Posts on Twitter:

This one image is so telling... the power of , like nothing else does. Whoever this gentleman is, let's make him famous!!!




Jean-François Copé , Mayor of Meaux and former Minister of the Budget, took part in the 4th session of the on 26 Oct., 2018. You can find his full intervention here ➡

Jean-François Copé at the 11th World Policy Conference



I’m at it again— monitoring round 2 of the Presidential in w/ No matter where or when I work on elections, I’m always excited to see in action! I’m honored to be in for a calm process & will reveal the next Pres of Ukraine! 🇺🇦🇺🇸🗳
















Hon. said a “dark new day” in ’s history has started after 28 July 2018’s sham election. Gwangju’s candlelight demonstration is a step of preparation to liberate “” from regime.




A candlelight in Gwangju set a blueprint home-return-schedule pledged by acting party president to “ ’s ” from dictator Hun Sen, in 2019.







Replying to

Y U was silent on ? What is the proof that is innocent? Prove that you are innocent, Otherwise people of India how believe in ? Now "Democracy" in not in , its d "" of 🤰 is in ☠️ !



Posts on Tumblr:

anonymous asked:

Hey, I just wanted to say I agree with what you said about “Kondoing the media". Listening to the media can make me really miserable and gloomy so I tune out sometimes, but at the same time I can't help caring about my fellow human beings so I keep going back to find out what's happening in the world. I just find it really hard to strike a balance. May I ask, how do you deal with it?

Hi, thanks for writing. This is a messy, complex issue, and like most other adulting problems, also something we have to keep working on every day, because there’s no way to just ‘solve it’ and move past it. I’m going to share some tips I got from research and wiser friends, but please remember it’s a theoretical list - there are days we just can’t cope, or we need to get angry, or whatever else, and that’s normal.

1) Understand how shit works: modern media and social networks are created to prey on your attention and make you Feel Strong Feels, because that’s how they get you to click on things and come back several times a day. Stay away from clickbait headlines and remember that most of what you read is designed to stress you out and hurt you.

2) Don’t use news alert systems. Unless you’re, like, the UN Secretary General, everything can wait. I generally check the news two to three times a day because I’m addicted, but it’s probably healthier to do it less. When I was a kid, we’d watch the evening news at 8, and it was plenty enough.

3) Learn about context. Instead of jumping from one tragedy to the next, try to really understand what’s going on. Choose ‘long read’ articles, go on Wikipedia, read good history books (for instance, Tim Marshall’s Prisoners of Geography or Yuval Noah Harari’s works) so you can make sense of why stuff happens. This helps lessening that anguished ‘WHY IS EVERYTHING CONFUSING CRAP ALL THE TIME’ and giving you a sense of control over your environment.

4) Be careful with op eds and twitter threads. These are never exactly factual - they’re someone’s opinion, and because of how media work, today anyone who can stir up enough outrage is given a platform. Don’t encourage that.

5) Say no to gore and drama: when something bad happens, you don’t need the details. When someone died, you don’t need to hear them calling 911 or see the video of them getting shot (you already know what happened: they died), and this constant obsession with victims’ profiles and forcing their distraught relatives to cry on camera so you can sob your heart out for them is not healthy. Look after yourself.

6) Step out of your bubble from time to time. Mostly everything you see online is now customised for you, and places like Youtube will famously show you weirder and weirder stuff the longer you keep watching. Hearing from someone you don’t necessarily agree with is a good way to challenge your worldview, learn new things, and assess how serious a situation is. I usually buy The Economist every few weeks or so - I mostly don’t agree with them, but their articles are always informative, factual and well-written.

7) Keep some perspective: we don’t actually know what’s going to happen, very few things are inevitable or irreparable, and even fewer will matter in 5, 20, or 60 years’ time. Try to keep an eye on good news (for instance, with Hans Rosling video) and take a deep breath: bad stuff could lead to good things, and good things could have disastrous consequences. We’re not prophets.

8) Look after yourself in the right way: we’re constantly pressured to ‘treat ourselves’ and ‘indulge’ because ‘we deserve it’, which usually means buying crap we don’t need or eating food that’ll make our liver play dead. You’ll get a better deal for your (mental) health by taking a break the way our bodies were designed to do: enjoy a short walk in the sunlight, go find some trees and flowers, exercise, dance, meditate, make time to see people you love.

9) Belong: when we read bad stuff, or get bad news, we often feel powerless and isolated. Turning your attention to the community around you will make you feel better. Depending on your time and means, consider donating or volunteering. You could also train for a charity run, bake cookies for friends and neighbours, pick up trash when you go hiking - anything that reminds you you’re actually connected to, and important for, the world around you.

10) And when it comes to fiction: remember you have rights. Not every story is right for everybody all the time. Some stories are important, but they can wait. Others are not as good as you wanted them to be - there’s no shame in leaving them behind. Give a chance to difficult stuff on difficult topics, but do it responsibly: for instance, by watching it with friends, checking for warnings in advance, or reading reviews and interviews afterwards so you can understand it better. And: fiction is just fiction. It’s great, healthy and completely normal that you’re bonding with fictional characters, but this is what they are: fictional

Finally, something useful I learned is that we tend to focus on, and remember, bad stuff more than good stuff because it’s a good strategy to survive in the wild. If you’re crossing a river and almost get your foot chomped off by a crocodile, it’s Very Important to ALWAYS remember you should be careful about that spot and possibly Stay The Hell Away From It. Unfortunately, in modern life this translates to ‘I can’t sleep because Hey, remember when Laura said your nose looked like a candlestick back in second grade and everybody laughed?? Yeah, me too’ and thus to anxiety and depression. If you find this is a serious problem for you, make a deliberate effort to see all the positive stuff happening around you (deliberate effort as in, notice it out loud or write it in a journal). A flower blooming? Positive. That old lady who smiled at you on the bus? Positive. The child at the grocery store chattering about butterflies? Positive. If you take the time to look, you’ll see there’s plenty of great stuff going on every day - you just don’t see it because it’s not life-threatening.

So this is mostly what I try to do. Some days are better than others, but that’s to be expected. If you’re a woman, it’s also likely you’ll have random moods depending on your cycle: track it and be forewarned (you can also experiment with your diet to make those symptoms better). 

Understanding the world a bit better and playing an active role as a person and as a citizen doesn’t mean sacrificing your mental health. With some practice and a lot of patience, I think we can all find a balance that works for us. The important thing is to take it one day at a time and be compassionate - not only to others, but to ourselves.

nytimes.com
The Unsteady Evolution of Democracy
Sheri Berman’s “Democracy and Dictatorship in Europe” sees the political history of Europe as one step forward, one step back.

Democracy and Dictatorship in Europe: From the Ancien Régime to the Present Day by Sheri Berman https://amzn.to/2ICMfpZ

¿Reflejo o fomento?

Mucho se ha hablado de los efectos que han tenido las tecnologías de la comunicación en nuestra sociedad. Desde la aparición del Internet hasta la del Smartphone, los medios digitales ha estado en boga de numerosos profesionales que han tratado de predecirlas y analizarlas; tarea que se ha hecho más compleja con el pasar del tiempo. Hoy en día, las tecnologías de información no sólo se han quedado en un plano “virtual”, sino que también han encontrado la forma de hacerse parte de la “vida real”.

Este mismo fenómeno, en el que las tecnologías de información y comunicación han logrado ser parte activa de nuestras vidas, ha provocado la visualización y el debate sobre serias problemáticas sociales que nos rodean. Características propias de éstas tecnologías; tales como la transparencia, anonimato, activismo, han incitado la discusión sobre su utilidad y cómo está afectando nuestra sociedad. Y es a partir de esto, que surge el siguiente planteamiento: ¿Las tecnologías de información y comunicación fomentan o reflejan los problemas y conflictos sociales que existen en la sociedad?

instagram

My AP Language & Composition teacher gave us homework. We got to write 2 paragraphs. The question is “Does the American Dream exist?”. Man, I’m about to have a ball with this💯💯💯 #illegal #betweentheworldandme #blackboy #iamnotyournegro #thewaysofwhitefolks #americabehindthecolorline #freedomriders #roots #electricarches #democracyinblack #thesouthside #america #democracy #blackgirlmagic #melanin #chicago #politics #undocumented #ambw #bwam @queen_sky_blu
https://www.instagram.com/p/BwfroxZBQXq/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=rd96u9wfab96

Made with Instagram

Q - What Would Mitch McConnell Do?

A - Simply Indict The President!

There’s all the talk in the media about impeachment of Trump, but if any attempt is made to do that, then the glorious obstruction tactics of Mitch McConnell would block the bill passing, because that’s what Mitch McConnell does.

He stood ground on the legal appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, so that he could follow up by corrupting The Supreme Court by introduction of political bias

If the positions were reversed, and it was the GOP that wanted to impeach the President, then Mitch McConnell would simply indict the President, because indicting the President has no precedent, and there is no law against it.

It’s really as simple as that. This could then be followed up with passing an actual law to control the circumstances under which a sitting president can be indicted, to prevent it being used in the future for political abuse.

instagram

How I feel. Just let it all out! Fuck it all! Be free #libertad #freedomisntfree #liberdade #liberation #independence #justice #democracy #murica #patriot #befree #gunlife #liberte #globetrottergirl #secondamendment #ilovemykitten #donttreadonme #becauseofthebrave #slavery #libertarian #landofthefree #youtubestar #freedomday created by @fredrickdbarnes
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bwe5iz4Dk9C/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=5gjd8but1195

Made with Instagram
MY WORRIES ON THE MUELLER REPORT

While the report states that President Trump did 10 counts of obstruction of justice, they were unable to indict him due to him being a sitting President. This means that Mueller left it to Congress to dole out the justice against Trump. 

While the Constitution clearly states what to do with government officials who commit crimes, I have my worries about the course of action Congress would take.

1) Congress decides to impeach the President due to his obstruction of justice: Republicans, facing embarrassment, will throw blame and claim it as a “witch hunt”. They will accuse the Democrats of abusing power and say they have been “gunning” the President since Day 1. Therefore, Trump looks like he’s a martyr (but, again, he still committed crimes)

2) Congress does not impeach the President: Democrats won’t impeach him because they fear of a backlash by Republicans. They do not want their actions to look personal, or that they truly were “gunning” for the President. Therefore, they let Trump get away from his crimes; thus, making him “above the law” (which the Constitution states that no President is “above the law”). 

I want every member of Congress to put aside the political parties, and focus on the Constitution and law. If Trump committed a crime, he has to do the time. It’s not political. It’s justice. If Congress wants a clear conscious going forward, follow the law and the Constitution. 

George Washington, John Adams, and many others always feared political parties for this reason. They feared it would get in the way of law, justice and peace. So, I wish Congress would put it aside and follow the established laws. 

Democracy IS Socialism

To royalty, all democracy is Socialism. It’s therefore funny to see proponents and exporters of democracy take any kind of high ground towards “the Left” when in fact, it’s their mirrored reflection that they simply don’t recognize anymore. These claimants of yore for equitable power and riches once presented themselves as popular monoliths, who revolted against a leader - their king (or queen)*. Once their devolution of power successful however, how have they really fared? And how much of self-rule really is self-rule when people find themselves harnessed to jobs and more so to markets? How fundamentally different are their lives and how much security or control over them do they really have when money and status (vs aristocracy, nobility, gentry) again dictate the pecking order, but this time to an unmoveable machine, the now reverse, popular monolith of power? And have they produced a better, more peaceful world?

What I first notice is our daily fixation with the exercise of power. Is that really a deliverance from the pervasiveness of a regent in our lives? Government has been incorporated, in more ways than one, in people’s minds but also through its own market dynamic. It also employs far more people than a regent’s court ever did. Some would say that’s a good thing, jobs-wise, however it also warrants more taxes to support such a top-heavy framework. In monarchic times, taxes were indeed the focal point of contention. Greedy royal courts - but even more so wars, impoverished entire populations and effected social dislocation. But is it any different today? Entire national budgets get upended by defense costs in this day and age. Debt and deficits only mask the misuse of public funds and wasteful spending, however with today’s bureaucracies, the outcry from the ruling court benefits from its socialist roots where labour and saving jobs become the rallying cry despite the government’s abuses. It’s schizophrenic really.

Anyway, this is only one of the contorsionistic ways - by involving the populace in the wholesale larceny - of the nouvelle power that I will be looking into when/if I integrate the Sciences Po Institute in Aix, God willing. In my view, the popular partaking and shared guilt are what incapacitates the constructive use of power for the Greater Good because the latter has been defined in post-monarchic times as keeping people like hamsters on wheels too busy for anything else and holding up a false illusion of righteous governing, such that people today simply don’t see farther than self-interest and become myopic towards the needs of others coming up. Ultimately, those processed people begin to want to cut ties with mendicant “socialists” because once they got theirs, they simply don’t want to share anymore and start putting up walls because subconsciously thieves are always aware of having gotten away with something and are afraid of… themselves, as the next guy to come take their stuff. In its best expression, democracy is inclusive and works for the Common Good without taking sides, and by leaving people free to chose their destiny. Like all things, it’s still a work in progress.

* caveat: I don’t fully ascribe to the notion of a spontaneous, homogenous popular revolt without interested or influenced instigator(s).

theguardian.com
‘People are finally talking about class’: Astra Taylor on US democracy, socialism and revolution
The writer and film-maker explores the meaning of democracy in a new documentary and book, and discusses the current state of politics, from Donald Trump to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
By Dominic Rushe

For her, democracy was a word imperial America used to sell free markets and push its agenda. For all the cynicism the word attracted, she could see there was power in an idea meant to strengthen the people, a power that she explores in her new documentary, What Is Democracy?, and her upcoming book, Democracy May Not Exist, But We’ll Miss It When It’s Gone.

In her new film and book, Taylor traces democracy back to its origins in Athens (a patriarchal slave state – we should have seen trouble coming) and then quizzes a diverse group of people, from the academic Cornel West to Syrian refugees and Trump-supporting Florida teens, asking what they now think of the word. The result? It’s not clear what any of us think democracy is or should be, or even if true democracy has ever existed (Taylor thinks not, although she thinks of democracy as a dynamic evolving concept that has yet to be achieved, and is more interested in exploring what the idea means to others than giving her own tight definition). That is Taylor’s aim: to make us think, to ask new questions and hopefully come up with new answers.

While there has been plenty of bad news for democracy in recent years, there is no doubt that politics is changing. More women, more people of colour, teachers, LGBTQ candidates and people from low-income backgrounds are running for office, and winning. A new generation of activists are interested in union organising and strikes.

“We don’t live in an infinite world,” she says. Even a more equitable system would have to deal with inequality, not least in a world facing apocalyptic climate change. “To me, democratic socialism would just mean more interesting democratic dilemmas. We would no longer be arguing over whether billionaires should exist or be abolished – they should be abolished – but there are still so many questions,” she says.

The decline in liberal arts and the rise of “practical” degrees in subjects such as pharmacology, nursing and construction management, she says, suggest a society that is tailoring people to the workplace rather than encouraging them to think about the big issues, while saddling them with major debts.

Her book and film are an argument for the case that “of all academic disciplines, the one that demands to be democratised is political philosophy, which is basically the asking of the questions: how do we want to live? How should we live? What kind of people should we be? How should we govern ourselves? This is something that increasingly only the elites get to carve out time to think about. That is really a tragedy.”

Republican Motherhood

After the Revolutionary War Americans sought to create a new nation with a government that gave the people a voice.  Though in reality voting requirements still excluded many of the citizens of the United States it still meant many “everyday people” would have the power to guide the country, ultimately deciding whether the new nation succeeded or failed.  This realization led to increased interest in education for the young.  Literacy rates did increase and greater emphasis was placed on preparing the next generation to understand politics and make informed decisions.

As the primary caretakers of children, the responsibility of providing this education fell to women, especially mothers.  Families who could not necessarily spare children to attend formal schooling still wanted them to understand the needs of their country and make good decisions in voting for representatives and on important issues.  This meant that, although women were among those who were largely excluded from voting (though not in all states) they were still encouraged to study philosophy, history, and other subjects they would pass down to the future voters and perhaps even leaders of the next generation.

Epistle to Neruda

Yevgeny Yevtushenko


Superb,
Like a seasoned lion,
Neruda buys bread in the shop.

He asks for it to be wrapped in paper
And solemly puts it under his arm:
“Let someone at least think
that at some time
I bought a book…”
Waving his hand in farewell,
like a Roman
rather dreamily royal,
in the air scented with mollusks,
oysters,
rice,
he walks with the bread through Valparaiso.

He says:
“ Eugenio, look!
You see–
over there, among the puddles and garbage,
standing up under the red lamps
stands Bilbao-with the soul
of a poet – in bronze.

Bilbao was a tramp and a rebel.

Originally
they set up the monument, fenced off
by a chain, with due pomp, right in the center,
although the poet had lived in the slums.

Then there was some minor overthrow or other,
and the poet was thrown out, beyond the gates.

Sweating,
they removed
the pedestal
to a filthy little red-light district.

And the poet stood,
as the sailor’s adopted brother,
against a background
you might call native to him.

Our Bilbao loved cracking jokes.

He would say:
‘On this best of possible planets
there are prostitutes and politutes –
as I’m a poet,
I prefer the former.’”

And Neruda comments, with a hint of slyness:
“A poet is
beyond the rise and fall of values.

It’s not hard to remove us from the center,
but the spot where they set us down
becomes the center!”
I remember that noon,
Pablo,
as I tune my transistor at night, by the window,
now,
when a wicked war with the people of Chile
brings back the smell of Spain.

Playing about at a new overthrow,
politutes in generals’ uniforms
wanted, whichever way they could,
to hustle your poetry out of sight.

But today I see Neruda–
he’s always right in the center
and, not faltering,
he carries his poetry to the people
as simply and calmly
as a loaf of bread.

Many poets follow false paths,
but if the poet is with the people to the bitter end,
like a conscience-
then nothing
can possibly overthrow poetry.

For Nietzsche, the…decadence, pessimism and nihilism of the 1880s…were ‘the logical end-product of our great values and ideals’. (…) The consequences of the modes of thought accepted by nineteenth-century politics and economics were nihilist. The culture of the age was threatened by its own cultural products. Democracy produced socialism, the fatal swamping of genius by mediocrity, strength by weakness – a note also struck, in a more pedestrian and positivistic key, by the eugenists. (…) The only ideology of serious calibre which remained firmly committed to the nineteenth-century belief in science, reason and progress was Marxism, which was unaffected by disillusion about the present because it looked forward to the future triumph of precisely those 'masses’ whose rise created so much uneasiness among middle-class thinkers.
—  Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire: 1875–1914