the Head of Matchmaking here at Eros. Welcome! You got here on the J train, didn’t you? I hope getting to the new Quincy Station wasn’t too much of a hassle.
Karma: Uh, thank you… How did you know--
Cecile: We’ve done our homework. Eros has been expecting you, after all. Your cousin Nadia gave you a glowing referral. I’m excited to begin. Please, follow me.
You follow Cecile through the pristine halls of Eros Incorporated.
Karma: I’m still a little overwhelmed by this whole thing. How can you guarantee true love?
Cecile: A good question. Love is a complex thing. But here at Eros, we’ve used the latest in behavioural science and technology to devise the most sophisticated matchmaking system in the world.
Karma: So you think you’ve got people figured out… with some algorithm?
Cecile: Your personality, your wants, your needs… All of that makes you unique, like a puzzle piece. But somewhere out there is a piece that fits flawlessly with you. An exact complement. A perfect match. Our technology helps sort through the pieces to find yours. Simply put, the human heart is precisely our expertise.
Karma: Really? Sounds like exactly what I need!
Cecile: So glad you feel that way! I can assure you, we’re just as excited as you are to help you find your match.
She leads you into a peaceful, softly lit room. A sweet, floral aroma and calming music fill the space around you.
Cecile: Welcome to our consultation room. This is where we’ll be conducting our Perfect Match questionnaire.
Karma: Is this the part where I tell you my middle name, my hobbies and where I went to high school?
Cecile: Nadia sent us the personality profile you filled out, so we already have the basic information we need. Today will be about finding out what you’re looking for in a match.
Karma: Oh… Okay… So why does this place look more like a day spa than a quiz room?
Cecile: Oh, I assure you, our questionnaire is more than just a quiz. It’s a comprehensive interview, monitoring not just your words, but your biorhythms, your excitement, your emotional engagement… As such, we want you to be perfectly at ease.
She invites you to sit on a reclining chair in the middle of the room, and instantly your mind drifts as you sink into the shockingly comfortable seat. Cecile sits on a chair beside you with a tablet in hand.
Cecile: Simply place your hand on the palm scanner, and we can begin.
You place your hand on the smooth surface of the chair’s arm. It hums and glows, and soon a soft chime sounds in sync with your own heartbeat. The lights in the room dims as your mind drifts, peacefully.
Cecile: Now, relax. Close your eyes… focus on the sound of my voice… and speak from your heart…
Cecile taps on her tablet. You hear her voice from a distance as your eyes close…
Cecile: First, some general questions. I’m going to show you six images. Tell me, which of these most closely resembles your preferred look in a match?
(Look 1)
Cecile: Wonderful. Next I have twelve brief questions. Please answer as honestly as you can…
One - When traveling abroad, your perfect match would rather take you… To a lively festival, bustling with locals.
Two - On a road trip with your partner, you’d prefer someone who… Trades anecdotes and engages in lively conversation.
Three - You’re transported into a fantasy novel. Which character is most attractive… A magnetic ruler, leading and inspiring the people.
Four - Who do you imagine your partner hung out with in high school… A close-knit group of friends.
Five - Your match appears in a dream with an animal companion. What kind is it… A fierce, wild hawk.
Six - Your partner is facing an unbeatable enemy. What strategy do they use… Fight dirty.
Seven - You have to be apart for a few months. Your perfect match… Sends you memes.
Eight - Your perfect match has just defeated a supervillain. What do they do next… Righteously condemn the villain’s action.
Nine - What would your perfect match give you for your birthday… Something they noticed you wanted but hadn’t asked for.
Ten - Your date orders cocktails for you at a bar. Which do they choose… A trendy new menu item that food critics are buzzing about.
Eleven - Your travel plans have fallen through. What does your partner do… They have you covered no matter what, backup plan and all.
Twelve - How would your partner clear out a building full of zombies… They devise a brilliant plan and execute it flawlessly.
Cecile: You’re doing wonderfully, Karma. We have enough to find you a suitable match, but first, I’d like to ask if there’s anything in particular you’re looking for… I’m going to list a few traits that your potential match may possess. Let me know if any of them resonate strongly with you. For those who prioritise physical intimacy, we have many candidates with massage skills. We can refine our search to animal lovers and pet owners, who are often compassionate and kind. If you’re drawn to creative, artistic souls, we can match you with musicians. Last but not least, many people seek the culture and intelligence of someone who speaks many languages. Which of these appeals to you?
Karma: The animal lover. My match must love animals.
Cecile: An excellent choice. Would you like to distinguish your preferences further? Remember, there’s no shame in being picky when it comes to love. You’re absolutely worth it.
Karma: I would like them to possess all of those qualities. Why settle for anything less?
The lights in the room brighten, and you are suddenly aware of your surroundings again. Cecile looks up from her note taking and smiles warmly at you.
Cecile: That concludes the questionnaire. Not so bad, was it? Based on your responses, we’ll determine which of our sixteen personality types best describes your Perfect Match. I’ll have your results in a moment…
Cecile taps on the tablet before turning it to show you the display…
Your perfect match is a… Leader - Outgoing, rebellious, sincere, loyal.
Brave, perceptive, and confident, the Leader is often turned to in times of crisis. As a romantic partner, this perfect match’s charisma can inspire in even the most challenging of times.
Karma: Wow. Just like that? This is just my type! I’d love to find someone like this.
Cecile: Glad to see that the system is working as intended!
Karma: So… What next?
Cecile: Next? Simply leave the rest to us. We’ll find the most compatible partner for you in our database and arrange your first date. You’ll be hearing from us soon!
Karma: Sounds like a plan. And what happens after that?
Cecile flashes you a wink.
Cecile: Why, true love, of course.
You step out of the Eros building into the brisk night air, the New York City skyline towering above you.
Damien: Made it out of the Mystery Company in one piece, huh?
Karma: Damien? What are you doing here?
Damien leans against his old muscle car, pulling his jacket tight against the cold.
Damien: Check your phone, lovebird. I called you a couple times. Wanted to make sure you hadn’t joined a cult, or bought a timeshare or anything… And also offer you a ride home.
Karma: Oh, really? You just wanted the dirt on this Mystery Company, huh?
Damien smiles.
Damien: Wow… You know me too well, Karma. Come on.
Soon, you’re watching the city lights streak by through the passenger window of Damien’s car as you catch him up on your day.
Damien: So, really… this Eros thing. You’d think you’d just swipe left and right like the other apps. Not, you know, go to a day spa for a fancy interview.
Karma: Maybe it’s a little… unconventional, but it seemed legit to me.
Damien: Unconventional is an understatement. But hey, whatever makes you happy.
Damien pulls the car to a stop outside your apartment building.
Damien: … I actually mean that too. I want you to be happy.
Karma: Oh really? No sarcasm this time? No snarky retort?
You catch Damien’s eye as a slight smirk spreads across his face…
Damien: Despite my unflappably cool facade… I do have the capacity to care about someone. Occasionally.
Karma: Don’t get sappy on my now, Damien.
Damien: Wouldn’t dream of it.
One afternoon that weekend, you’re lounging in your apartment when a knock sounds on the door. You open it to find…
Nadia: Karma! I’m guessing you haven’t left your apartment today.
Karma: What makes you say that?
Nadia: Because if you stepped outside, you would have noticed this on your doorstep!
Nadia hands you a pristine display of flowers with an envelope attached! You open the card inside…
Karma: It’s from Eros! ‘Dear Karma, True love awaits! We’ve found someone special for you, and have already arranged your first date. At the end of the night, we’ll survey you both separately. If you both feel a connection, you’ll be declared a Match! You need only come with an open heart… and leave the rest to destiny.’
Nadia: Well, I came here hoping to ask how your appointment went, but I guess I have my answer! I remember when I got my letter from Eros…. I was so excited. This is gonna be amazeballs! Right?!
Karma: I think it’s going to be great!
Nadia: You’re right! It is! Positive thoughts, Karma! Send that out into the universe! This match they’ve found for you is your destiny!
Karma: Let’s hope so. The details on the card say that Eros has scheduled our first date… For tonight!
Nadia: Wait, what? We’ve got to get you ready!
Soon, Nadia is leading you on a last minute shopping trip. She pores over the card from Eros as you browse through outfits.
Nadia: Tonight could be the start of your beautiful, perfect love story, Karma! You’ve got to make a good impression! Luckily, Eros has you covered!
Karma: What do you mean?
Nadia: This card from Eros includes some style suggestions based on your Perfect Match’s taste! Perfectly tailored to impress him!
Karma: They can do that?
Your cousin pulls an outfit from the rack…
Nadia: This one! It fits the suggestion perfectly! Try it on!
Karma: Alright, alright…
Nadia: Ugh, slay, Karma!
Karma: I’m guessing that’s a good thing?
Nadia: Good? No. That outfit is perfect!
As the afternoon goes on and the sun starts to set, you finish prepping with Nadia… when a sudden knock at the front door sounds! You hurry over to the living room with Nadia in tow!
Nadia: Ohmygod, ohmygod… He’s here! Answer it, quick! Tonight will be the start of your beautiful storybook romance!
You try to calm your cousin as you open the door..
Karma: Relax, Nadia. It doesn’t have to be a ‘storybook romance’. No one is expecting this night to be--
Hayden: Hi, I’m Hayden. You must be Karma…
Karma: I… Um… Wow.
Thoughts on the episode…
Okay well first of all… creepy and suspicious as hell. I can’t believe Damien was the only one who was like… ‘what on earth…’ Everything about this screams dodgy. How did Nadia even find Eros in the first place? I mean, for our MC, sure - we have Nadia’s results convincing us to do it (even though Steve is a freaky robot and we can tell straight away,) but what did Nadia have? She just went for it.
Speaking of Nadia, annoying. I would love to just cut her out of the story completely. She’s too BLLURGGHHH, you know? So enthusiastic about absolutely everything. I can’t imagine what her art looks like. Probably really cheesy, basic stuff like Thomas Kinkade. Nothing edgy or cool. You could definitely buy a snowglobe with Nadia’s artwork in it.
I know that Hayden is a robot, but defo gonna smash. Like. He’s our perfect match, wiring or not. I mean, I know that Damien is there too and as soon as we get the option to seduce I shall absolutely be doing that because he is a fine piece of cartoon ass, but… where’s the fun if I can’t doodly do with the robot?
Also, shoutout to Cecile who is the hottest character at first glance I have ever seen from Pixelberry. I mean, I know she’s probably an evil lunatic hell bent on destroying us once we uncover Eros’ secrets, but still. I’m shallow and she’s hot.
Fave Character of the Chapter: Damien
Least Fave Character of the Chapter: Nadia
1 note
·
View note
Text
Bradley Beal knows the pressure Team USA has to win gold
Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images
Choosing to play in the Olympics was a “no-brainer” decision for Beal despite the pressure on Team USA.
Team USA has a tall task ahead of it at the Tokyo Olympics, being tasked with rebounding from a dismal showing at the World Cup in 2019 to win the program’s fourth consecutive Olympic gold. The pressure mounted even further when the Americans lost their first tune-up game against Nigeria Saturday.
Bradley Beal has never been a part of Team USA at the senior level, and he hasn’t been on the biggest stages of NBA basketball in the past few years either. But his inclusion on the national team was a no-brainer. Jerry Colangelo and the USA brass felt confident that Beal was ready for the moment after a decade spent on junior teams, and Beal is eager to prove that he can do whatever it takes to win and come back home with the gold medal.
Beal spoke with SB Nation about what he’s learning from the USA experience and how his protein beverage partner Rockin’ Protein is helping in the process. He also talked about the crazy Wizards season, what he wants to improve upon in the offseason, and what he’s taking away from watching the NBA Finals.
Note: This interview was conducted before Team USA’s loss to Nigeria. It has been lightly edited for clarity.
SB Nation: Let’s start with Rockin’ Protein. What can you tell me about this partnership? Why did you pick this company in particular?
Bradley Beal: For one, I’m always big on doing my research and background, and who they’ve worked with in the past has been tremendous. I’m a fan of all those athletes and just their history. For me, their product is great. It tastes great, for one, which is always important, but it’s high in quality protein, very low in carbs, low in sugar, you know, versus a lot of products that have all that added extra stuff that your body doesn’t need to perform properly, recover properly, or give you the energy. Those three categories they have shakes in all of them: protein builder, which is my favorite, recovery shakes, and the energy shakes. They’re just unbelievable. The fact that they’re made with real milk is a bonus too, our kids love the Shamrock Farms milk, so that’s also a cherry on top. But more than anything, man, I stand by their product. They’re a very first-class company to work with, and their product helps me.
SBN: That’s what I was gonna ask next, what do you get out of using Rockin’ Protein?
BB: For me, I’m big on the recovery part of my body. Energy, I always feel like I have, I always generate energy. So I don’t necessarily migrate to the energy shakes. And the protein builder, like I’m always going to keep up my muscle mass, build up a little bit more. And then obviously, as an athlete, you break it down in your body constantly so you want to build back up that muscle recovery side of it, so those are my two go-tos, vanilla of the protein builder is my favorite.
Photo by Ned Dishman/NBAE via Getty Images
Beal has been playing for Team USA since 2009 when he won gold at the U16 Championship.
SBN: Let’s talk USA Basketball. You’ve been part of USA Basketball since U16, right? Why has it been important for you to be part of the national team?
BB: Well, that’s a part of the beginning of it, you know, just a long history, lineage, I���ve been a part of this prestigious fraternity. They treated me well at 16, won a gold medal at 16, 17, played in the Hoop Summit, and went through the select team process as well, worked my way up, and now I’m on the big brother team. So it’s a blessing, you don’t take it for granted, you understand how hard and difficult it is to make the team and what you represent and the pressure behind it. We didn’t perform well last time out, so we have that feeling in the back of our head and we want to bring back the gold medal, nothing less.
SBN: What was that moment like for you when you got the nod that you were going to be on the Olympic team?
BB: It was special. When Jerry Colangelo calls you, you know it’s for either USA or somehow you go into the Hall of Fame. He’s very powerful in the basketball world, you know he is USA basketball. And it was just remarkable, you know, to hear his voice and he wanted me to be a part. You know, I want you there, I want you to play for the team. I want you to represent this country. That was big for us. I had to run it by my family, obviously, you know they won’t be able to attend, but it was like a no brainer. They said just go ahead and go live out your dream, we will be watching. So it was fun, it was an unbelievable moment for me. But it was definitely a no brainer at the same time.
SBN: So, this is something that you’ve dreamed of for a while.
BB: Of course, of course, I feel every player at least once wants to be an Olympian. Just to be called an Olympian is cool, to win a gold medal is even better. So, you know, to have both opportunities is special. Then to do it with so many talented guys is even a plus, learning from them, how we can gel and make this thing happen.
SBN: What has the environment been like at camp so far with the nine of you and the Select team?
BB: Camp’s been intense, it’s been tough. I mean it’s like NBA camp on steroids almost. it’s very attentive to detail, (Gregg Popovich) is excellent, like he is awesome to work with. And he just demands the best out of all of us, you know. And I think that’s what we all love and respect about him is there’s no favoritism, there’s accountability at every level, coaches, players, everybody, even himself. So I respect that heavily. He gets the best out of all of us. He demands it too, so his intensity, his ferocity is amazing. It’s contagious, it’s contagious.
SBN: I heard Pop called you thick the other day.
BB: Yeah (chuckles) he got away with loose language, but I embrace it, you know, I understood what he meant. I play against him twice a year only, but he’s always been a fan of how I play and I’ve always respected him. And happy that I get to share the floor with him. But I understood his comments.
SBN: How are you hoping to grow your game this summer and then how does playing for Team USA factor into that?
BB: Oh man, in so many ways. Obviously I always want to be better at everything, I say that every year, but in particularly I want to shoot more threes, deeper threes, and post up a little bit more. I feel like those are two areas I want to kind of dial in and focus in on more. I had a good year this year, but I’m always my toughest critic, I could have been better, for sure could’ve shot the ball a lot better from three than what I did. But more or less, even just shooting more of them is something that I could do better and be better at, too. So those are probably the two things and then, obviously, learning from so many guys on this team, you know their mentality going into the game, their preparation, the same with Pop. And just, you know, how guys really approach the game and how they play the game, with the intensity they have, focus they have. Like KD is crazy attentive to detail, to his body, to his game, his shot. At the end of the day, he just loves to hoop. That’s amazing to watch and to see. So to learn from everybody would be fun and exciting.
Photo by Stephen Gosling/NBAE via Getty Images
One of Beal’s offseason goals is to take more threes, and deeper ones, which makes his USA backcourt mate Damian Lillard the perfect guide.
SBN: I imagine if you want to take more and deeper threes, then being around the guy like Dame Lillard probably make sense.
BB: Yeah! Just picking his brain, you know, how are you able to do it consistently, because a lot of people can’t do that. A lot of people probably won’t even hit the rim from back there. So how do you generate that much power, your legs, is it your upper body, what is it? So picking people’s brains 100 percent will help.
SBN: Shifting to the Wizards real quick, I think the season probably ended a little bit earlier than you would have liked, but what is it about this team that you have that excites you going forward?
BB: Oh man, guys getting healthy. That’s the biggest thing, Deni (Avdija) suffered an injury, I think he broke his foot at the end of the year. Thomas Bryant tore his ACL at the beginning of the year, so those two injuries hurt. But we acquired Daniel Gafford at the trade deadline, who’s been a tremendous athletic big for us. Russ (Westbrook), obviously, at the beginning of the year, he’s been a triple-double animal, Mr. Triple-Double now. But obviously we just have to be better at everything. Our three-point shooting has to improve, our defense has to drastically improve. But there’s so much that we have to be better at, because, like you said, it didn’t end the way we wanted it to, you know we won one game in the series. To me, that’s unacceptable. So, we got to be better, it starts with our coaching change, obviously we’ve got to find a coach, and go from there.
SBN: As one of the leaders of the team, how much are you involved in that process of finding a new coach?
BB: More towards the end. So, obviously, the higher ups, they go through the process and investigating, thorough background checks and whatever they need to do to figure out who they want their candidates to be. Then when they dwindle down to about two to four is when Russ and I will probably step in. They’ll ask you know, who do you like, what do you like, go from there. But hasn’t been too much, you know, we let the GM do his job, and trust him to find the right one.
SBN: You kind of touched on this earlier but I mean, how much can you take away from a season that was so abnormal in terms of the protocols and your whole team got COVID and everyone got hurt. How much can you really take away from it?
BB: It’s tough, because those things did happen, you know, we want to not ignore them. But, I mean, they happened. Half of our team got COVID. You know, we couldn’t practice and play for two weeks. That’s a setback. So that’s tough in a lot of ways, but at the same time, everybody had an unfortunate situation, like this whole year was unfortunate for every team. So I was happy and thrilled about the way that we kind of revamped it and turned it around, I have no idea what it was, but we flipped it around and we made a push for playoffs. But the frustrating part is we didn’t end it obviously the way we wanted to. And there’s so many things that we can shift blame for that for, which is kind of like the, I don’t know, but at the same time, we know we should have been better than what we were.
Photo by Will Newton/Getty Images
As the leaders of the Wizards, Beal expects he and Russell Westbrook will have a voice on who the team hires as its next head coach.
SBN: When you’re out of the playoffs are you one of those guys that’s watching every game when you’re done?
BB: No, I think this year may be the first time I’ve actually really dialed in to watch the playoffs. Usually I’m not watching, and maybe it’s because I’m with USA and I have to get myself back into like, basketball realm, but usually once I’m done, I’m done. I will take a month or two off, maybe sometimes two and a half off, and just decompress from basketball completely and just pick it back up ready to go come July, August before the season.
SBN: What are you getting out of watching it this year?
BB: Just like how we talked about how uncertain this year is and crazy it is. Like nobody expected Phoenix to do what they did. To see them thriving, they built up their team with what they had, they used their young talent, developed them, they acquire Chris Paul, and they’re flying, they’re flowing. Milwaukee built around Giannis, they re-signed him, brought it Jrue Holiday, they put pieces around him, brought in PJ Tucker, like they brought in valuable guys on both sides. So it’s very, very intriguing to watch this series because it’s two totally different teams. Phoenix is wiry, fast, and tough, and Milwaukee are like the Monstars, they’re huge. They’re tough too, so it’s a very unique series, you know, so I’m very curious to see what happens.
SBN: Are you keeping an eye on Jrue and Khris Middleton and Devin Booker for when they eventually get to join you guys?
BB: I am because I’m trying to see if there’s any tension. Cuz Book and Jrue are gonna be going at it for sure. But I don’t know, I keep thinking it’s going to be tough. I would be mad as hell if I lost and had to come over, like I would be mad. But at the same time understanding the opportunity you get from USA, not taking that away. But if I lost in the Finals man, I would need to get away for a minute.
SBN: Is there anyone in camp so far who has surprised you in terms of what you’ve seen from their game based on what you saw in the NBA?
BB: No, I mean we know what each other can do. I think the thing that does surprise me is how unselfish we are, sometimes we’re too unselfish. It’s like, KD shoot the ball, like we know you shoot the ball, shoot the ball. I think that’s what’s crazy, the sacrificing part of it, you know, what do you sacrifice. Because all of us can go score 30, like I don’t have to go score 30 like I probably would have to during the year. I can go defend the best player now and use my energy for that, right, versus coming down, having to try to create a play every single time. We have 10-12 guys that can do that too, so that’s very positive in a lot of ways. At the same time, it’s tough because we don’t play together, you know, that’s new. This isn’t like an All-Star game. We really have to be dialed in and locked in and can’t disrespect our opponents, because we remember what happened last time we did that.
SBN: What are you hoping that the world can see from Bradley Beal at the Olympics this year?
BB: Oh, I don’t know. I’m a fierce competitor, that’s obvious. I’m going to do everything I can to win, whatever it looks like. I’m very unselfish and just compete hard. I just love this game, and I want that to show. Obviously everybody’s going to generate an opinion, whatever it is, good or bad, but it won’t change my approach and my reasoning in playing the game.
0 notes
Text
The Terranauts, by T. C. Boyle
There’s this one thing that I always found incredibly annoying about English books, and that German books thankfully don’t have (yet). I hate the bunch of review snippets all over the cover so. much. It screws up the cover design, it can get pretty crowded if the publishing house was really proud of this book, and it tells you absolutely nothing. Same thing on the backside: I’ve seen books that have three lines of quote from inside the book, and six quotes from reviews gushing about it. How is that supposed to help me, or make me buy it? Last time I looked, most people still buy books because they think the story or the setup is intriguing, or because they like the author, not because Person X, Author of YZA, said it’s a “triumph of the imagination”. German books don’t do that. German books have the author and the name of the book on the cover, nicely integrated into the cover art, and a synopsis and maybe a short quote on the back. Orderly. Informative. Very German, probably.
But I digress. The reason I got into this was my most recent read, The Terranauts, and not only did I find it terrible, I also have no idea which book those reviewers from the Guardian, the Times etc. read - I find it hard to believe it was the same I did. So let’s try something else and use those incredibly unhelpful literary critics to structure what I did not like about this book.
1. “Excruciatingly funny” - Times Literary Supplement
This one is the easiest: I have no idea what they are talking about. If this book was so funny, it wouldn’t have been too much to expect to laugh at least once, right? Well, I didn’t. I also didn’t chuckle, snort, giggle, smile or even lift one corner of my mouth in amusement. Because in my not so humble opinion, this book is not funny. Unless I’m supposed to laugh about this one guy lusting after whichever woman has the longest legs in the room, about this woman who falls for him nonetheless and keeps lying to herself about his shittiness, or her so-called “best friend” who takes a trip to Mexico and promptly gets diarrhea. Yeah, very funny. Not everybody has the same sense of humour and all that, but I think someone who can laugh about such things has a rather questionable one.
2. “Lord of the Flies meets Hunger Games” - The Times
With this one I at least get why they came to that conclusion. The story is the fictional continuation of a real-life experiment conducted some time in the 90s where eight people - four men, four women - were locked into a glass dome with a self-sustaining ecosystem inside, and basically told to see how many were still walking after two years. The first, real group broke closure (= was interrupted) after a few months because of a medical emergency, which is why the fictional second group is all the more fanatic determined to not open the airlock for the full two years, whatever happens. While they’re in there farming and supposedly conducting scientific experiments (although you never learn what it is exactly they’re testing, so if you want hard science, stay away), they get media coverage from all over the US (about what, one might ask... Must have been one hell of a silly season to send reports about people milking goats... Checking humidity... catching fish... Unheard of, right?).
So yeah, I can see where that one came from: a bunch of people locked in together at close quarters, becoming increasingly hateful towards each other = Lord of the Flies. Doing it all for the media coverage, completely with donations and the participants as celebrities and merchandise = The Hunger Games. Never mind that neither the characters from Lord of the Flies nor the candidates in the Hunger Games were there willingly, whereas in this book going under the glass with seven people you already can’t stand before you even go in, slowly starving yourself, slowly asphyxiating in the winter months, without pay or plan what to do afterwards, is somehow presented as being incredibly desirable (Really, the only lucid part this book has is when the characters call this enterprise a cult, or deny it being a cult - hey, at least they said the word, and self-denial is a serious Thing among all the characters). But okay, if you say so. The thing is, in my opinions it falls short in both comparisons.
I have to admit, I’ve never read Lord of the Flies, only watched the movie, and you shouldn’t judge a book by its adaptation. But I remember that (besides the survival part) it’s about group dynamics, how groups organize under pressure, how new leaders establish new orders, and the violence that ensues. Now I’m definitely not one of those people who need a body count to enjoy a book, but this one, I have to admit, was too... tame? for me to be credible. The highest tensions ever rose was a fistfight between two characters after almost two years of being locked in, when they were half starved already and there was barely any oxygen left in the air. Sure, the rest of the time they were constantly badmouthing each other, and venomous when they had to talk about something - but really, that’s your climax, your crisis? I already mentioned that most of the crew members didn’t like each other to begin with, and of course that didn’t get better over the course of the book, but it feels a bit lame to have your characters constantly emphasize how much they hate each other (and one even threatening to kill anyone who jeopardizes the mission! Talk about a Chekov’s gun that just... never went off I guess?), and then presenting a few punches as The Worst It Can Get. Let alone not resolving anything after they finally get out. Most of the crew just disappear into thin air, which is fitting because they weren’t much more than thin air with a name tag during the entire book, and the POVs just... get on with their lives I guess. The ending really feels a bit like the author just ran out of pages, and not in the good, open-ending kind of way. There is no resolution, no discernible character arc, no epiphany, nothing. It just ends. So take this as a vivid example of how structuring does NOT work.
As for the comparison with The Hunger Games... First of all, there’s the same problem of being too tame. The Hunger Games works partly (!!) because it’s suspenseful, what with fighting and hunting and figuring stuff out and action scenes in general. The Terranauts doesn’t have anything of the sort: no secret plots to unveil, no rivals to kill (and the moral dilemma that comes with it), very little, very drawn out struggle for survival... Again, I don’t need any of this to like a book, I can do without action, but it’s the Times that made the comparison, and I’m sorry but I think The Terranauts falls short. By a mile or so. Another thing that made The Hunger Games so interesting is the role the media plays: How the games are basically just entertainment for the rich, how public images are constructed and why, how public opinion and public sentiment is influenced etc. The Hunger Games were honest about how it’s all “just” for show. The Terranauts, however, tried to keep up its pretense of being oh so scientific, while the only thing that ever gets any screentime is not experiments or hard facts, but photo ops and interviews and presentations. Which would be fine if the book ever properly dealt with the fact that it was all just a huge media stunt. But it doesn’t, it never talks about the implications of the experiment being a big, expensive reality show, it never grants its characters a moment of epiphany or a personal crisis with regards to their sacrifices not being for science and the survival of the human race, but for money and money alone. The closest the characters ever get to realizing this and instrumentalizing it is when some of them threaten the CEO to talk to the press, but none of them ever go through with it (and there’s no reason why they wouldn’t besides this ominous cult mentality thing, because some of them have been treated really badly). Not even the crew member whose responsibility is PR management ever really tries to create a public image of himself that he can use to get what he wants and influence public opinion to the disadvantage of disliked crew mates or some such. It all feels very half-baked, and that from an author who’s famous for writing real adult novels. Talk about how naive and shallow YA novels are.
3. “Heartbreakingly human” - The Guardian
God... I hope not. I think not. If this set of characters is supposed to provide us with a sample of human experiences and emotions, then it’s really time to pack my bags and go be a hermit somewhere. Also, everyone is white, with the exception of one Asian person, who coincidentally is also the only woman who is consistently described as being fat and plain and kinky-haired (fat and kinky-haired being used as decidedly denigrating terms here - god this book has so many issues). And a terrible person, but that’s true for everyone. There are two minor characters who seem to be alright, the crew physician and the crew leader, but every non-POV character is basically just walking cardboard with maybe one or two traits each (for some reason I absolutely can’t fathom, bitchy, scheming and promiscuous come to mind for every single female character). Besides that there are three POVs: one man inside, one woman inside, and one woman outside (the Asian one). They all have some common character traits: they’re hateful, spiteful, lying, scheming, unreflected, self-serving, egocentric assholes. But besides those lovely common traits, they have some others that make them loathsome in their very own way, and I can’t shake the feeling that the author took a lot of inspiration from some nasty gender stereotypes. (warning: from here on it gets spoilery)
Let’s start with the guy, Ramsay. He’s sex-obsessed in a way that he can’t form any coherent thought as soon as a pair of shapely legs and boobs with a woman attached enters the room. He’s incapable of fidelity, love, loyalty and commitment, although he constantly claims otherwise. Let me give you a few examples of his awfulness: After he breaks up with one of his crewmates (after maybe forcing himself on her? It’s not made clear. How can that not be clear.), he constantly complains how ugly and old and generally repulsive she is. That’s the only thing he has to say about her. He then starts an affair with another crewmate, and when she becomes pregnant, he blames it all on her for deceiving him and being irrational because she didn’t want to screw up her body with artificial hormones every day which apparently is to be expected from every woman. He then pressures her to have an abortion. She refuses, and he constantly thinks about how gross she is the further the pregnancy progresses. After the baby is born, he doesn’t help her whatsoever, and first chance he gets, he takes off on her although he has promised her otherwise. To top it all off, he restarts his affair with a woman from the outside crew about whom we only learn that she’s a snake with nice legs, while he’s still married to the mother of his child. I don’t think I need to add anything to that. The amount of misogyny, sexism, and patriarchal stereotypes about men as mindless sex machines (plus the corresponding view on women) all compressed into one character is baffling.
For the women there’s a bit more variation, but it doesn’t get any less nasty. Woman No. 1, Dawn, is the long-legged, full-breasted redhead beauty who gets one of the few spots inside the experiment and takes over responsibility for growing food in the fields and tending to the farmyard animals. She then gets together with Ramsay, gets pregnant and decides to carry the child against all common sense, considering that the experiment can barely produce enough calories for eight people, let alone nine, and is definitely not able to provide for the special needs of a pregnant woman or a newborn child. After Dawn’s two years are officially over, she refuses to leave the glass dome and decides to stay inside because she feels so close to nature inside, or something like that. Notice the symbolism at work here? The stereotype presented here is that of Mother Earth, fertile, providing, one with nature itself. It’s quite fitting that Dawn’s nickname, chosen by her fellow participants, is Eos (which literally means dawn). Both her names fit very well into this whole mantra that the organizers of the experiment have: to start anew, create a better world, one that sustains itself and doesn’t exploit resources but is fertile enough to to live independently (which, I’m sorry, is just not true. They rely on the local power plant to keep their ideal environment stable, they receive knowledge from the outside world, and after the two years the dome is in need of a thorough restocking because the crew killed all the farm animals and ate all the seed stocks because they were hungry.) Dawn is the archetypal woman, the one who nourishes others and gives life, is loving, beautiful and monogamous, but she also displays some negative traits that have been historically associated with women: She’s naive to the point that she doesn’t notice any negative feelings Ramsay has towards her; she’s self absorbed, like when she decides to go through with the pregnancy at the risk of the others starving; and she’s emotional in a way that’s constantly pointed out to be annoying and exaggerated (they call it weepy).
The other female POV, Linda, is presented as her foil. She’s also the only PoC character, which makes her negative portrayal doubly problematic, especially since she seems to stand in for two ethnicities: Asian (because of her Korean ancestry) and black (because of her kinky hair). We keep being told that Linda and Dawn are best friends, but there’s really no evidence in the text to support that since they’re constantly bitter, false and patronizing towards the other, in their thoughts and in their actions. Also, they mainly seem to talk about the men in their lives with each other, with Dawn as the one who has a way with men and Linda as the jealous, Fat Ugly Friend^TM. So yeah, great portrayal of a friendship between two women, since obviously men is the only thing we ever talk and care about. But besides being presented as an overall terrible person - false, needy, deceiving, the archetypal snake to Dawn’s Eve* - Linda herself also constantly emphasizes that she’s overweight and not conventionally attractive, which in her interior monologue tied together with her lack of success with men - and her race. The only valid point this book makes is that it damages your career and possibly your romantic chances, especially as the only PoC in an all-white environment. But since this point is filtered through the perspective of a character whose interior monologue is filled with constant nagging and delusions, it’s incredibly easy not to take it seriously and dismiss it as another figment of Linda’s imagination. This may not be racist in and of itself, although it definitely comes across as mocking racial awareness, but it sure starts to look like the real thing once you take all the negative comments into account that Linda makes about all her physical features that make her distinctly non-white. It also ties neatly into yet another issue this book has: body-shaming. Surprisingly (or not), this also mainly concerns the female characters and is filtered almost exclusively through the way men react to them. I got so, so tired reading about how Linda, the fat and ugly one, tries to get men to sleep with her (unsuccessfully, unless they are old and gross), while the thin, pretty women like Dawn have an entire parade of admirers (and successful careers). Also notice how personality doesn’t play any role at all in both women’s romantic success? That’s because women’s personalities don’t matter, simple as that. And it’s probably better that way, since they’re all naive and clingy or dishonest and needy anyway - in addition to being mean, which is something all characters in this book share.
The thing is, with books like this one that are just horrible with regards to sexism, racism, body-shaming and a whole host of other things, I always wonder how that happened. I don’t want to condemn the authors for all those things without having read some of their other books (which I generally don’t, because I value my time) or doing a thorough check on them (which I generally don’t do either, because I’m lazy. But I can’t help but ask myself whether these are the author’s actual views. Other options would include a critique of these issues gone wrong, or a misguided attempt to induce some historical accuracy, or ignorance. The problem is that I’m pretty sure I can exclude said other options. Historical accuracy in this case is not necessary since the book is set in the 1990s, not in the middle ages. Ignorance is a pretty weak excuse by itself, and one issue may slip under your (and your editor’s) radar, but so many...? The author of this book is a white guy, so he’s probably wearing privilege lenses, but still. Lastly, a critique would necessitate at least some attempt to contradict the views you have your characters expressing, either through the narrative or - even better - through a character themselves. I know that, and I’m a twenty-something amateur reader who sometimes tries her hand at literary critique. An author (and editor) who has been in the business for so long should definitely know that, and also how to work said critique into the story so that a casual reader would catch it. Which leaves us with option No. 1. And the reason why I regret having spent money on one of TC Boyle’s books, and why his name is another entry on my list of authors never to be read again.
*An afterthought that I’m too lazy to work in somewhere else: There is so much religious imagery in this book. It starts with the nicknames many characters in this book get, like God the Creator, Jesus, Judas, Eos etc., and culminates with this whole Garden of Eden theme that surrounds the experiment. Like with the cult thing, the book isn’t even shy to call itself out on it, but if this is not a prime example of lampshading, then I don’t know what is.
2 notes
·
View notes
Link
via Politics – FiveThirtyEight
Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
sarah (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): On Thursday, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced that next week’s presidential debate would be held virtually. President Trump, however, has said that he isn’t going to waste his time with a virtual debate, promising instead to hold a rally.
Trump is down 9.8 points in national polls and is steadily losing ground each day in our forecast to Biden, as we inch ever closer to the election. Refusing then to participate in the debate when he could use it as an opportunity to mount a comeback against former vice president Joe Biden is a curious choice. Doesn’t Trump need the debates to mount a comeback?
Let’s talk Trump’s case for — and the case against — needing the debates.
OK, what’s the case for him needing them?
geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): He needs something. #analysis
But seriously, the debates are among the few, regularly scheduled major moments in the fall campaign, so they do present an opportunity to shake things up, even if they’re not certain to do so.
natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): To a first approximation, I agree with that, although it’s overstated. Our research on primary debates suggested that a debate is equivalent to something like six to 10 days of normal campaigning and news, in terms of how much they move the polls. So it’s as if Trump is taking a week off the clock in an election in which he trails by 10 points.
With that said, maybe this ups the importance of the third debate — if there is one.
geoffrey.skelley: But we also can’t know given Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis whetherif Trump is really up for a two-hour debate right now, so perhaps he’s avoiding something that could be even more damaging.
sarah: One thing we talked about a lot going into the first presidential debate, is how much that first debate (more than the others) can really shake things up, but as former FiveThirtyEighter Harry Enten has also written, the second debate is not necessarily a game changer, and there’s no reason to believe that the person who didn’t do well in the first debate rebounds in the second.
Isn’t it possible then, that Trump, holding his own rally in which he doesn’t have to play by any moderator rules, isn’t necessarily a terrible move?
nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): The problem is that he’s been holding campaign rallies all year long, and they haven’t helped him overtake Biden in the polls.
The days when cable news would air his rallies nationally are over. Maybe they get some nice local earned media, but that simply isn’t gonna measure up to a debate, as Nate mentioned.
geoffrey.skelley: It depends on the coverage. If it’s “Trump hasn’t recovered from COVID-19 and it’s irresponsible to be holding rallies,” I can’t imagine that helps him when 60 percent of the country said Trump was wrong to say we shouldn’t be afraid of COVID-19, and two-thirds said if he’d taken the coronavirus more seriously, he probably wouldn’t have gotten sick.
natesilver: Yeah, Trump is a fairly bad debater to begin with and it’s fairly likely that he would still be experiencing physical or mental ailments by next week thanks to his COVID-19 diagnosis. So the CPD gives him an excuse to pull out rather than him looking like a
.
geoffrey.skelley: And what if his rally is sparsely attended or looks that way in pictures? It’s his Tulsa rally all over again.
natesilver: Nobody will give a shit about the rally either way, I don’t think.
Unless, again, Trump appears sick or something.
sarah: OK, but from Biden’s POV, a skipped second debate is … fine by him? If anything, he would have more to lose than Trump in the second debate?
nrakich: Right. Traditionally, the front-runner wants fewer debates and the underdog wants more. That’s why you always see hopeless Senate candidates challenging their opponent to 10 Lincoln-Douglas-style debates or whatever.
natesilver: Unless Biden thinks Trump would be so bad that it would be worth debating him even if he’s being risk averse. Like if Biden’s up by 10 points now, and on average he’d gain 2 points by debating Trump, you might do that even if there’s a chance you’d decline instead. It depends on what the variance is.
geoffrey.skelley: A town-hall format would probably play better to Biden’s style, too, answering people directly, etc.
But the debate wouldn’t be in-person, so maybe that’s less relevant.
nrakich: That strikes me as overconfident, Nate. Biden could screw up too. I don’t think you can just assume he’d gain an average of 2 points by debating Trump.
natesilver: I’m not assuming he’d gain 2 points, I’m saying conditional on that assumption, it might be worth debating.
But also: Trump has lost every general election debate he’s conducted, per post-debate polling.
And he has COVID-19 and is on steroids and is acting erratically, even for him.
geoffrey.skelley: Who knows how a virtual town hall debate would go, but Trump was seen as the main cause of the disruption and chaos at the first debate, so it wouldn’t shock me if he did the same thing in that format — if the debate were held.
nrakich: That would be so awkward with the potential lag. Imagine all the stops and starts!
geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, you thought the interruptions were bad when they were in the same room!
sarah: Yeah, Trump really doesn’t seem to like debates, he skipped some in the primaries in 2016, too. But this brings us back to the original question: Trump is really far behind Biden in the polls, and Biden just got some of his best polls of the campaign this week. His margin over Trump is growing. What — if not a debate –- is going to shake things up for Trump?
nrakich: If Trump is going to shake up the race without the debates, he needs something external to happen — for example, a major Biden gaffe or crisis. There is some evidence that politicians in trouble try to stir up international conflict to create a rally-around-the-flag effect. Or there could be a Comey letter redux; the Department of Justice just changed its policies to allow prosecutors to continue their investigations even close to an election.
sarah: Nate, Trump is losing a little ground each day in our forecast if his standing in the polls doesn’t improve, right? Tell us more about that, and what that means for Trump’s ability to close the gap between him and Biden at this point.
natesilver: Trump’s chances are at 15 percent in our forecast now, but my guess is that he’d be at something like 5 percent if the election were held today.
He’d need a VERY large polling error to win if Biden is up 10 points nationally and 7 points or so in the tipping-point states. So most of his comeback chances still stem from being able to turn the race around somehow, and debates are one way to do that … maybe the best way at this stage.
geoffrey.skelley: Right, in terms of predictable events, things you know are coming, the debates are really it.
sarah: On that note, in the unpredictableness that is 2020, do we actually think Trump actually pulls out or is this just a publicity stunt? Something our colleague Perry Bacon Jr. had mentioned in our chat Wednesday before the VP debate, was how he was skeptical that the CPD could stop Trump from participating in a debate if he wanted to. Do you think Trump is just trying to negotiate the terms of the second debate?
nrakich: I think he’d actually pull out. Our colleague Kaleigh Rogers said something smart in our office Slack this morning, so I’ll just quote her: “Trump knows the last debate didn’t go well for him and this is a way for him to not participate while saving face with his base.”
geoffrey.skelley: Well, there is a little bit of precedent for presidents threatening to withdraw from a debate in order to change their terms.
President George H.W. Bush refused to debate under the commission’s plans in 1992. But he eventually agreed to some debates.
In September 1992, the first scheduled debate was canceled when President Bush rejected the commission’s plans. Hecklers dressed as chickens began showing up at his rallies, and Bush would occasionally engage them: pic.twitter.com/kAhK1Vj9DW
— Steve Kornacki (@SteveKornacki) October 8, 2020
And Jimmy Carter refused to participate in the first debate in 1980 because it included independent John Anderson. I would say, though, in both the 1980 and 1992 cases, neither incumbent was rewarded for their intransigence.
natesilver: How’d that go for Jimmy Carter?
geoffrey.skelley: Exactly.
nrakich: Either way, I don’t think we will get an in-person debate. I think if Trump successfully negotiates them back to an in-person debate, I think Biden will be the one to say he won’t attend.
geoffrey.skelley: The commission is in danger of losing face in any of these situations, but I’d think holding an in-person event with Trump fresh off of COVID-19 (or still suffering lingering effects) would be pretty terrible.
Now, in 1980, Ronald Reagan debated just Anderson at the first debate. Does Biden get to hold a solo “debate” with Trump not participating? I assume it would just be canceled.
nrakich: Interesting. The town-hall style does make that easier. …
sarah: What do Americans think about holding the debate next week? As we’ve said before, there just aren’t that many undecided voters this year, so is it possible that many Americans don’t need the debates to help them make their decision on how they’re going to vote?
nrakich: Two polls conducted before today’s announcement actually had contradictory findings about whether Americans think the rest of the debates should go forward. Reuters/Ipsos found that 59 percent of Americans thought that the debates should be postponed until Trump recovers. But Americans told CNN/SSRS, 59 percent to 36 percent, that the debates should be held.
But regardless of whether people want to see more debates, I agree that it’s unlikely to change their votes. Our polling with Ipsos has shown that most voters are either absolutely positive they’re going to vote for Trump or absolutely positive they’re going to vote for Biden.
geoffrey.skelley: What format the debate should take seemed to really affect how people responded, too. Pluralities have told pollsters that they wanted the next debate if it was virtual.
sarah: Yeah, and with a split screen … it wouldn’t necessarily feel all that different than if Biden and Trump were in the same room.
geoffrey.skelley: 100 percent. Look, a presidential debate has been held remotely before. John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon’s third debate in 1960 took place with the candidates in different studios. Kennedy was in New York City, Nixon was in Los Angeles.
natesilver: I don’t know about that. The conventions produced very little in the way of bounces this year, which could be evidence that virtual vs. in-person matters.
nrakich: How do we tease that out from polarization, though, Nate?
To be honest, I feel like if the conventions in, say, 1988 had been virtual, they’d have still produced pretty big bounces.
Maybe just not as big as they were.
natesilver: Well, we got a decent-sized bounce from the Democratic convention four years ago. McCain/Palin got a pretty big one in 2008. They can still happen.
nrakich: But there were also more undecided voters in 2016. Everyone already has an opinion of Trump and Biden this year.
natesilver: The virtual conventions were well-produced, but fairly boring and I’m not sure why people tried to pretend otherwise.
nrakich: “Well-produced but fairly boring” kind of applies to every political convention, though!
At least if you’re watching from home.
natesilver: More boring than usual.
natesilver: Ratings were down. The polls didn’t move. In person matters.
nrakich: Eh. I’m not convinced. (There are other reasons the ratings might have been down, like people switching their viewing habits from network TV to online streaming.)
natesilver: The thing, though, is that you like politics and I don’t, despite covering it for a living. So I’m more like a typical American in those ways.
nrakich:
sarah: OK, final thoughts — it sounds as if we all agree on this one — the case for Trump skipping the debate next week … doesn’t hold a lot of upside for him?
geoffrey.skelley: Skipping the debate isn’t likely to help Trump, although it’s unclear if it will hurt him. At the same time, not knowing Trump’s current health condition in the wake of his COVID-19 diagnosis, means it’s possible he’d have had a bad showing at the virtual debate and hurt his standing more. In other words, the move to a virtual debate may have given him the out he was seeking because of that — or he just doesn’t want to debate anymore.
But I do think if he skips the debate and holds a rally instead, it could end up damaging him, considering how many voters don’t think he’s taken the coronavirus seriously enough. Such an event would seem to play right into that narrative.
nrakich: Yeah, Sarah, I think skipping the debate would be the latest in a long line of poor political decisions by Trump. Although to Nate’s point, I’m not sure he would be able to take advantage of the debate to turn his numbers around anyway.
It’s just increasingly hard to find any political upside for Trump.
0 notes
Text
Trump 2024: the game’s changed and a third term is possible
Pic Gage Skidmore
The norms, expectations and opportunities of American politics are changing
Let’s get ahead of ourselves. I do not expect Donald Trump to win a second term and neither do punters betting hard cash. At the time of writing, he was just over 2.2 on Betfair to win November’s election and marginally odds against with traditional bookies. I think that’s still a bit short. Trump’s job approval figures have just dropped to a seven-month low (albeit within quite a small range), and Biden keeps pumping out solid leads in both national polls and those conducted in swing states.
In terms of the outlook for the next five months, it doesn’t look great for the president either. A majority of the public disapprove of his handling of the Covid-19 epidemic (the figures are against him by about 53/43), and that crisis is unlikely to go away given how high new infections remain across the country. Relatedly, while the unemployment figures dropped this week, the 13.3% rate remains considerably higher than the worst point in the recession of 2008-10.
Meanwhile, his response to the protests following the death of George Floyd has overtly played to his base as well as having been largely ineffective. Given all that, he has a tough task to win over enough swing voters, or to persuade enough current Biden-backers to stay at home, in order to gain victory. If either the unemployment rate stays in double figures or the Covid-19 cases fail to subside, we can reasonably expect more unrest into the summer and autumn as lives and livelihoods are lost.
But he might win – and that needs to be our starting point. So the first question we need to ask is ‘how?’, and we can best answer it by winding back the clock four years. Trump is not a subtle beast and in terms of strategy we can reasonably expect an updated version of 2016: assertions that he delivered on his promises, assertions of greater things to come under him, and vicious half-truth attacks on his opponent.
On that final point, Biden is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton was but he still has weak spots that Trump could exploit – and one of Trump’s two genuine political skills is in negative campaigning. We can probably expect a return to the Biden-Ukraine story that so nearly derailed his campaign in the primaries, alongside questions about his health, his behaviour and his legislative record. That Trump might also have weaknesses on these issues isn’t the point: Trump has never been bothered by consistency nor critical self-appraisal. His purpose in the attacks isn’t necessarily to win over voters; just to stop them backing his rival.
On top of the regular campaign, Trump also has one immeasurable advantage over 2016: his unchallenged status as head of a political movement which incorporates the Republican Party but in truth is founded outside it.
In the last four years, Trump has remodelled American politics: it norms and its methods. Anne Applebaum gives a magisterial account of how he’s done that and some of the consequences of his having done so in her Atlantic article this week but for our purposes, what we need to note is that Trump not only rejects the polite norms of politics but is willing to embrace any methods which advance his cause (and his cause is himself first, his family second and his friends third). That others might consider them unethical or even downright illegal doesn’t matter as long as they work. With a pet Attorney General and hence a tame Department of Justice, that gives him a lot of scope. For now (a point we’ll come back to).
Trump’s reforming of the psychology of American politics (and to no small extent, of America itself) has been his other great political accomplishment, and by some way the more significant. If he does win a second term, it will grant even more legitimacy to his methods, his mind-set and – to the extent which someone so self-centred and short-termist has them – his policies. Ugliness will become the default; the expectation; the standard to which those in DC and those anywhere Trump turns his attention have to operate. For where Trump goes, his army of followers, online and in person, go too.
If Trump does win in November then there’s a reasonable chance the Republicans may hold on to the Senate too, though it will be close. While not every Republican vote can be guaranteed, again, Trump’s mob can be mobilised to exert a lot of pressure on recalcitrant (and, for that matter, on Democrats who might be persuadable). There’s also a reasonable chance that it will have come through more outrageous lies and interference with the democratic process.
To those who say that Trump doesn’t have the power to intervene, that misses what power is. True, election are run by states but they’re also run by politicians in America and those politicians are susceptible to the same pressures Trump can unleash via his lip, his tweet and his fanbase. They’re also capable of working to the standards that Trump legitimises – and of course they have their own interest in doing what help the Republican Party. Expect procedural attempts to suppress or enhance the partisan vote on an even greater scale than usual.
These methods, however, come with a price. If he loses power, the investigations will be vigorous and there’s a good chance Trump could be fighting off legal actions for years. Hence his great incentive to win, at whatever cost and in whatever way.
Whether Trump accepts that he might be the legitimate target of such investigations is doubtful: he genuinely seems incapable of differentiating between his personal interests and his public role. He will, however, understand that his enemies might well try to ‘get’ him given the chance because that’s what he’d try to do in their place. Either way, retirement is off the table: he needs his hands on the levers of power and particularly the Department of Justice, as noted earlier.
Which brings us to 2024. “Hang on an minute”, you might say. “Trump can’t stand a third time: he’d be barred by the 22nd Amendment”. Well, technically he could stand but he couldn’t be elected and he’d struggle for ballot access anyway as an ineligible candidate. But that is not the end of the story.
If Trump believed he needed to protect himself through a third term, could he do it? Very probably, yes.
How? There are two routes we should raise here simply in order to dismiss. One is that he could simply ignore the constitution and carry on, with or without an election. Trump has certainly wreaked great damage on America’s body politic and no doubt could corrupt it further still in a second term but it’s hard to see how he could simply render the constitution null. To do that, he’d need to subdue either the judiciary and law enforcement systems, or the military, to his personal will. He can’t – or not without provoking an outright revolution. Nor can he cancel the election be executive fiat. Again, these are constitutionally mandated and organised by the states (and many other politicians need them for their own careers and interest, unless they too wish to be complicit in a coup that would place their own position virtually entirely at Trump’s whim). Besides, as the likes of Putin have shown, it’s better PR and simpler legally to go through the motions of an election.
The other is that he could change the constitution and repeal the 22nd Amendment. While there are good arguments for that in principle (why shouldn’t people be able to elect a government of their choice?), now is not the time. Trump is not going to begin a battle he won’t win and where there’s no advantage in losing. To change the constitution requires the amendment to be ratified by three-quarters of the states, even if the two-thirds of Congress requirement could be circumvented (and it could) – and the Republicans don’t have and won’t have control of 38 states.
So where does he go? One option is simply to install a proxy. True, that wouldn’t actually mean a third term but there are several examples across history of national ‘paramount leaders’ holding no formal office, which they left to trusted lieutenants – Stalin did so until 1941. The problem with that though is that I’m not sure there’s anyone that Trump trusts who also has the brazen and shameless PR skills to do the front-of-house job. No-one else in his family does.
Instead, he could go for the Putin option and switch the ticket, serving as notional Vice-President to Mike Pence but dominating the campaign and the administration. Again, this would be a third term in fact but not in name.
Here, we need to get a bit technical with the US constitution. The 22nd Amendment’s relevant (and opening) clause states that “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”, while the 12th Amendment says that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President”. Note the subtle difference in wording. The later Amendment only prevents someone from being elected to a third (or subsequent) term; it does not explicitly prevent them from serving as president, should they inherit it from another position – including the Vice Presidency. And if they can inherit the presidency, then it follows that they are not barred from being elected Vice President by the 12th Amendment.
There are certainly those who disagree with that literal interpretation and assert that the intent of the 1951 Amendment was to prevent anyone serving more than ten years and that the 12th Amendment should be read in that context. This debate only matters here in as far as the Supreme Court might answer it: our own opinions are of little relevance (though for what it’s worth, I prefer to interpret according to the text as written rather than as imagined).
Which is where the Senate election in November comes in. Law should not be a matter of politics but on constitutional matters it inevitably carried an element of it, particularly in the US. I can’t honestly say how the Court would rule on the 12/22 question – the division characterised as liberal/conservative does not necessarily translate directly to pro-/anti-Trump – but if the GOP could gain another Justice (and two liberals on the Court are into their eighties), it couldn’t do any harm.
Assuming Trump could win that ruling – and it’s not one that’s stretching a point – it opens up an even more direct possibility: he could run for the Vice Presidency purely as a mechanism through which to transfer to the top job, with the actual nominee always intending to resign in Trump’s favour, before or after inauguration but certainly after the Electoral College votes are counted. But that might be playing the game too much.
The point is American politics has changed. The language and style has changed but so has its very nature. Codes of conduct have been stretched and unspoken assumptions no longer hold. If Trump wants three terms, they’re there to be had.
David Herdson
from politicalbetting.com https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/06/06/trump-2024-the-games-changed-and-a-third-term-is-possible/
https://dangky.ric.win/
0 notes
Text
Have Americans’ Views On Race Relations And Police Brutality Changed Since Ferguson?
Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
sarah (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Over the past week, there were a number of demonstrations across the U.S., protesting the death of George Floyd, a black man who was killed by police officers in Minneapolis. Videotape captured a white police officer kneeling on Floyd’s neck, ignoring repeated cries from Floyd saying, “I can’t breathe.”
But while the majority of Americans (61 percent) think Floyd’s race played a significant role, according to a Yahoo News/YouGov poll, there is less agreement on how people are processing the protests. Fifty-one percent of Americans in that same poll described the unrest in Minneapolis as “mostly violent riots,” while just 10 percent described it as “mostly peaceful protests.” A quarter said it was a mix.
In many ways, what happened in the wake of Floyd’s death — the police officer was charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter on Friday — felt like a watershed moment in how the majority of Americans view deaths at the hands of police. Police chiefs across the nation condemned what happened, as did many conservative news personalities, but in the aftermath of the protests, there has been, as Wesley Lowery of “60 Minutes” describes, a desire to ascribe “simple narratives to explain complicated realities.” In other words, the protests may risk dividing Americans along familiar partisan and racial fault lines.
The subject of race relations in America is complex, but what can we say, at this point, about what has happened as a result of Floyd’s death? Are Americans reacting differently from how they did in 2014, after Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri? How have Americans changed — or not changed — on issues of police violence and racial relations since then?
To start, how is this moment different?
john.sides (John Sides, political science professor at Vanderbilt University): If anything, Americans have become more pessimistic about race relations, according to Gallup polling conducted before Floyd’s death.
Gallup has asked since the early 2000s whether relations between white people and black people are good or bad. And among African Americans, the percentage who said “very good” or “somewhat good” fell from 66 percent in 2013 to 40 percent in 2018. Views among white Americans are also less positive than they were in 2013, but they’re still higher than views among African Americans, as you can see in the chart below.
maggie (Maggie Koerth, senior science writer): I see some big differences in how white people, particularly conservative white people, and police officers are approaching Floyd’s death. I first noticed that earlier last week, when conservative family members started reaching out to tell me they agreed with the protesters and thought the police officer responsible for Floyd’s death should be arrested, including the officer’s colleagues who stood by and watched without intervening. And now we’ve seen things like police officers in other cities taking the knee … something I couldn’t have imagined happening a year ago.
clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): A couple of things are at work: 1) The video of Floyd’s death is pretty unambiguous. We know what happened. That wasn’t the case in the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, and in some other high-profile deaths by police. 2) We’re in the midst of an unprecedented pandemic and economic meltdown. Floyd himself was allegedly trying to use a counterfeit $20 bill, and I think a lot of people see the protests over his death as indicative of the spot we’re in. People have been grappling with death for months. They’re angsty and in lockdown, social distancing to slow the spread of the coronavirus. There are a LOT of emotions swirling in America.
sarah: Right, there’s both this unprecedented moment we’re in, as Clare says, and the fact that views on race relations in the U.S. had already taken a sharp downturn after 2014 during Obama’s presidency, after both the grand jury decisions in Brown’s and Eric Garner’s cases found the police officers not guilty. And as John pointed out earlier, these numbers haven’t exactly bounced back either.
perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): People see race relations poorly because the Black Lives Matter movement really gained prominence in 2014, Trump emerged as a presidential candidate the same year, and we’ve had racialized conflict ever since.
In other words, people see race relations as poor because they are poor!
The news media is also covering these conflicts in the frame of race conflict a lot, unlike it did pre-2014.
clare.malone: Yeah, there’s probably more nuance in the coverage of these protests and deaths.
maggie: Than previous ones, you mean? I’d agree with that, for sure.
clare.malone: First, we’ve now had a few years of these videos that make people — namely, white people — who aren’t as intimately acquainted with police violence, feel some digital proximity to those events. They are emotionally tugged. And they are then intellectually tugged into the conversation, and then, finally, in an activist way, tugged into actual protests. We’re basically seeing a maturation of the conversation, in part because more people have become aware of the issue and then, I think, the media has matured (slightly) in its coverage.
And what I mean by that is that there’s more awareness of what it means to call something a “riot.” There’s more talk about what motivates looting/anger/violent reactions to police in a protest.
I don’t think you get that without America having had a few years of just seeing these videos over and over again. It’s horrific that we’ve had years of videos of these deaths at the hands of police. But I think that it has made the problem more understood.
maggie: There’s also an element of the heavy-handed response against the press having an impact on how the protests are covered. It’s one thing to be a local TV news reporter covering Black Lives Matter protests in Minnesota a few years ago and framing them largely as a rude, maybe scary, inconvenience. (Which is what I, as a local citizen, saw the media do.) Now, though, when the police are shooting reporters with munitions live on TV, well … the conversation changes.
sarah: Yeah, this piece from Slate caught my eye because, while it pointed out that the police’s public response to Floyd’s death has been different — police officers have condemned the officer and called for him to be charged — the overall police response to protesters hasn’t actually been all that different.
maggie: Yeah. We just published a story on Monday with The Marshall Project, about how difficult it is to change police norms when it comes to dealing with protests — even in the face of 50 years’ worth of evidence.
clare.malone: Of course, you’ve also got forces like the Sergeants Benevolent Association in New York City that feel pretty free to put some nutty stuff/rhetoric out there too …
john.sides: This is not my area of expertise, but there is research indicating that police respond more harshly to protests that are specifically reacting to police brutality.
sarah: What do we know so far about how Americans are reacting to the protests, though?
john.sides: Attitudes toward the protests are mixed. That Yahoo News/YouGov poll you mentioned earlier, Sarah, showed big differences in people’s views of the protests. For example, 33 percent of Democrats described the protests in Minneapolis as “mostly violent riots,” but 73 percent of Republicans said this.
There were also pretty big differences in whether respondents said the riots reflected genuine desire to hold police accountable versus just a long-standing bias against the police. Republicans were 43 percentage points more likely to say it’s just bias.
clare.malone: Yeah, I mean, I’ve even seen the police described as “counterprotesters.”
sarah: It is definitely a weird and troubling dynamic that the organization/people being protested (i.e., the police) are also the ones responsible for ensuring the safety of the protesters.
clare.malone: Right, the protests are about police violence. Yet, in some instances, police feel personally (and physically) attacked by protesters. There’s also an element of politics here, though, in that the police in the Trump era have been talked about more and more as a Trump constituency — the law-and-order constituency — and maybe been given great authority as a result. But then some cops dismiss the protesters as just part of a political dynamic (on the left) that sees them as the enemy.
It’s troubling when the government has a monopoly on legalized violence and that the wielders of that violence — the police — aren’t in many, many cases exercising it in moderation. The videos of police cars ramming protesters, the pepper-spraying of people who aren’t being violent, etc. It’s a bad dynamic.
john.sides: The protests are exactly the kind of event where you’re going to see these differences play out by party and race, too. They’re diffuse events, varying within and across cities. Additionally, it is not always clear what is happening and who is responsible. Are these people looters or political protesters? So ordinary Americans are going to take cues from news coverage and their party’s political leaders to make sense of events.
sarah: Yeah, that Yahoo News/YouGov poll seems to point to this quite clearly. Although Americans have shifted from 2014 in how they view police violence, they still rely on their partisan lenses when it comes to thinking about the unrest that has resulted. Do we have a good explanation for that disconnect?
john.sides: It is one thing to ask Americans about an event with such clear video documentation, like Floyd’s death. That helps to eliminate ambiguity, and it’s why Americans of both parties agree with the firing of the officers involved, according to that same poll. But when it comes to the larger issue of police treatment of African Americans, there’s a lot less agreement. For example, on the question of whether deaths of African Americans during encounters with police are isolated incidents or part of a broader problem, 84 percent of Democrats say it’s part of a broader problem compared with just 32 percent of Republicans.
sarah: Right, and this poll from Ipsos MORI found a strong racial divide as well. Seventy-eight percent of black Americans polled said they didn’t think white Americans understood the level of discrimination they face in their lives.
Has this disconnect on racial relations in the U.S. — especially between white and black Americans or between Democrats and Republicans — gotten worse since 2014? Or has it remained about the same?
john.sides: Overall, attitudes about race line up much more with partisanship than they used to. Democrats and Republicans increasingly disagree on crucial questions like how much racial inequality is due to structural forces like discrimination. What my research with Michael Tesler and Lynn Vavreck found is that views on issues like racial inequality were one of the key factors that better predicted vote choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016. We found this played an even larger role than it did in 2012, predicting vote choice between President Obama and Mitt Romney. And that probably had to do with the fact that the 2016 campaign focused a great deal on racial issues.
clare.malone: The idea that eight years of a black, Democratic president helped accelerate voter awareness of where the parties stood on racial issues is fascinating. And the fact that Trump made a lot of racial subtext in the past four years has done a lot to keep the focus on race in politics and what that means for both parties.
perry: Right, in some ways believing that there is structural racial discrimination is part of being a Democrat now.
john.sides: And it really didn’t use to be this way. Tesler has done some important work on this, finding that there were larger party divides on whether “12 Years a Slave” deserved an Oscar than on the 1995 O.J. Simpson verdict.
sarah: Let’s shift gears a little and talk about the administration. There’s a lot of coverage on how Trump has been notably silent as protests raged outside the White House and across the country. But on Monday, he berated governors for not being tough enough, telling them they have to step up the military response against the protesters and “dominate.”
Clare wrote on Friday about how some of Trump’s law-and-order rhetoric might be shortsighted here in 2020. So where do we think the conversation is headed next?
Biden has his own complications with taking black Americans for granted, as we saw in his interview with the Breakfast Club host Charlamagne tha God. And even President Obama was criticized for not doing enough in response to the Ferguson protests in 2014.
What are the political fault lines here moving forward?
perry: Biden will probably tread carefully — he is trying to stay near what he thinks is the center of the electorate, so that means he will probably want to try hard to not offend the police or black people. I wouldn’t expect his comments on Floyd’s death to resonate with the protesters, though. They seem to be younger and more liberal and want aggressive, transformative rhetoric and policies.
All of this probably does affect his campaign, though. For instance, it’s probably hard for him to pick Sen. Amy Klobuchar as his vice president now. She is being criticized for refusing to file charges against police officers who killed civilians when she was the top prosecutor in the Minneapolis area. So it is hard to imagine Biden choosing her as his running mate given the firestorm around criminal justice issues in her home state. Not to mention that some prominent black Democrats, even before Floyd’s death, were already wary of Klobuchar.
Biden himself will also have to speak about issues of racial inequality more, and he may not be particularly effective at that.
john.sides: Biden will likely turn this into another attack on Trump’s leadership, though — similar to his attacks on Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic or the economy. You could imagine him talking about how Trump sat in the bunker with the lights off at the White House and chastising him for trying to blame everything on governors. Biden has already highlighted his willingness to talk directly with the protesters rather than hunkering down.
And that poses a challenge for Trump. He talked about ending American carnage in his inaugural address. But how does he campaign when the carnage has only grown worse since he became president?
It’s not that Trump is directly responsible for the smashed windows or fires. It’s just that Americans sometimes blame incumbent officeholders for a wide array of problems, even ones out of their direct control.
maggie: So Trump is more likely to be punished electorally for the fact that disruption is happening generally than for anything he specifically did or did not do about it?
perry: I think, like COVID-19, it is really hard to see all of this mattering much electorally. The polls are just not moving much. I don’t think voters are learning a ton of new information about Trump from this.
clare.malone: For Trump, his lack of response to this — a death that people of both parties see as unjust — is more an example of the leadership void people have been seeing from him on COVID-19.
john.sides: Figuring out the exact electoral impact is hard. There is evidence that violent protests may have hurt Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey in 1968, even as nonviolent protests helped him (and may have given a long-lasting boost to Democrats). But research on the violent protests after the Rodney King verdict in 1992 found that the protests moved public opinion in a liberal direction. We just don’t have a lot of cases to generalize from. Moreover, as Clare and others have rightly pointed out, Trump is the incumbent here, which complicates the analogy to 1968.
sarah: Right, it’s hard to know where things will go from here, but it certainly seems as if Floyd’s death is a turning point in the conversation around police brutality. It’s just an open question of where we go from here.
from Clare Malone – FiveThirtyEight https://ift.tt/36V91SU
via https://ift.tt/1B8lJZR
0 notes
Text
Bridging the Culture Gap in Remote Teams
More and more companies are building geographically-dispersed workforces. It's not just the Googles and the Microsofts that are going global, either. Small companies can leverage remote workers to cut costs, improve performance, and increase profits.
Many today are building full teams in emerging tech nations like India. They're taking advantage of global diversity and bringing together people from different cultures and backgrounds, with unique perspectives on just about everything imaginable.
In theory, this globalisation helps organizations to scale up their business - but the vast cultural and societal differences between the in-house and remote team members can throw a major spanner in the works.
Defining the "culture gap"
Building an efficient, productive, and successful team is hard enough when everyone shares the same office. When you're working with an offshore team that's located halfway around the world, with a diverse cultural and functional background, communication can be tricky.
After all, an "open door" policy is hard to implement when your team is 10,000 miles away!
What does it look like?
Let's take India. Indians are known for their persistence and hard work: it's an ingrained (and largely positive) aspect of their culture. However, something they are equally well-known for is refusing to say "no".
This isn't a negative trait, but it is different. Indian workers typically accept the need to "grind", even if it means spending extra hours in work everyday! They love a challenge and are determined to prove themselves, especially when collaborating as part of a bigger team. Refusing yet another request from the boss just isn't really entertained.
In Europe or the US, staff are more likely to say, "Sorry, but I can't do that, I've already got too much on my plate." Is this team any less hardworking or dedicated than their Indian counterparts? Not at all. They've simply been encouraged more, over their lifetime, to speak their mind. Candidness and "telling it how it is" is seen more as positive, not negative, in the west.
So what's the problem?
This is just one example of the difference in culture between countries like India and the US. While it's not true for everyone, it is broadly accurate. Problems arise when CEOs, managers, and even run-of-the-mill colleagues fail to understand or connect with new employees.
It's easy to get off on the wrong foot or develop poor expectations. This kind of "culture gap" can take a brilliant hiring strategy - such as building a specialist offshore team - and make it disastrous.
A Global Culture Survey conducted in 2018 showed that roughly 65% of leaders and employees believed that the organizational culture of their company is more important to them than any strategy or operating model.
Unfortunately, more than 80% also agreed they weren't happy with their company culture. This proves that an unaddressed cultural gap is more common than we might expect. While it doesn't exist only among remote teams, it can be more pronounced there than in-house.
Bridging the cultural gap effectively
When working with remote teams, there are a few simple steps that you can take towards "bridging" the gap.
1. Acknowledge and appreciate the cultural differences
Start by addressing the elephant in the room: your team now contains more diverse cultures than before. Cultural diversity manifests in different forms: language, behavioural differences, values, and even the meanings attached to specific words and actions.
Before you can bridge the culture gap, you need to learn what it's made of.
Breaking the ice reveals what's hiding beneath the surface
Ice breakers. All you need is a good internet connection and a Skype account. Get your team members to share their cultural background, expectations for their job, how they work - whatever seems important.
While an elementary exercise, simply encouraging this candid conversation can help your longstanding team understand its new, foreign colleagues - and vice versa. You might discuss cultural differences like:
Approach to conflict of interest
Approach to work and deadlines
Personal conduct
Long-term expectations
You could even go the extra mile and visit your offshore team in person. This could be a great chance to chat in person, get to know each other, and build a more personal connection.
2. Over-communicate until everyone is comfortable
When working with a remote team, you can't just corner someone at their desk when you need something done. Despite perfectly good communications tools, misunderstandings can be a regular issue.
But why?
For a start, body language accounts for roughly 55% of all communication. This means that the tone of a text or the formality of an email is left entirely open to misinterpretation. Most of us have been there in our personal lives, too.
Then what can you do?
Be prepared to adapt your soft skills. Even if totally fluent in English, your new colleagues might miss subtle meanings or misinterpret based on your specific word choice. Indians are known to wear their hearts on their sleeves, which means that constructive criticism can be harder to take.
Rather than saying, "I don't like how you've approached this task at all. Have you considered this approach instead?", you can say "Hey, that's not bad, but here's how I think you can do this task better'.
Particularly in the early days, framing your sentences the right way makes a huge difference. Dedicate time and effort to communicating as clearly as possible. Also refrain from being overly critical: even if it's frustrating, both sides should be candid without aggression.
From the remote worker's perspective, they must accept the need to request repeat instructions, ask for help, and say "no". Consider "checking in" regularly to ensure everyone is on the same page.
By over-communicating, you can establish a collaboration that is built on transparency and honesty. It's better to start slow - and to start well - than to find yourself scrambling and frustrated a few months down the line.
3. Conduct alignment meetings to standardise everything
With an in-house team, it's important to be organised. With an offshore team, it is absolutely crucial.
If you have ten people with ten different ideas on how something should be done, it's recipe for disaster. Alignment meetings can go a long way in establishing norms and rules throughout your organization.
Everyone has their own approach to tasks, problems, and hitting deadlines. In your company, however, everyone needs to be on the same page.
Apply processes and training across the company
Standardise processes, document templates, task management systems, the structure and frequency of weekly meetings - everything that can be standardised, should be standardised.
Most of this is necessary for companies of a certain size, regardless of location. With a remote team, that goes double. You can even offer training on understanding cross-cultural differences for your staff.
Again, go to your workforce for feedback. Some concepts may sound good in theory, but work out horrendously in practice.
Cross-cultural teams are on the rise all over the world, for all number of reasons. This presents challenges, but also unprecedented opportunity. With a little effort, the cultural barriers of building remote teams can be overcome without disruption.
Handled correctly, diverse opinions and perspectives are a powerful asset - not a liability.
At The Scalers, we pride ourselves on building efficient and successful cross-cultural teams. Based in Bangalore but with strong European leadership, we're perfectly placed for what we do.
If you're interested in building a remote team for your business, we'd love to talk to you. You can schedule a call with one of our consultants or take our quick test below to see if you're ready to launch a full offshore team!
0 notes
Link
“For me, it started with an acute what-the-fuck-am-I-doing-here moment in a local church twenty-odd years ago, followed by an equally sudden what-the-fuck-is-that-guy-talking-about moment in the same church five seconds later...
Reason #1: I’ve never seen him, nor any indication of his existence. Arguably the most obvious reason and possibly the most important one as well: if God exists, where is he? The only faculties a human being has at his disposal to assert the existence of something are:
The senses — direct observation. Things you see or feel, including stuff other people tell you. These days, we can see pretty far into the cosmos, across the entire electromagnetic range, using all sorts of telescopes. So far, to my knowledge, nobody has made a single credible observation that requires the presence of a supernatural intelligence (not even a stupid one).
Logical argument — indirect observation. Combining known facts and drawing conclusions from those. I do recognise the fact that not everything can be directly observed by our limited faculties. However, if I can’t observe something directly, as a non-lunatic I require either some sort of observable effect or a sound chain of reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the subject under investigation must exist.
Both approaches have come up empty so far. Even if we assume God can’t be observed directly for whatever reason: there is not a single convincing bit of indirect evidence or remotely conclusive argument around, especially if we discount reports of people discerning a divine presence in their food.
If there was any evidence or proof out there, it would be world news instantly, especially in these times. Twitter would detonate. It would take over the planet and shut everybody up (except for the Dutch, who always seem to have something worth yapping about). It would have been rubbed in my embarrassed face ten times over during the past five seconds, and rightly so. This hasn’t happened yet, so I can safely continue to assume nobody has a strong case to convince an atheist.
Reason #2: followers of one religion are atheists of the others. This is a slightly more subtle point: even the most devout Christian on the planet is an atheist regarding all the other religions that don’t agree with the particular flavor of faith he subscribes to. This is true of the followers of any religion. Even the most isolated tribes in the amazon have their own version of religion, and are equally confident they’ve got it all figured out.
Who is right? Cause all the others are mistaken! No one religion has a better claim to the truth than any other, no religion has features that elevate it to a more likely Candidate for Truth. Cause, again, the world would know about it. So why assume any of the religions on offer is The One, and worth joining?
It’s just as reasonable to assume they’re all equally mistaken. Whichever way you turn things, the vast majority of the world’s population is wasting their time worshipping a figment of their imagination.
Were you born correctly? Even if there is one religion out there that happens to be the correct one, the chance you happened to have been born into that particular one are very slim indeed. The vast majority of believers have the same faith as their parents, and unless you’re a kid of God himself, it makes even less sense to assume they have chosen correctly in your stead.
Your parents were in the same situation as you with their parents, back in the day. They might have switched allegiance or they might have chosen to trust their parents’ decision. Both options are error-prone, their grandparents were in the very same predicament way back when, and it’s turtles all the way down.
Why choose? So it doesn’t make much sense to choose at all. Even if there is a God: your best chances for a nice afterlife sprout from not sticking to a particular religion since you’ve almost certainly been born into the wrong one.
If the God you should have believed in is vengeful and you pick wrong, you’re in trouble.
If he is vengeful and you don’t worship another you have a better case.
If he is not vengeful he will either forgive you no matter what you do, or just plain don’t care.
So logically, being a devout [insert religious affiliation here] makes no sense at all.
Reason #3: complexity of God vs the universe. Many people with some sort of affinity for religion and spirituality will object to being chucked into the same bucket as ‘man-in-the-sky’ theists. They are equally unconvinced of these extreme versions of belief, but still feel there must be ‘something there’ to ‘explain all this’.
Evolution. To those people I would say: “Evolution.” And then they would ask: “Explain what you mean or go away.” And then I would start explaining, and they would wish they’d have limited their response to “Go away.” And I would go on, regardless:
“ The urge to postulate the presence of some supernatural entity usually seems to follow from being flabbergasted by the complexity of the universe. People tend to feel better if they know who made something, so they can understand where it came from. For an infinitely complex and confusing cosmos this urge becomes strong enough that a majority of people feel A Cause must be identified at all costs.
Nobody would postulate a divine entity if the cosmos would have been created by Apple. They would have been able to see Steve Jobs, standing right there. No doubt about it. As it happens, Apple only made a dent in the universe.
I consider evolution to be the most powerful idea science has investigated so far, it gives us the mechanism by which the complexity of life has arisen from extremely simple beginnings. (Evolution applies much more generally, I will definitely talk about this in future writings.) Since we now know how the complexity of life came to be, the need for a creator vanishes in a puff of logic.
A God that designed and created the entire universe must be more complex than that universe, and thus offers no explanation as to where the necessary complexity came from in the first place. Add this to reason #1 (nobody’s ever seen God) above, and the idea of God The Creator loses all substance. Occam’s razor is quite sharp enough to cut it away. “
For those who doubt. For those who have a lack of faith in evolution and would like to use that to undermine the argument above: evolution is absolutely real, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence available. Shouting at the top of your lungs it’s all nonsense is a bit like denying — over breakfast — that chickens lay eggs whilst enjoying an omelette. The evidence that proves your mistake is not hard to find, see or understand. You just need to go have a look in your back yard.
Reason #4: God does not explain anything. God is invoked to explain all kinds of things. Why am I here? Where do we come from? How on earth did Trump get elected? But it’s inevitable to not know lots of things.
I don’t want to go to school today. Even though people try to pin everything that happens on God by way of explanation, we still don’t know anything since God himself is not explained. In other words, we’re saying (well I’m not saying that at all!) God explains everything, but we can’t explain God. We still have to cover for him by stressing the mysterious ways in which he likes to move. It is a lazy, inadequate and feeble attempt to avoid doing the work and actually learn something about the world.
God of the Gaps. This idea is called ‘God of the Gaps’. It comes down to the observation that God appears wherever there are gaps in our understanding of the world. These gaps have been consistently shrinking for the past centuries, at an ever faster rate, as scientists have diligently been going about the process of filling them with papers.
It seems entirely reasonable to assume that these gaps will continue disappearing in the future, rendering the domain to which God is confined ever smaller, quite possibly ending in oblivion.
Building bridges. In contrast, so far we haven’t encountered a situation where scientific knowledge disappeared and had to be replaced by God.
While I understand the appeal of being able to point at The Cause, the gap between wanting to know something and actually knowing something can only be bridged using the scientific method. Not by stuffing the gap with fluff and sleeping on it. It might be comfortable and cozy but you will not get to the other side, you will only sink deeper into ignorance.
Reason #5: I’m not a Voldemort agnostic. You might argue that if I don’t believe in God I should call myself an agnostic cause I can never disprove him and know one hundred percent for sure.
Given that I admit there being a tiny chance there is some sort of god, why not believe in him just in case? If god is fooled by my pretended piety he is not all that great, is he? At least now I have integrity, for which he might summon some respect. And if he isn’t vengeful my anti-religious conduct doesn’t matter either.
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. To put it another way, there is a tiny chance Voldemort is real as well but I am pretty sure he has been made up. It seems a safe bet to me to live my life ignoring the possibility rather than becoming a death eater just in case. This opens up a lot of free time in which I can do stuff I like better than worshipping.
Which does not mean I wouldn’t convert — with Malfoy-ian conviction — in a heartbeat, as soon as he’d show up on my doorstep. That’s science for you.
Reason #6: It’s free. Nobody is asking me money for being atheist. It’s the cheapest set of principles around, the alternatives require a lot of time and money to be spent. Really exceptional value for money. Recommended.
Reason #7: I’m free. Nobody is making me do stuff. Nobody is telling me what I should think or believe.
Trust in me. By definition, if you can’t know what you’re supposed to do to follow a particular religion by thinking for yourself — that would constitute some form of evidence — you are running with ‘facts’ (are they?) that are offered to you by other people, be it through ancient books or through direct interaction with representatives and followers of the faith in question. You are accepting arbitrary claims devoid of any justification whatsoever. This is obviously a very dangerous thing to do.
The great manipulator. It gives other people the power to have you do all sorts of things without having to explain themselves. Which, as far as I can tell, seems to be the main reason religion still exists today: people who realise they can manipulate people into practically anything and don’t have a conscience to stop them keep religion alive to have other people do stuff they would like to happen but aren’t keen on doing themselves.
The extreme case of this has been the main source of terror and bad politics for ages, with a distinct bump around the 9/11 mark in humanity’s timeline.
Nobody would dream of handing his or her wallet to some guy on the street because he claims he can talk to an almighty spirit that requires you to part with your cash, and you’re just gonna have to believe that spirit is there cause you will go to a rather unpleasant party when you die if you don’t. Nonetheless, this principle is widespread.
You believe in science. So science is your religion. No it’s not.
Please do not touch. Religion forces an untouchable set of ideas on you. These rules supposedly never change, they’re ancient and even though the world is changing at dazzling speed, they still apply. Unadapted.
You’re not allowed to question any of these ideas, and if you do, you’re accused of misunderstanding them or you’re told they can’t be analysed in a rational fashion and to take them at face value. You can’t think about them, you just have to accept them. “Don’t you just believe in anything? That’s so sad!” I’ll be alright.
The scientific method. Science poses a fundamentally different way of looking at the world, called the Scientific Method (if God deserves a capital G…). I intend to write a separate post soon to explain the idea in more detail (that post is now available here), but the crux of the matter is to be ready to drop any idea at all, immediately, whenever you meet some beautiful new evidence that tells you that idea is wrong.
The marvels of science put it in stark contrast with religion. “Scientific thought produces technology. Religious thought produces art.” I want to poke giant holes all over that but I don’t know where to start. Technology is starting to produce art these days, so there’s that.
The mountain. Science does not deny God outright. Rather, if he exists, science would be the way to find out. As it happens, science didn’t stumble upon any indication of his existence so far. It did stumble though, and fell face first into a mountain of facts that unanimously point to the opposite conclusion.
It just works. In any case, you can see for yourself — everywhere around you — that science works. If it didn’t you would be reading this carved into a rock on the town square. Even the most fundamentalist jihadist acknowledges this by happily using the product of the very ideas he loathes so deeply to orchestrate and execute the most vicious acts of destruction he can think of, in order to eradicate the very notions that led to the development of the technology he, too, uses every day.
Who’s gonna make their cell phones when they’ve reached their goal I wonder.
Free thy children! This limited listing alone — there are many more forms of justification scattered all over reality, waiting for people to ignore them — leaves me no other option than to be a radical atheist.
To close, a point Richard Dawkins never fails to highlight, and I think this might perhaps be the most important message for humanity to take to heart if it cares to survive for a good while longer: teach your children to think for themselves.
Don’t raise them to be manipulable and naive, but have them question the reasons for what other people request of them (not for what you request though, they’re gonna eat those carrots!) This would undoubtedly eliminate a tremendous portion of misery from the world and skew the scales towards a world population that has enough common sense to save itself as well as its pale blue home.
Prison break. Help your children to be free instead of chaining them to the wall of the same prison cell you might happen to reside in. You live in there only because your parents did, for no good reason. Instead, open the door. Leave them free to wander around, to see what the other cells look like and who’s in there, if they want.
And then let them leave the prison building altogether, to roam the earth and experience the cosmos like nobody intended it to be.
Reading recommendations:
There’s a plethora of excellent reading options available, these are some famous personal favourites of mine.
The God Delusion — Richard Dawkins
As some readers will no doubt have noticed, a huge portion of the ideas described here have been treated in much more detail by Richard Dawkins, and many of them in this book. It turned me from a curious agnostic into a full-blown heretic. The lucid reasoning throughout is inescapable and by the end of the book you either didn’t understand it or you’re an atheist.
The Blind Watchmaker — Richard Dawkins
I can’t not recommend most of Dawkins’ bibliography, but this work in particular made the concept of evolution really click for me and had an immense impact on my world view. I wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone.
God Is Not Great — Christopher Hitchens
This famous book makes a great case against religion as well. Hitchens’ style is quite direct and unapologetic, though, which usually puts off the people he would have liked to convince most. This trait is shared, to a slightly lesser extent, by Richard Dawkins.
A Short History Of Nearly Everything — Bill Bryson
A beautiful bird’s eye overview of the sciences. Perfect for people who are not very familiar with any of them but would like to get some idea of what has been found out so far, through some light reading.
On The Origin of Species — Charles Darwin
If you’re brave enough to jump in at the deep end, try Charles Darwin’s very own masterpiece. It’s quite readable but obviously misses more than a 150 years of progress in the field. The core idea is there though, in all it’s glory. To get a more modern treatment, read The Blind Watchmaker (mentioned above).
The Greatest Story Ever Told … So Far — Lawrence Krauss
This is an upcoming (edit: it’s out now!) book by Lawrence Krauss, one of the most prominent physicists of our time. Krauss has a great track record in popular science writing, so I’m very much looking forward to his new book which promises to be a true celebration of the scientific method and how it is used to learn more about how the universe works. Already recommended.”
https://medium.com/@renaisscience/science-vs-religion-or-why-i-am-an-atheist-ab41bc1555d5
17 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
alunasky-blog
Alunasky
sniffmydope
Stay Woke
prettyboycyrusblog-blog
blogger
ssanimationhub
ssanimationhub
thydragoness
⟡ . Melulu ⌒ ⌒