Donald Trump’s Disjointed and Misleading UN Address – Council on Foreign Relations

President Donald J. Trump revisited some of the themes of his America First foreign policy this morning in an otherwise short and disjointed speech to the first virtual UN General Assembly. By turns boastful and defensive, the president exaggerated his domestic and international achievements while offering scathing criticism of China for all manner of offenses, from inflicting a pandemic on the world to poisoning the global environment. It was a slapdash performance that included multiple tendentious claims and statements easily refuted by cursory fact-checking. It was also a missed opportunity for the president, who might otherwise have used the occasion to outline a sovereignty-minded approach to international cooperation, one that would have resonated not only with his domestic base but perhaps with some in his foreign audience. Instead, he delivered a shallow and unpersuasive address.

Seventy-five years after the UNs founding in World War II, the president began, the world was again engaged in a global struggle. This time, the enemy was the China virus. Remarkably, Trump sought to frame the U.S. response to the pandemic as a public health triumph rather than what it has been: an unmitigated disaster that has resulted in far higher morbidity and mortality rates than in any other advanced market democracy. The president promised that more success was imminent. The United States would produce a vaccine, defeat the virus, and usher in a new era of unprecedented prosperity, cooperation, and peace.

More on:

United Nations

United Nations General Assembly

Donald Trump

Sovereignty

China

This rosy scenario left a couple of things unclear. The first was why his administration, if it is so determined to save the world with a vaccine, has chosen not to have the United States join the more than 170 other countries that are members of COVAX, a pathbreaking consortium working not only to develop a vaccine but to ensure that when one emerges it is shared equitably by humanity rather than hoarded by individual countries for their own citizens. The second mystery is how the president plans to engineer the Kantian future he apparently envisions through a transactional foreign policy grounded in nationalism, nativism, protectionism, and unilateralism.

The Internationalist

About one thing, the president was sure: We must hold accountable the nation which unleashed this plague onto the world: China. Trump repeated his by-now-familiar origin story of the COVID-19 pandemic: how China allowed the virus to spread globally and how the World Health Organization (which is virtually controlled by China) had facilitated Chinese mendacity by lying about human-to-human as well as asymptomatic transmission.

It is legitimate for Trump to call out China for its lack of transparency, to blame WHO for its early missteps, and even to brag that his own travel ban may have saved lives in the short term. It is quite another thing for him to ignore the catastrophic effects of his subsequent inaction and misinformation in ensuing weeks, when (by his own admission) he took refuge in happy talk and failed to mobilize the federal government and prepare the nation for the aggressive social distancing and other public health measures that might have prevented or at least slowed community transmission of the novel coronavirus. Holding China accountable is important. The same could be said of his administration.

Perhaps the most bizarre section of Trumps speech, because it was such a non-sequitur, was his criticism of Chinas global environmental recordits dumping of plastic into the ocean, rampant overfishing, destruction of coral reefs, toxic mercury pollution, and massive greenhouse gas emissions. These are all genuine problems, but the real issue for the president seemed to be U.S. amour-propre, or perhaps his own wounded sensibilities. Those who attack Americas exceptional environmental record while ignoring Chinas rampant pollution are not interested in the environment, he declared. They only want to punish America and I will not stand for it. The outburst made one to wonder who they might be and why the U.S. environmental record is indeed a topic of scrutiny. The latter might have something to do with a U.S. leader who continues to dispute the reality of climate change and whose administration has gone into overdrive in its efforts to dismantle domestic environmental regulations. If Chinas environmental record is fair game, so too is his administrations.

The president then pivoted, all too briefly, to the United Nations and its purposes. If the United Nations is to be an effective organization, it must focus on the real problems of the world, he declared. This includes terrorism, the oppression of women, forced labor, drug trafficking, human and sex trafficking, religious persecution, and the ethnic cleansing of religious minorities. The United Nations, of course, is deeply involved on all of these fronts, in bodies ranging from the UN Counterterrorism Committee to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the International Organization for Migration, and the International Labor Organization. At the same time, the presidents list was curiously selective. There was no mention of many other priorities that top the UNs agenda and everyday work, from arresting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to conducting peace operations, advancing sustainable development, mitigating and adapting to climate change, and ameliorating the plight of refugees and the internally displaced.

More on:

United Nations

United Nations General Assembly

Donald Trump

Sovereignty

China

The president next offered a rapid-fire list of his administrations greatest hits, albeit with some poetic license in describing them. The Trump administration had built the greatest economy in history, revitalized the NATO Alliance, stood up to decades of Chinas trade abuses, withdrew from the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal, and obliterated the ISIS caliphate. Trump took justifiable pride in brokering groundbreaking peace deals in the Middle East, notably between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. We intend to deliver more peace deals shortly, he promised.

The president was less persuasive when he declared, America will always be a leader in human rights, given his own well-established (and self-admitted) coziness with dictators and strongmen from Russian President Valdimir Putin to Chinese President Xi Jinping. We are standing with the people of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela in their righteous struggle for freedom,Trump said, making one wonder why the United States could not do the same in, say, Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Although selectivity has always been a hallmark of U.S. human rights policy, such hypocrisy has rarely been more obvious.

The president closed his scattershot speech by revisiting the main theme of his first address to the world body three years ago, namely, the centrality of sovereignty in international cooperation. For decades, the same tired voices proposed the same failed solutions, pursuing global ambitions at the expense of their own people, Trump asserted. But only when you take care of your own citizens, will you find a true basis for cooperation.

As Ive written elsewhere, the presidents thesis is a straw man, because the United Nations (as the word nations implies) is an intergovernmental body rather than a supranational one. It is premised on the political independence of its members, and their decision to cooperate is an embodiment and an expression of their respective sovereignties. The globalist threat to popular sovereignty, in other words, exists only in the fevered imaginations of Trumps base. It is a pity that the president is too wedded to this imagined collision between multilateralism and sovereignty, when the former is in fact premised on the latter. Indeed, many of the most diehard sovereigntists are to be found precisely where the president sees globalists running amok: the corridors of the United Nations.

Visit link:

Donald Trump's Disjointed and Misleading UN Address - Council on Foreign Relations

Donald Trump gives himself an ‘A+’ for his handling of the coronavirus. Uh, what? – CNN

"We're rounding the corner," he told "Fox & Friends" of the coronavirus during an interview Monday morning. "With or without a vaccine. They hate when I say that but that's the way it is. ... We've done a phenomenal job. Not just a good job, a phenomenal job. Other than public relations, but that's because I have fake news. On public relations, I give myself a D. On the job itself, we take an A+."

How, you might ask yourself, could this President give himself top marks in handling the pandemic when he had admitted to downplaying the threat it posed to the public, driven skepticism about mask-wearing, pushed unproven (and even dangerous) remedies to deal with the virus and repeatedly underestimated the death toll?

Simple! Trump lives in a fantasy world of his own creation. He always has. In that world, he is the smartest, the savviest, the coolest, the best-looking and the winningest person in the world. Objective facts fall by the wayside in that world. And Trump has always -- whether in the business world or the political one -- surrounded himself with people who affirm that his world is the real one and the actual real one is some sort of conspiracy narrative driven by his "elite" enemies in the Democratic Party and the media.

All of which allows Trump to live in a sort-of bubble. Prior to being elected president, his wealth allowed him to exist in that bubble. Now the security of the White House does the same.

The problem for Trump is that in politics what grade you give yourself matters a whole lot less than the grade the people you need to vote for you give to your performance. And, on that front, Trump is failing.

The disconnect between how Trump sees his handling of the coronavirus and how the public sees it is vast. But again, objective facts play a role here.

Put plainly: There is simply no evidence the country is "rounding the corner" on the virus as Trump suggested Monday. And while Trump is free to give himself whatever grade he wants in how he has dealt with the virus, his constituents disagree. Profoundly.

Follow this link:

Donald Trump gives himself an 'A+' for his handling of the coronavirus. Uh, what? - CNN

Here Are Twenty Other Disturbing, Awful Things That Trump Has Said This Month, and Its Not Over Yet – The New Yorker

We already knew that this falls campaign, with Donald Trump fighting for his political survival, would be crazy, overwhelming, and exhausting. But, no matter how much weve come to expect the worst, its still a shock when it happens. At least it should be. On Wednesday, Trump was asked what should have been a simple question: Do you commit to a peaceful transfer of power? There is only one answer to this question in America. The answer is yes. But not for Trump. Well, were gonna have to see what happens, he responded. You know that Ive been complaining very strongly about the ballots. And the ballots are a disaster. Further pressed, he added, Well want to haveget rid of the ballots and youll have a verywell have a very peaceful... There wont be a transfer, frankly. Therell be a continuation.

No wonder, then, that Washington has been in a full uproar for weeks over the constitutional crisis that may ensue after the vote, if the results are too close to call or if there is a winner and Trump doesnt like who it is. In the wake of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgs death, a week ago, Trump said he wants to make sure that a ninth, presumably loyal, Justice is in place before the election, in case the Court is where the outcome of the election ends up. And he appears to have the Republican votes in the Senate to make it happen.

So, yes, the prospect of the upcoming election shouldand doesinspire dread. But so does the prospect of what tomorrow might bring from the Presidentand the next day, and the day after that. The election is still forty days from now. How will we get through the rest of this week? This month? Consider that the following are things that Trump has done in the course of this long, enervating, and not-yet-over September, every single one worthy of front-page scandal, of career-ending political damage for an American elected official:

He said its an amazing thing that the coronavirus affects virtually nobody, a few hours before the United States officially surpassed two hundred thousand deaths from the pandemic.

He said that Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the worlds premier infectious-disease agency, did not know what he was talking about regarding the timetable for a coronavirus vaccine. And that Redfield did not know what he was talking about in urging the public to wear masks, to prevent infection.

He said that some people dont think mask-wearing is necessary during the pandemic. When pressed about who thinks this, at an ABC News town call, he said, Waiters. A couple days later, he was asked the same question. He again said, Waiters.

He said that there would be a vaccine in October. Or November. Or very soon. And that it would be available for everyone immediately. All of which is at odds with what the governments top public-health officials have testified to under oath.

When told this week that the Food and Drug Administration would make standards as stringent as possible for approving the vaccine, in order to increase public confidence in it, he accused his own scientific agency of being political. He then said that the F.D.A.s standards could not be implemented unless the White House approved them, and that the White House has not done so.

He said that U.S. deaths from COVID-19 would be very low if you just didnt count those who had died in blue states. That is both inaccurate and very, very alarming coming from someone whose title is President of the United States. He also said that he would give himself an A-plus for his handling of the pandemic, and that he has saved millions of lives.

He said that the Nov 3rd election result may NEVER BE ACCURATELY DETERMINED, and that Democratic governors may somehow steal ballots rather than let them be counted.

He said that climate change was nonexistent and also that it would just start getting cooler, just you watch. When told that the science does not agree with him, he said that the science is wrong. I dont think science knows, actually, he added.

He touted a super-duper secret hydrosonic missile that the Pentagon is going to deploywhich may or may not be a new hypersonic missile.

He retweeted a gif calling his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, a pedophile. He retweeted a video that made it look as though Biden had played a song called Fuck tha Police at a campaign event, which, needless to say, he had not.

He told the Fox News host Jeanine Pirro that Biden was on performance-enhancing drugs of some kindI think theres probably, possibly, drugs involved, he saidand then he elaborated on his theory during a campaign rally full of unmasked supporters. Dont underestimate him, Trump told them. Look, hes been doing this for forty-seven years,andI got a debate coming up with this guy. No, its true. You never know, you never know. They gave him a big fatshotin theass, andhe comes outandfor two hours hes better than ever before.

He compared himself to Winston Churchill. He compared himself to Abraham Lincoln. He said that Democrats are planning to destroy suburbia and put Senator Cory Booker in charge of it. He even said that Ruth Bader Ginsburgs last wish, as relayed by her granddaughterthat her Supreme Court seat not be filled by Trumpwas a fabrication cooked up by his Democratic opponents.

This September seems to be the ultimate test of whether we really, truly, finally have run out of outrage. Reading back through this list, its hard to conclude anything else. When Ginsburg died, it took less than a day for Trump to announce that he would try to replace her before the election. I was not surprised in the least bit. When Trumpafter complaining for months about a rigged election, just because he is behind in the pollssaid on Wednesday that he would not agree in advance to a nonviolent transfer of power, his words were abhorrent but not at all revelatory.

At a press conference on Tuesday, the day the U.S. officially passed two hundred thousand deaths from the pandemic, Trump was asked why he had not said anything about the grim milestone. He listened to the reporters question, then turned away. Uh, anybody else? he asked. Because of all the horrors and lies that preceded it, and all that are sure to follow, the Presidents callous disregard was not a major story but just another viral video in a news cycle full of them. Trump has succeeded in conditioning us to believe that the weeks news, while awful, is less so because the awfulness is so consistent. Awful is the new Trumpian normal, which is pretty amazing when you consider that the old Trump-era normal was already pretty bad. He has rendered us collectively incapable of outrage, just when we need it most. If we cant be appalled at the Presidents indifference toward two hundred thousand dead Americans, then there is nothing left that can horrify us. After all, the COVID-19 death toll so far is the biggest mass-casualty event in American history aside from the Civil War, the Second World War, and the 1918 flu pandemic.

Read the original post:

Here Are Twenty Other Disturbing, Awful Things That Trump Has Said This Month, and Its Not Over Yet - The New Yorker

Donald in Blunderland: Trump won’t commit to peaceful power transfer at surreal press briefing – The Guardian

Jared Kushner, the US presidents son-in-law, told journalist Bob Woodward that one of the best ways to understand Donald Trump is to study Lewis Carrolls Alices Adventures in Wonderland. Kushner paraphrased the Cheshire Cats philosophy: If you dont know where youre going, any path will get you there.

Wednesday was one of those days when to have a seat in the White House briefing room felt like stepping through the looking-glass into Blunderland, where the mad hatter has an authoritarian streak a mile wide.

Trump careered from touting miracle vaccines to building supreme court suspense, from insulting a female member of the British royal family to abruptly departing for a mysterious emergency phone call. But first, there was the small matter of kneecapping American democracy.

Perhaps it was not chance that the president, ever eager to generate media outrage, gave the first question to Brian Karem, who describes himself on Twitter as a Loud Mouth senior White House reporter at Playboy. Will you commit to make sure theres a peaceful transferral of power after the election? Karem asked.

All of his 43 predecessors would have said yes, presumably. But Trump replied: Were going to have to see what happens, you know that. Ive been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster.

Karem shot back: I understand that, but people are rioting. Do you commit to make sure that theres a peaceful transferral of power?

Still Trump refused to commit. Get rid of the ballots and youll have a very peaceful there wont be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation. The ballots are out of control. You know it. And you know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know it better than anybody else.

Later, Karem remarked on Twitter: This is the most frightening answer I have ever received to any question I have ever asked. Ive interviewed convicted killers with more empathy. @realDonaldTrump is advocating Civil War.

And Julian Castro, who served in Barack Obamas cabinet, tweeted: In one day, Trump refused a peaceful transition of power and urged the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice to hand him an election if the results are contested. This is fascism, alive and well in the Republican Party.

Trump was also questioned about the failure of a grand jury to bring charges against Louisville police for the killing of Breonna Taylor during a drug raid gone wrong.

The president declined to offer his own perspective or comfort for millions aggrieved by another case of racial injustice. Instead he read a statement from Daniel Cameron, the attorney general of Kentucky, a loyal supporter who last month delivered a prime time address at the Republican national convention.

I think hes a star, said Trump, also noting that the governor has called in the National Guard and suggesting that, when in doubt, theres always the strategy of mindless optimism: Itll all work out.

Another reporter asked about Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, urging people to vote in remarks that some interpreted as supporting Democratic candidate Joe Biden.

Trump said: Im not a fan of hers - and she has probably heard that but I wish a lot of luck to Harry because hes going to need it.

The attempt at humour hovered awkwardly in the air like a coronavirus particle.

Speaking of which, the president was ruminating on Covid-19 when he called his latest adviser, Scott Atlas, to weigh in from the podium. Trump then told reporters: I have to leave for an emergency phone call.

Karem and others demanded to know the nature of the emergency. Trump said only: I have a big call, a very big call. Could it be Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin? One wit on Twitter quipped that it was probably just Lou Dobbs of Fox Business.

Atlas has the kind of combative swagger that appeals to Trump. He denied media reports that he has clashed with coronavirus response coordinator Deborah Birx. He claimed Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control, misstated something when he told the Senate that 90% of the population remains susceptible to Covid-19.

Jim Acosta of CNN queried: Americans hear one thing from the CDC Dir & another thing from you, who are we to believe?

Atlas responded: Youre supposed to believe the science and Im telling you the science.

Indeed, earlier Trump had claimed, Our approach is pro-science. Bidens approach is anti-science words to remember when he heads to Florida on Thursday for the latest of his packed, nearly mask-free campaign rallies in Wonderland.

Read the rest here:

Donald in Blunderland: Trump won't commit to peaceful power transfer at surreal press briefing - The Guardian

At the United Nations this week, US President Donald Trump will be denied something he loves — a live audience – CNN

But that also means Donald Trump will miss the last turn of his first term as US President at the hallowed green granite UN podium, from which generations of world leaders have lectured the world.

A ripple of amusement cascaded around the cavernous chamber. Other world leaders laughing, in part perhaps at what he said, part perhaps that he would say it.

Trump took the laughter in stride.

" -- so true..." he nodded. More laughter followed.

"Didn't expect that reaction, but that's OK," he said.

The Twittersphere lit up lampooning Trump, and at this stage of his presidency, most of the gathered dignitaries thought they had the measure of the man at the microphone.

Leaders talking past each other

More than ever, leaders seem to talk past each other. With or without a live audience, UNGA has come to mirror the high-speed, highly globalized and increasingly fractured world orbiting around it.

Trump's preaching of his tremendous achievements in 2018 was a point in case -- of course his principle audience is always his electorate, and they won't be far from his mind during his address this week.

Xi, who takes the virtual podium next, will also try to put the best light on his own pickle: stuck in a stuttering trade war with the US, watching Trump polarize business partners against Beijing, while it rachets up tension with Taiwan and in the South China Sea.

We will hear about Covid-19 and the importance of working together to fight the virus repeated several times. But we'll also hear a great deal of hot air: Trump will deny that he failed to contain the virus domestically and Xi will deny that China shirked its responsibility to warn the world sooner. Meanwhile Russian President Vladimir Putin, ever the iceman in delivery and demeanor, will surely claim how much his nation is doing to help others with its vaccine development -- even though respected international medical experts criticize the speed with which Russia has rushed the jab out.

If ever there were a year for the world to have less talk, more listening and more cooperation, this would be it. But the lesson of Covid-19 in 2020 has unfortunately all too often been for leaders to talk a good game about the need to work together to fund, develop, and deliver an end to the pandemic -- but to act in national interest first when the chips were down.

Even the sophisticated interlocking of the European Union didn't stop member nations from closing borders between themselves. With a second wave of the coronavirus surging in Europe, we can expect more of the same.

Meanwhile, Johnson has been mostly absent on the world stage -- though recently shocking the world as he prepares to welch on an international treaty.

The three leaders' speech scripts will have been carefully vetted, but don't expect much coordination this week -- except perhaps on Iran, where both oppose Trump.

A changed world

In 2018, Trump had the last laugh at the UNGA. He did what he was going to do regardless of the chuckles and polite putdowns he received: China got a trade war and NATO continues to receive a hard time over funding despite the cunning of its seasoned Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

Today the world is different, and it's unlikely that much laughter will be heard in the Assembly Hall. Now, when we most need to come together we cannot.

For diplomats tight on time and short of sleep, the traditional week in New York City once afforded some lighter moments, a good dinner, an important meeting -- or as Macron did last year, a stroll down the street sans jacket, joking with journalists.

As Ukraine's newly minted President Volodymyr Zelensky observed to me in an elevator last year, New York is a great place -- though it would've been better, he said, without the attention being heaped on him at that time. The former comedian still had his self-deprecating wit.

This year, it's hard to imagine any leader would be up for idle banter. Surging second waves of the coronavirus await many leaders now, as they turn off their virtual UNGA connections and tune in to troubles at home.

Original post:

At the United Nations this week, US President Donald Trump will be denied something he loves -- a live audience - CNN

‘I Moved on Her Very Heavily’: Part 4 – The Atlantic

In her 2019 memoir, What Do We Need Men For?, E. Jean Carroll accused Donald Trump of rape, in a Bergdorfs dressing room in the mid-1990s. After the president denied ever meeting her and dismissed her story as a Democratic plot, she sued him for defamation. Carroll was not, of course, the first woman to say that Trump had sexually harassed or assaulted her, but unlike so many other powerful men, the president has remained unscathed by the #MeToo reckoning. So in the run-up to the November 3 election, Carroll is interviewing other women who alleged that Trump suddenly and without consent moved on them, to cite his locution in the Access Hollywood tape. Im automatically attracted to beautifulI just start kissing them, its like a magnet ... And when youre a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab em by the pussy.

Carrolls lawsuit took a dramatic turn two weeks ago, when the Justice Department intervened in an attempt to take over the presidents defense, asserting that Trump was acting in his official capacity when he claimed not to know Carroll. Meanwhile, a White House spokesperson denied all of the womens allegations, calling them false statements that had been thoroughly litigated and rejected by the American people. Read Parts 1, 2, and 3 here.

You are looking at slightly out-of-focus 2016 images taken from a 15-second video of the thenRepublican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, and a campaign staffer, Alva Johnson. Before people see the tape, Trump attorneys say that their client does not kiss Alva. After the tape is released, the lawyers say that what Trump is doing to Alva is an interaction, a word they will employ in pleadings before the judge presiding over the federal suit in which Alva claims that Trump kisses her without her consent.

Reader, we will now leave the video so we can learn who kisses whom, who sues whom, and why this kind of fight with a man is not new for Alva.

What does Trump smell like?

I dont know.

When he comes in at you.

II

Stop and think.

I dont

Alva lowers her eyes and tries to smell Trump in her minds nostril. Sweatmaybe? Alvas nose ring quivers like a damselfly. Makeup? Cosmetics? Its a cramped RV and its raining, and people are wet, and there are a bunch of guys whove been there since 6 oclock in the morning setting up chairs and tables and so Ireallyjustfreeze.

Alva looks like a choir girl but laughs with the sound of a marching band. Huuh-eh-huuh-huuh-huuh-huuh-huuh!

Ive been told by some readers of Parts 1, 2, and 3 of this series that they are surprised that we Trump accusers talk to each other like this. I think it is not how Trump accusers talk; I think it is how women talk. Which is to say that I offer Alva various animals and vegetables that Trump might smell like.

No, no, no, Alva replies. I was holding my breath.

Are you the only Black woman Trumps ever kissed?

Alva Johnson, the former director of administrative operations for the Florida Trump campaign, regards me slyly through Zoom. She is a marvel, a Black woman from Alabama, a demure nonconformist, a former big-time college athlete, listed as 6 feet tall in the University of Alabama at Birminghams sports pages (Im really 5 foot 9, but of course, as a hitter in volleyball, they fudge our heights for intimidation), slim as a lettuce leaf, with a laugh amounting to genius.

No, Im not, Alva says. Trump dated a Black woman.

What?

You dont know that?

This summer, before I talk to Alva, I visit Jill Harth, the makeup artist. We are in Jills boudoir, and the two of us are going through her giant basket of Trump photos. While Jill is flinging out all over the bed smiling photos of our current president, the man she sued in 1997 for groping her intimate private parts (she later withdrew the suit), she tells me a strange story about her American Dream Calendar Girls, a witty beauty pageant she created in the mid-90s. I am examining a photo of Trump with his arms around a group of Jills Calendar Girls, each one whiter than a boiled egg, when Jill mentions something about Trump constantly wanting to help pick the girls.

He did not even want to look at photos of women of color, she says.

I am not certain I heard her correctly. What did Trump say exactly, Jill?

He said, No! No! No! I dont want to see any Black girls! (Trump has denied that he ever excluded Black women from such events.)

So, reader, when Alva Johnson says that Trump was head over heels for a Black woman, I need to prevent myself from sagging to my knees in astonishment. Yes, Alva assures me, He dated a Black woman. Long term. For a couple of years.

No! I cry.

Listen, E. Jean, Alva says, taking in breath, if you really want to loosen up the racists from Trumps basea tuba aria of chucklesif you want the white supremacists to understand that he is not their friend, I mean, he dog-whistles, but he dated a Black woman.

Even I, a chick so white that I look like Ive been hit with a banana-cream pie, manage to loosen up the supremacists when a photo of Trump and me in the company of our ex-spouses shoots around the globe. My ex-husband is Black. The supremacists write emails to enlighten me as to the character of their godlike leader, who would never touch a woman who has been with a Black man. You understand, reader, that when the supremacists say Trump would never touch a woman who has been with a Black man, the supremacists do not say touch, nor woman, nor been with, nor Black man. I cannot give you the precise languagebecause their emails are not fit for human eyesbut I can tell you that they write such fascinating descriptions of my vagina that you might think youre reading about a dead carp that has been left out in the sun and gone bad.

Actually, Alva tells me, Prince has a song about Trumps relationship with a Black woman. Yeah, its called Trump, or Trumps Girlfriend, or something.

The song is a hilarious tip of Princes hat to Trump titled Donald Trump (Black Version), though its not actually about Trumps relationship with a Black woman, but a guy named Morriss. Kara Young, the daughter of a Black mother and a white father, begins dating Trump around 1997, seven years after Prince writes the song; and thus it is that Alva, believing that Trump cant be racist, what with the hundred rap songs about him and because, well, he dated a Black woman, and assuming that Trump is never going to winthus it is, reader, that Ms. Alva Mahaffey, born into a large Birmingham family of Black professionals (her mother, Ammie Savage, is a teacher of French, Spanish, and English; her stepdad, Jacob Savage, is a microbiologist); thus it is that little Alva, who grows up listening to her grandmother and aunts talking about the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing that killed the four little girls, about the police siccing dogs on the protesters in Kelly Ingram Park, and about how they themselves brought food to Dr. King in the Birmingham jail; thus it is that Alva, a cheerleader, a member of the church choir, Alva, who eventually becomes a human-resources professional and founds her own event-planning company, Alva, who always votes Democrat, Alva, who hosts trainings for Obama-campaign volunteers in her home in 2008, Alva, who carries Hillary Clintons book Living History around with her; thus it is that Alva decides to join the campaign staff of Donald Trump.

Naturally, Trump looking her up and down like an Airedale eyeing a rump roast as she walks toward him at a 2015 campaign rally in Birmingham, and then exclaiming, Oh! Beautiful! Beautiful! Fantastic! nearly deters the ever-professional Alva from joining his campaign.

But when I start working for him, Alva says, there are 17 other candidates in the race! Theres no wayno one expects Trump to become the Republican nominee. I mean, you have Ted Cruz. You have Marco Rubio. You have

Jeb Bush, I say, raising my head from my desk, where I have been rolling it back and forth in amazement at Alvas awful miscalculation. Of course, she wasnt the only one.

I do it to get work experience on a political campaign. I do it to network. And I know I can throw a rally.

Boy, does Alva know how to throw a rally! Two days before Super Tuesday, 32,000 people show up at her event in Madison, Alabama. Jeff Sessions becomes the first sitting U.S. senator to endorse Trump, bestowing a blessing of legitimacy upon the popinjay from New York.

Alva, who thinks she is just going to grow her event-planning business in Alabama, receives a phone call after the rally. They ask me if I can pack my bags and go to Missouri, says Alva, who has the title of director of outreach and coalitions. It sounds like a good opportunity. There are still a lot of candidates in the race, and so I talk with my family, make sure my four kids are taken care of, and I go to Missouri. Then its just kind of traveling from state to state to state. Im in a bubble. Im out with the voters and supporters, or with people who are on the fence, or coming up with concepts, or rounding up people to go knock on doors. Its a bunch of lonely people out in this world, okay? Its a bunch of lonely people who want to feel heard, and they are vulnerable. Not the white supremacists. Not those people, but the vulnerable people who are put in that echo chamber, where bad information about Trump is fake news and cant be true.

Alva is eventually promoted to director of operations for Florida, and runs the states three mobile offices. Showing the extraordinary stamina that seems to be required of campaign women, especially Black womenin this case, Alva doesnt encounter a single other Black woman on the road trying to elect TrumpAlva commits herself to taking the three RVs to every county in Florida, which is how she arrives in Tampa with the Donalds mug decorating her vehicle and his pudgy self heading toward her.

What are you wearing, Alva? I ask.

A white T-shirt. With the word Trump in red and the blue logo: Make America Great Again. And Ive got a pair of cute jeans, and heels. I always wear heels. Everyone always laughs, because I wear heels everywhere. So I am wearing burgundy-colored Nine West closed-toe pumpsI love those pumpsand my jeans are kind of tapered, but they, you know, are not tight or anything

Alva interrupts herself, and looks into the Zoom screen, arching her eyebrows in the manner of every woman in the world.

Its funny I have to say that. Because as women, were kind of conditioned to say, Im not showing this, I wasnt showing that. So I am just wearing some blue jeans, my T-shirt, heels, and, as it is raining, a baseball cap.

Prince has another song.

U dont have 2 be rich

2 be my girl

U dont have 2 be cool

2 rule my world

Aint no particular sign Im more compatible with

I just want your extra time and your

Kiss

Trump walks into the RV, Alva says. It is August 24, 2016. And hes like, Wow! This is great! Ive made sure we have volunteers and supporters there making him feel welcome, and Im in the back making certain that people get to meet himOkay, did you get his autograph? Good! Come around this way! So Im directing traffic, and I can see him looking at me. Im at work. I am in front of people I manage and who have to listen to what I tell them to do. They must take me seriously as a woman. And its even more complicated because Im a Black woman. I dont want any blurred lines. I dont want any questions about my professionalism.

Trump is about to exit when he pauses in front of Alva.

He grabs me and holds my arms at my sides. People dont seem to register that this is what is happening to me. Im as stiff as a board. And he kisses me. He tries to kiss me on the lips, but I turn my head.

Im at work! Hes my boss! There are other women there. He doesnt do this to anyone but me. I dont show emotion. I just, you know, I just keep trekking through. The story Alva got a kiss from the boss travels so fast, it beats me to Sarasota. And I remember when I call my parents that night and tell them what happens, I start crying. I remember pulling over in a Trader Joes parking lot and crying. They say, Why are you crying? And I laugh and say, I dont know why Im crying. Then I feel stupid for crying. But it is something that triggers me when Im telling the story. And it is something I feel even to this day: I know that what happened is not right. Its without my permission.

Alva cries on the phone because long ago, when she was in fourth grade, after her little sister, Aundria Mahaffey, died of leukemia, Alvas motherwho is divorced from Alvas dad, grieving her child, and trying to make ends meet on a teachers salaryturns to a teenage friend of the family to babysit Alva. Alvas mom is always careful. She believes she is putting her daughter in the safest and most nurturing place. I am 9 years old, Alva says, and the guy is a jock who chases me around for hours while I hide, cry, and try to fight him off when he finds me. I squeeze under the bed, and he pulls me out by my legs. Even when he goes away to college, hell pick me up as a big brother and will literally park his car and rape me as I try to fight him off. I am 11 when he goes off to school. This continues until I am 13, and he is a junior in college and finally has a steady girlfriend. (He denies Alvas allegations.)

When we are both adults, he sends me a friend request on Facebook. But I am grown up now. Im a woman and Im no longer hiding. I sent him a private message on Facebook about what he did to me. You know what he replies? He replies with a sad-face emoji.

Take the weekend off! Rejuvenate! Get rested! And Monday, were all going to come back, and its going to be a brand-new day!

The Florida campaign director is delivering this pep talk to the states Trump-for-president staff during a dinner meeting at a seafood restaurant in Sarasota. Alva is thinking, Were four weeks away from the election, and you want us to rest? She elbows the guy next to herwhats going on?

And he is like, You know, the thing today.

And Alva is like, What thing today?

And he says, Well, theres, you know, the video.

And Alva is like, What video?

So she Googles it, and its this Access Hollywood tape, and she cant hear it, but she is looking at the words running underneath, I just start kissing them I dont even wait . . . When youre a star, they let you do it, and Alva pushes back her chair, stands up, drops her napkin on the table, and tells her partner, who is visiting from Alabama (and who is not a fan of Trumps), that they are leaving. Good, Im ready to leave anyway, he replies, and the two of them walk out, get in their rental car, and close the door. At which point Alva restarts the video and starts to scream: Thats what Trump did to me! I knew it! I knew it! I knew I wasnt overreacting!

She never goes back. She consults with a Fort Lauderdale lawyer, Adam Horowitz, quits the campaign on his advice; and, figuring why throw the baby out with the bathwater, later submits applications for several positions with the new administration. I earned this opportunity through my hard work on the campaign, Alva says. Why should I be punished for his actions? In 2017 she hires Hassan Zavareei, a respected Washington, D.C., litigator; and, viewing the case as a former HR professional who would persuade any company she worked for to get rid of a man like Trump because of his pattern of allegations, sues Trump in February 2019 for kissing her without her consent and for paying her less than her white male counterparts.

In June 2019, William F. Jung, a Trump-appointed federal judge, dismisses the case, on the grounds that it was improperly framed as a political statement, though he says Alva can refile in a streamlined suit alleging simple battery for the kiss and wage discrimination. About a month later, Trumps lawyer Charles Harder submits the video of the interaction. Alva remembers turning her head to avoid Trumps lips, and Trump holding her more forcibly than the video shows; Zavareei submits to the court an independent forensic report concluding that the video might have been doctored, and asks to reopen discovery to obtain the original. The judge denies the motion, and Alva drops the suit in September 2019.

Alvas rakish earrings swing back and forth.

Well? I say, sucking on the end of my Sharpie.

Well, Alva says, with her sideways smile. Its embarrassing being a Black woman who worked for Trump, I can tell you that much!

Thats the big one for me, she says. I disappointed a lot of people. Not just Black people, but Black and white. But specifically Black people. I expected people to give me the Heisman arm. She laughs and throws out her arm. Its like that stiff-arm from the Heisman Trophy.

The Trump campaign is suing Alva for violating the nondisclosure agreement that she signed as a condition for working for Donald J. Trump for President Inc. For good measure, the campaigns lawyers are also asking that Alva pay its legal fees (yet to be determined). Which is rich, considering that on the deadline for Trump to appeal the state courts ruling requiring him to participate in discovery in my own lawsuit, the White House arranges for Attorney General Bill Barr and the 113,000-member Department of Justice to defend him, thereby making Alva pay for his defense in my suit with her tax dollars (and yours too, reader).

But Trump cant do much to Alva. She doesnt have any money, she tells me. She is busy writing, networking, and waiting for the end of the nightmare that is this presidency, but alas, theres nothing for old Trump to sue for, beg for, or con her out of.

So, Alva, I say, after we both pour ourselves a cocktail. If you could go back in time, what do you wish had happened when Trump came waddling up to you in that RV?

My instinct? Alva says, sipping her dry ros on ice. Id like to punch him. I mean, Im pretty strong. Hes 6 foot 3 or something, but I probably would be more aggressive. I would probably push him off me. I would put my finger in his face and tell him, Dont you ever put your hands on me. I probably would tell him that hes a future eunuch if he makes one more move.

Youre Division I, woman! I cry, growing more buoyant by the second.

As a kid I had to fight a dude off of me, so I always know its easier for me to get on top than to be pinned down.

And what if Trump comes at you again?

I would probably knee him, Alva says.

Behind her on the pale butter-yellow wall is a deers head with a 14-point rack of antlers, a buck, mounted above the fireplace.

And what would Trump do next? I ask.

Alva rocks back, closes her eyes, and out comes the whole brass section of laughter.

Im afraid that Trump would like it.

Here is the original post:

'I Moved on Her Very Heavily': Part 4 - The Atlantic

‘His abuses have escalated’: Barr’s kinship with Trump fuels election fears – The Guardian

Donald Trumps astonishing suggestion at a campaign rally last weekend that the US president will deploy government lawyers to try to hit the brakes on the counting of ballots on election night relies on the complicity of one federal official more than any other.

That official is the attorney general, William Barr, who, as the leader of the justice department, directs the army of government lawyers who would sue to halt the counting of votes.

Conveniently for Trumps stated plan, Barr appears not only ready to acquiesce, he seems eager to bring the lawsuits, having laid groundwork for challenging the election with weeks of misleading statements about the integrity of mail-in voting.

To some observers, the attorney general appears to have also laid the groundwork for a further alarming step, one that would answer the question of what action the Trump administration is prepared to take if a contested election in November gives rise to large new protests.

In order for Trump to steal the election and then quell mass demonstrations for that is the nature of the nightmare scenario now up for open discussion among current and former officials, academics, thinktankers and a lot of other people Trump must be able to manipulate both the levers of the law and its physical enforcement.

In Barr, Trump not only gets all of that, critics say, but he also enjoys the partnership of a man whose sense of biblical stakes around the election imbues him with a deep sense of mission about re-electing Trump.

In a break with the relative reticence of his first 18 month in office, Barr has laid out his own thinking with a series of recent speeches, interviews and internal discussions. Even routine critics of Barr have been struck by the Barr that has now revealed himself.

The erstwhile mild-mannered Washington lawyer has been spouting attacks on election integrity and hostility toward street protests while describing, in explicitly religious terms, an epochal showdown between the forces of moral discipline and virtue which he believes he represents and individual rapacity manifesting as social chaos, embodied by leftwing protesters among others.

His abuses have only escalated as we have gotten closer and closer to the election, and as the president has felt more and more politically vulnerable, said Donald K Sherman, the deputy director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington watchdog group, which has called for Barrs impeachment.

I cant put it more plainly than this: the attorney general is a threat to American citizens having free and fair access to the vote, and is a threat to American having their votes counted.

In recent weeks, Barr has reportedly asked prosecutors to weigh charging protesters under sedition laws, meant to punish conspiracies to overthrow the government, and to weigh criminal charges against the Seattle mayor for allowing residents to establish a small police-free protest zone. He has designated New York City, Portland and Seattle as anarchy zones that he says have refused to undertake reasonable measures to counteract criminal activities, threatening federal funding.

Such designations cleanly feed Trumps re-election narrative of public safety under threat. They also reflect a constitutionally questionable, and normally non-conservative, eagerness on Barrs part to reach the arm of federal government into local law enforcement.

Barr has demonstrated this tendency before. In June, he took the highly unusual step, as attorney general, of personally directing federal officers to use crowd suppression tactics to eject peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square near the White House.

Barr later denied giving any direct orders, but the White House stated flatly: It was AG Barr who made the decision.

Meanwhile Barr has competed with Trump to erode faith in the upcoming election, peddling baseless conspiracy theories about foreign nations printing counterfeit ballots, spreading tales about mass mail-in ballot fraud in a lie that was later retracted by the justice department and expressing frustration that the United States uses mail-in voting and multi-day voting, which are common measures to accommodate voters going back decades.

Were losing the whole idea of what an election is, Barr complained in an appearance earlier this month at Hillsdale College in Michigan.

Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who worked in the Office of Legal Counsel under Bill Clinton, said that Barrs solicitousness for Trumps political wellbeing was historic.

I think this attorney general is demonstrably more committed to the political success of the president, and the presidents political agenda than any attorney general in history I can think of, Kinkopf said.

What drives Barr? For political observers familiar with Barrs long Washington career, which included an earlier stint as the attorney general under George HW Bush, the notion that he could help lead American democracy off a cliff might provoke some cognitive dissonance. Like other powerful Republicans and everyday voters who have enabled Trump, Barr does not appear to be motivated by personal loyalty to Trump per se, but by a sense of Trumps role in a greater plan.

Before his appointment by Trump, many insiders saw Barr as a committed institutionalist who would protect the independence of the justice department from Trumps most damaging tendencies, though Barr clearly was a strong believer in a muscular presidency.

But others saw Barr coming. They include Kinkopf, who testified against Barr before the Senate at Barrs January 2019 confirmation hearing. In his testimony, Kinkopf warned about Barrs subscription to so-called unitary executive theory, which lays out an alarming and dangerously mistaken view of an executive power of breathtaking scope, subject to negligible limits, Kinkopf said.

The attorney general sees himself clearly as fighting culture wars that are to him moral and religious

It appears that, if confirmed, William Barr will establish precedents that adopt an enduring vision of presidential power; one that in future administrations can be deployed to justify the exercise of power for very different ends, Kinkopf warned at the time.

But today even Kinkopf says he is deeply surprised by the extent to which Barr has surpassed that warning.

When I testified against him, I recognized how dangerous the unitary executive theory is, Kinkopf said. But what I didnt appreciate, and I dont think anybody appreciated, was just how fully he would deploy that theory in advance not of rule-of law values, but in order to advance both the presidents political agenda, and I think more deeply for Barr, his own social and religious commitments.

Those commitments, in turn, are a matter of public record, including in a speech Barr delivered at Notre Dame University about one year ago. In the speech, Barr described a political philosophy driven by the need to counter an individual rapacity in humans that quickly produces licentiousness and the destruction of healthy community life if not restrained. The only possible restraint, in Barrs view, are moral values [that] must rest on authority independent of mens will they must flow from a transcendent Supreme Being.

In short, Barr argued, as he has elsewhere, that the inevitable result of secularism is moral decay and social chaos.

It appears that it is just such chaos that Barr sees in the current street protests driven by the ant-racism Black Lives Matter movement. He has denounced the protesters in his Michigan speech as these so-called Black Lives Matter people and claiming they were not interested in black lives. Theyre interested in [using] props a small number of blacks who are killed by police to achieve a much broader political agenda.

If Barr gives shockingly short shrift to the motivations of protesters haunted by the recurring specter of police killings of people of color, he holds his own motivations in high esteem.

Barr appears to see himself locked in a historic struggle against literal evil, and he appears to regard the upcoming election as the climactic battle. A Trump loss, Barr recently told a Chicago Tribune columnist, would mean the United States was irrevocably committed to the socialist path. He called the election a clear fork in the road.

The attorney general sees himself clearly as fighting culture wars that are to him moral and religious, Kinkopf said. And those are deeper I think commitments for him than the commitment to federalism. And so to the extent that the balance of federal and state power gets in the way of achieving what he wants to achieve in the culture wars, hes willing to cast that aside.

So if there werent a culture war angle on it, I think he would take the position that states and local governments should be left to police their own communities, and the federal government should keep its nose out. But because he sees something at stake in the current protests that jeopardizes what he feels as being the proper order of society, hes not troubled about using federal power to pursue what he views as being the right results.

Originally posted here:

'His abuses have escalated': Barr's kinship with Trump fuels election fears - The Guardian

Donald Trump Jr. Is Recruiting an Election Day Army Mother Jones – Mother Jones

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Today Barton Gellman tells me something that I didnt know: the consent decree is gone. Heres what that means:

The 2020 presidential election will be the first in 40 years to take place without a federal judge requiring the Republican National Committee to seek approval in advance for any ballot security operations at the polls. In 2018, a federal judge allowed the consent decree to expire, ruling that the plaintiffs had no proof of recent violations by Republicans. The consent decree, by this logic, was not needed, because it worked.

The order had its origins in the New Jersey gubernatorial election of 1981. According to the district courts opinion in Democratic National Committee v. Republican National Committee, the RNC allegedly tried to intimidate voters by hiring off-duty law-enforcement officers as members of a National Ballot Security Task Force, some of them armed and carrying two-way radios. According to the plaintiffs, they stopped and questioned voters in minority neighborhoods, blocked voters from entering the polls, forcibly restrained poll workers, challenged peoples eligibility to vote, warned of criminal charges for casting an illegal ballot, and generally did their best to frighten voters away from the polls. The power of these methods relied on well-founded fears among people of color about contact with police.

So what does this mean? Lets turn the mic over to President Trumps wastrel son:

Its 1981 all over again. Trump Jr. is recruiting an army to provide election security, and I think everyone with more than a room temperature IQ knows what that means. It means descending in force on polling places in Black neighborhoods and trying to scare people into staying away. This is what Republicans routinely did until a judge stopped them, and its what theyre going to do again now that a judge has removed the leash. Apparently 40 years wasnt enough.

Follow this link:

Donald Trump Jr. Is Recruiting an Election Day Army Mother Jones - Mother Jones

After tell-all book, Mary Trump sues President Trump and his siblings, claims they cheated her of millions – USA TODAY

Larry Neumeister, Associated Press Published 2:52 p.m. ET Sept. 24, 2020

President Trump's niece, Mary Trump, will release her tell-all-book on July 14. Here are some of the most notable excerpts. Wochit

NEW YORK Donald Trumps niece followed up her best-selling, tell-all book with a lawsuit Thursday alleging that the president and two of his siblings cheated her out of millions of dollars over several decades while squeezing her out of the family business.

Mary L. Trump sought unspecified damages in the lawsuit, filed in a state court in New York City.

Fraud was not just the family business it was a way of life, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit alleged the president, his brother Robert, and a sister, the former federal judge Maryanne Trump Barry, portrayed themselves as Mary Trump's protectors while secretly taking her share of minority interests in the family's extensive real estate holdings. Robert Trump died last month.

Messages seeking comment were sent to the Justice Department and lawyers for the president. Messages also were sent to a lawyer for Robert Trump and to email addresses listed for Maryanne Trump Barry.

New book by Mary Trump.(Photo: Simon & Schuster, left, and Peter Serling/Simon & Schuster via AP)

Mary Trump and her brother, Fred Trump III, inherited various real estate business interests when her father, Fred Trump Jr., died in 1981 at 42 after a struggle with alcoholism. Mary Trump was 16 at the time.

Mary Trump interview: Niece says shes heard President Trump use racist slurs, he retaliates on Twitter

According to the lawsuit, Donald Trump and his siblings devalued Mary Trump's interests, which included a share of hundreds of New York City apartments, by millions of dollars even before Donald Trump's father, Fred Trump Sr., died on June 25, 1999.

After the family patriarch's death, Mary Trump and her brother filed objections to the will and Donald Trump and his siblings ratcheted up the pressure to settle by cutting off health insurance to their niece and nephew, the lawsuit said.

It said the action amounted to unfathomable cruelty because Fred Trump III's third child, born hours after Fred Trump Sr.'s funeral, was having seizures and required extensive medical care including months in a neonatal intensive care unit.

As they pressured Mary Trump to accept a settlement and relinquish all interests in the Trump businesses, the uncles and aunt provided fraudulent accounting and financial statements that misrepresented the value of their father's estate at $30 million or less, the lawsuit said.

In reality, Marys Interests were worth tens of millions of dollars more than what Defendants represented to her and what she received, the lawsuit said.

In keeping with a confidentiality clause in a settlement of the dispute over Fred Trump Sr.'s will, lawyers for Mary Trump refused to say how much she received. But the numbers provided in Thursdays lawsuit make it unlikely that she would have received more than several million dollars.

Freed from gag order: Mary Trump has one word of advice for her uncle, President Trump: 'Resign'

In a lawsuit aimed at stopping the July publication of Mary Trump's book, Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the Worlds Most Dangerous Man, Robert Trump said the payout was substantial.

Roberta Kaplan, one of Mary Trump's lawyers, said in an interview that today she lives "at a level that is certainly miles away from the luxury her aunts and uncles enjoy.

Since her book's publication, Mary Trump has promoted it extensively. She also has released portions of 15 hours of recordings she made in 2018 and 2019 with Maryanne Trump Barry in which her aunt is heard criticizing Donald Trump, saying he has no principles at one point and Donald is cruel at another.

The lawsuit said the fraud against Mary Trump was particularly egregious and morally culpable because Defendants deliberately targeted her because they disliked her. It noted that the president, in a tweet, has said she was rightfully shunned, scorned and mocked her entire life. It cited tweets in which he described her as a mess who her grandfather couldnt stand.

In her book, Mary Trump, a psychologist, analyzed the president extensively in unflattering ways and made an assertion which he denied that he paid someone to take the SATs for him when he sought to transfer to the University of Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit, which seeks a jury trial, would have to overcome laws that limit how long someone can wait to sue over fraudulent activity.

Mary Trump maintains that she learned of the fraud only after an in depth analysis of the Trump family financial history by The New York Times that discussed how Donald Trump and his siblings inherited and built fortunes.

In a statement, she said: "Recently, I learned that rather than protecting me, they instead betrayed me by working together in secret to steal from me, by telling lie after lie about the value of what I had inherited, and by conning me into giving everything away for a fraction of its true value. I am bringing this case to hold them accountable and to recover what is rightfully mine.

A bestseller: Mary Trump's book on uncle President Trump breaks 1 million in sales

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/books/2020/09/24/donald-trump-niece-mary-trump-sues-him-fraud-after-book/3520817001/

Read the original post:

After tell-all book, Mary Trump sues President Trump and his siblings, claims they cheated her of millions - USA TODAY

Trump to sign executive orders protecting preexisting conditions and seeking a way to prevent surprise medical bills – CNBC

President Donald Trump will sign a series of executive orders aimed at protecting people with preexisting conditions and look for a way to prevent surprise medical bills, senior administration officials said Thursday.

Trump discussed the executive orders, which are part of his "America First" health-care plan, during his visit toCharlotte, North Carolina later in the day.

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told reporters on a conference call that one of the orders would declare it the policy of the United States to "provide protections to ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions are protected regardless of whether the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional and its protections for preexisting conditions invalidated."

"The president is also taking action to protect surprise billing, a source of financial insecurity for all Americans who do have insurance that has gone unaddressed for two years now," he said.

He said the order would direct HHS to work with Congress to get legislation passed by Congress that will protect patients against surprise medical bills. If such legislation is not passed by Jan. 1, then Trump will instruct HHS to investigate executive and regulatory actions that Trump can take that will ensure that patients are protected against surprise bills, Azar said.

"He's telling [Congress] get your act together, get something passed or we'll be coming at it and you'll get what you get from us," Azar added.

The move comes as the Trump administration attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, which has a provision that prevents insurers from discriminating against Americans with preexisting medical conditions. The Supreme Court is set to hear the latest constitutional challenge to Obamacare, the case of California vs. Texas, following the presidential election in November.

It also comes as Trump tries to pitch his vision for health care to voters ahead of the election on Nov. 3.

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg this month creates a new level of uncertainty over the health-care law. If a new justice were to be seated in time for that case to be heard, that could push the balance of the court in favor of repeal.

Trump has previously insisted that he would protect preexisting health conditions.

"I stand stronger than anyone in protecting your Healthcare with Pre-Existing Conditions. I am honored to have terminated the very unfair, costly and unpopular individual mandate for you!" Trump said in a tweet in early January.

In June, Trump tweeted that "Obamacare is a joke" but he would "always protect people with pre-existing conditions."

During a speech atCharlotte, Trump said the executive orders would help "restore America to full strength." He said Obamacare is "unacceptable" to him because it is "too expensive" and doesn't do "as good a job as it could have."

He also touted the elimination of Obamacare's individual mandate penality, which Congress reduced to $0 in 2017, and claimed he "protected" preexisting conditions.

"What we have now is a much better plan," he said, calling his administration the "health-care party." "A lot of that was through good management. We managed it properly. We have tremendous people working on it."

In a statement following the announcement, the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank, called Trump'sexecutive orders "a last-ditch effort to conceal his record on health-care arson."

"The president's announcement is straight out of the Twilight Zone," said Maura Calsyn, managing director of health policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. "For years, he has promised to end the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the law that guarantees that 135 million people with preexisting conditions cannot be denied coverage or charged more based on their health history."

"An executive order is no substitute for the ACA's protections, which are especially critical for people of color, women, and people with disabilities,"Calsyn added.

John Fleming, assistant to the president for planning and implementation at the White House, told reporters Obamacare has not helped Americans and has "been anything but affordable."

"President Trump wants for all Americans to have better choice, better care and lower cost, andthis is where we kick the football off today, with this announcement," he said. "But I want to reiterate to everyone that whatever happens from this point on, with future legislation, with rules and regulations that are passed, the president is absolutely committed to coverage for preexisting conditions."

It's unclear if the president has the authority to require insurers to cover preexisting conditions.On the call with reporters, the officialsmaintained that the executive orders were legally enforceable.

"We will work with Congress, more or otherwise, to ensure that they're protected. But [Trump's] making a clear defined statement of United States policy that people with preexisting conditions are protected," Azar said.

Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor, said unless "Congress has adopted a law prohibiting discrimination against the sick, or President Trump is exercising authority that Congress has delegated to him, his executive orders don't have legal effect."

"They have no more legal weight than a campaign slogan and that's all this executive order is," he said.

CNBC's Bertha Coombs contributed to this report.

Go here to read the rest:

Trump to sign executive orders protecting preexisting conditions and seeking a way to prevent surprise medical bills - CNBC

Donald Trump seems to think he has already won the Nobel Peace Prize – CNN

"I said let's turn on the evening news. Let's watch it. This is gonna be a big show tonight. Get ready. And NBC, which is one of the most crooked, one of the worst newscasts. [crowd boos]

"And I'm talking about normal NBC, not MSDNC, MSDNC is the worst, but so I turn on NBC with Lester Holt, another beauty, and they start with a hurricane, and then they went to something, and something else, and I'm saying, 'First Lady, this is getting a little embarrassing, with 20 minutes into a half hour show, they haven't mentioned the Nobel Peace Prize.'

"And then it went through the whole show and they never mentioned. And then I got nominated for a second one and they never mentioned. And when Barack Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, got nominated, no when Barack Hussein Obama got nominated, he didn't know why he was nominated. It was like right at the very beginning. He didn't do anything. He did nothing! And he got nominated. It was the biggest story I've ever seen. But that's OK. In the meantime, we're president, and they're not, right? We, we."

See, being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize is a LOT different than actually winning it. Mostly because a whole lot of people can nominate you to be in the running.

"These nominations will be submitted by members of national assemblies, governments, and international courts of law; university chancellors, professors of social science, history, philosophy, law and theology; leaders of peace research institutes and institutes of foreign affairs; previous Nobel Peace Prize Laureates; board members of organizations that have received the Nobel Peace Prize; present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; and former advisers of the Norwegian Nobel Institute."

Which is a lot of different people!

Trump seems to not understand the distinction, or chooses not to understand because either a) in his mind he has already won or b) it simply fits his convenient -- though oft-disproven -- narrative that the media is biased against him.

This is not the first time Trump has expressed confusion about how the Peace Prize works or suspicion about how they decide who wins.

Which, well, OK.

CNN's Allison Gordon contributed to this report.

Continued here:

Donald Trump seems to think he has already won the Nobel Peace Prize - CNN

Jeff Zucker helped create Donald Trump. That show may be ending – Economic Times

By Ben SmithIn December 2015, after the demagoguery of Donald Trumps presidential campaign became clear, I asked CNNs president, Jeff Zucker, if he regretted his role in Trumps rise.

First Zucker who put The Apprentice on NBC in 2004 and made Trump a household name laughed uproariously, if a bit nervously. Then he said, I have no regrets about the part that I played in his career.

I was thinking about that exchange when Tucker Carlson of Fox News recently gleefully aired recordings of conversations with Zucker that Trumps fixer, Michael Cohen, had deviously taped in March 2016.

Zucker is heard speaking in flattering and friendly terms about Trump, or, as he called him, the boss.

You guys have had great instincts, great guts and great understanding of everything, Zucker says to Cohen of Trumps campaign.

You may have missed the recordings CNN didnt cover them, nor did The New York Times but if you can filter out Carlsons spin and Foxs campaign against CNN, theyre still revealing.

Of course TV executives work for access behind the scenes; of course, under the stirring mood music that fills CNN hour after hour, an old bond thrived between cable televisions defining executive and the president of the United States.

But the story of Trump and Zucker is a kind of Frankenstein tale for the late television age, about a brilliant TV executive who lost control of his creation. And it illustrates the extent to which this American moment is still shaped not by the hard logic of politics or the fragmented reality of new media, but by the ineluctable power of TV.

Zucker made his bones as a wunderkind producer for the Today show. He took over NBCs entertainment group in 2000, as the Friends era was ending and reality TV was beginning. The network desperately needed a new kind of hit, and Zucker found it in The Apprentice a corporate boardroom version of Survivor, the blockbuster at rival CBS. That show transformed Trump from a local blowhard into a national figure, and laid the groundwork for his presidential campaign.

When Trump ran for president, Zucker briefly dismissed him as a sideshow in an early 2015 email to his political team, according to one of its recipients. But as soon as he saw the ratings his old star could still deliver, he spent 2015 and 2016 turning CNN into a platform for his ambitions. He went so far as to turn the camera to the empty podium before Trumps rallies, while other presidential candidates seethed and suspected accurately, it turns out that the two men maintained a cozy back channel.

When the folks over there at CNN get all high and mighty about their journalistic integrity thats just not real, said Terry Sullivan, who managed Sen. Marco Rubios campaign and said he laughed out loud when he heard the recording. Theyre running a reality TV show. Thats what Zuckers good at.

The story is not, of course, quite that simple. CNN retains much of its straight news DNA and its tough Washington interview machine, and is indispensable in moments of big breaking news like Ruth Bader Ginsburgs death. But the company had hired Zucker in 2013 to restore its relevance at a moment when the internet had replaced TV as a source of the newest information. Now its signature prime-time broadcasts, from Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo, are nightly cris de coeur, featuring monologues about Trumps misdeeds, competing with MSNBC for the same enraged American audience. They feature the occasional true reality TV flourish notably, the duet between Cuomo and his brother, the New York governor, and the highly staged exit of the anchor from his basement, where he had isolated himself when he contracted the coronavirus.

In speaking to dozens of people who know Zucker over the past few weeks, I heard two distinct theories of what is going on now: One is the current version of CNN amped up outrage and righteousness is just Zuckers latest reflexive adaptation in search of ratings. The other is that Zucker, TVs Dr. Frankenstein, has been willing to dent his networks nonpartisan brand in order to kill his runaway monster, Trump.

Preston Beckman, who was NBCs executive vice president for program planning and scheduling just before Zuckers ascendancy there, said Zuckers thirst for ratings blinded him to the damage he was doing by offering saturation Trump coverage.

Hes a ratings whore and Im telling you that as a ratings whore, Beckman told me. But its one thing to be a ratings whore in prime time but its another thing to be a ratings whore when it comes to news.

Zuckers friends see a redemption story.

As a journalist, he has a conscience, a sincere commitment to the First Amendment and a deep sense of citizenship, said Ben Sherwood, another top morning show producer who went on to lead the Disney-ABC Television Group, and who has known Zucker since they worked on The Harvard Crimson together 35 years ago.

Zucker admits he isnt the most introspective person, Sherwood wrote in a book called The Survivors Club. The CNN chief is a survivor of two bouts of colon cancer in his 30s and heart surgery in 2018.

Hes constantly in motion, most at home in the control room, directing shots and popping into his hosts ears to suggest aggressive lines of questioning, suggesting stories to his digital team. People who wonder at his professional survival and resilience sometimes miss what an effective leader JZ, as hes known internally, has been at CNN, winning the deep loyalty of many of his staff with the blend of obsessiveness, decisiveness and loyalty that you need in a news leader.

Jeff is the most decisive and self-assured media executive Ive ever worked for or covered as a reporter, said NBCs Dylan Byers, a former CNN reporter, adding: But he has a North Star. The North Star is ratings.

Zuckers professional passion has never been hard news: Its been ratings, corporate success and winning at every game. His most legendary moments have dramatic tactical thrusts like his poaching of Meredith Vieira from The View on ABC for the Today show in 2006. And his relationship with Trump reflects a certain New York social world that has always blended friendship, talent management and philanthropy. Zuckers then-wife, Caryn, lunched with Melania Trump, a mutual friend said, and raised money for the private school both families children attended; Donald Trump wrote a check.

Zuckers falling-out with his old star came late. Even in the spring of 2017 after a presidency that kicked off with an attempt to ban Muslims from traveling to America he told my colleague Jonathan Mahler, I like Donald.

But the tensions were growing. Trump had chosen Fox over CNN as the main home of his rolling talk show, giving the conservative network constant access and interviews. His powerful son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who was rising inside the administration, lacked Trumps affection for Zucker and pushed the president away from him.

When AT&T moved to buy CNNs parent company, Time Warner, in 2016, Trump began attacking his old friend. He did it in public, on Twitter. He also raised Zucker in a private meeting with AT&Ts then-CEO, Randall Stephenson, in early 2017, a comment that hasnt been previously reported.

The presidents campaign against Zucker was interpreted reasonably by Zucker as an attempt to get him fired as a condition of the merger, according to three people who spoke to AT&T and Time Warner executives at the time. But Time Warner stood by him, and Trumps Justice Department sued to stop the merger. When Stephenson finally took control of the company in 2018, he didnt fire the CNN president.

Mahlers piece noted that CNN had become more focused on American politics, an unending loop of dramatic moments, conflicts and confrontations in other words, it had become Trumpier. He also noted Zuckers strange symbiosis with Trump. But that summer, CNN fired Jeffrey Lord, a genial, silver-haired former aide to Ronald Reagan who had been Trumps most stalwart defender on the network.

And by the end of that year, the lure of ratings pulled the network in a new direction: resistance. Trumps own political theater featured regular televised confrontations with CNNs White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, a different kind of win-win. But if Trump and Zucker sometimes still seemed to be winking, their audiences arent in on the joke, and the deadly serious stakes became clear when a deranged Trump supporter mailed a bomb to CNNs New York headquarters in October 2018.

Zucker didnt respond through a spokeswoman when I asked again, five years later, whether he now regrets his role in Trumps career.

But this run, too, may be coming to an end. When I spoke to former NBC colleagues of Zucker about his tenure there, the show they brought up most often wasnt The Apprentice; it was Fear Factor, in which contestants were tossed in their underwear into a pit full of rats, among other grotesque stunts. USA Today described it as perhaps the most vile program ever to air on a major network.

Fear Factor didnt age well. The show lasted six seasons, and a revival was cut short by public backlash to a stunt in which competing sets of identical twins drank donkey semen. The public got tired of it (and that donkey stunt didnt air).

After a while it was like, Jesus Christ, the host, Joe Rogan, recalled in a 2019 interview. How many times can you throw them off buildings?

Consuming the news of the last four years has felt at times like watching Fear Factor and its cruel and violent strain of reality television. Thats the sensation of doomscrolling on Twitter late at night, the unending outrage cycle that has propelled cable news to its current strong and steady ratings.

When I spoke to people at CNN, they made the point that ultimately they cover and react to the news, they dont make it. Zucker may be in the control room, and when we look back at this disorienting era, media leaders will be important, secondary figures. But this isnt reality TV, its reality, and the shows executive producer is Donald Trump.

And the part of the American electorate that was enjoying the show may get tired of this too. If Donald Trump loses in November, that may also mark the end of this era of cable television, which he had fed and fed off, and which has left its audience divided and exhausted.

Go here to read the rest:

Jeff Zucker helped create Donald Trump. That show may be ending - Economic Times

Chant of the Buddha – Part II – Outlook India

Buddhism has played an integral role in shaping the religious history of Odisha. Home to more than 200 Buddhist sites, Odisha is dotted with innumerable stupas, virahas (monastery) and images that testify to the long heritage of the religion in the state. The wide influence of Buddhism in Odisha is evident from the art, literature, architecture, sculptures and philosophy of the period. Discover more of this delightful state in the second part of the series:

JirangOften called the `Little Tibet of Odisha', Jirang, nestled in the hills of Chandragiri is the ideal blend of natures bounty and spiritual enlightenment. One of the lesser known Tibetan settlements in the country, Jirang with its imposing sights, verdant surroundings and lushness, serves as the largest Buddhist monastery in eastern India. Acclaimed for the Padmasambhava Mahavihara monastery, also popularly known as the Jirang monastery, it is a 5-hour drive from the capital Bhubaneswar. The Tibetans call this place Phuntsokling, which literally translates to land of plenty and happiness.

Read:Chant of the Buddha - Part I

JaugadaSituated in Ganjam district, near the cities of Behrampur and Purushottampur, Jaugada is famous for the rock edicts of emperor Ashoka. Once an ancient fortified settlement, Jaugada is believed to have been associated with the Mahabharata period, with the fort being commissioned by Duryodhana. The fort served as the Mauryan capital of the Kalinga province and was made of lac, thereby making it impregnable, as enemies could not scale the walls. An important archaeological and historical site today, it is under the protection of the Archeological Survey of India (ASI). Engraved in Prakrit, the inscriptions contain information on the administrative policies during the reign of Ashoka.

Langudi

Set in the plains of Mahanadi Delta in Jajpur district, the Buddhist stupas and shrines of Langudi date back to the medieval period. One can come across ruins of a monastery, terracotta figures, seals and different types of pottery that were unearthed here. The hill also houses the remains of Pushpagiri Mahavihara, a major Buddhist centre of learning that gained prominence in the 2nd century. A hub of Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana sects of Buddhism, Langudi Hill is also home to the countrys oldest Ashoka stupa. Today, it is one of the top tourist attractions in the Buddhist circuit and has been declared a heritage site under the supervision of the state government and Archaeological Survey Of India.

TarapurRenowned for the three stupas built by emperor Ashoka, Tarapur is home to the Kesa Stupa, one of the earliest stupas of Buddhism. It is believed that the relic was built by Buddhas disciples Tapusa and Bhallika. According to legend, Lord Buddha had given them eight strands of his hair, which are stored in the stupa. The stupa was discovered in Tarapur and the two pillars carried the inscription Kesha Thupa and Bheku Tapasu. Tarapur also houses several plain railings, pillars and crossbars with inscriptionssome in Brahmi, while others are in proto-Odia and Odia script.

See odishatourism.gov.in for more.

This is a sponsored post.

View post:

Chant of the Buddha - Part II - Outlook India

Tantra exhibition review: An enjoyable journey on the road to enlightenment – Evening Standard

Lets get one thing straight its not all about sex. Sting has a lot to answer for in the popular perception of anything Tantric, but thats rather reductive of this far-reaching, shape-shifting philosophy that has spread its influence across Asia, into both Hinduism and Buddhism, and fired up social movements from revolutions to counter-cultures. Having said that, sex does come up. Just so you know.

Through exquisite sculptures and paintings depicting the slightly terrifying pantheon of Tantric gods, ritual weapons and ceremonial objects, some made of human remains, this show takes us through Tantras key ideas and its rapid spread from India to cultures including those of Tibet and Japan.

A Tantra is a sort of instructional doctrine that emerged in sixth-century India some are displayed in this exhibition, neatly written on palm leaves in intervening centuries and relate mostly to the most effective ritual practices for achieving spiritual enlightenment. They take as fundamental the idea that the material world is infused with a divine feminine power, Shakti, of which all Tantric goddesses are manifestations, and of which all mortal women are embodiments and transmitters. So watch out.

Transgression is at Tantras heart not for its own sake but because it offers a powerful force for transformation, a shortcut to enlightenment. Early Tantric practitioners would dwell in cremation grounds, covering themselves with the ashes of the dead and drinking from human skulls in a ritual effort to rid themselves of such useless feelings as disgust, but thats at the extreme end of it. Tantras pervasiveness probably comes down to its radicalism. It challenged religious and social orthodoxies and oppression, exalted some very human behaviours and included the excluded, including women, whose bodies it revered.

New British Museum exhibition to show Tantra is about more than sex

You can see the appeal. Intoxication is presented as transformative; sexual union of the thunderbolt and lotus was a way of getting closer to the gods through imitation, which you can imagine a lot of people found pretty easy to get on board with. It certainly fired up artists of the Sixties and Seventies (this is a fun section of the show) the Rolling Stones tongue and lips logo is inspired by depictions of the ferocious Tantric goddess Kali.

It would require a great deal of study properly to get to grips with this nebulous and complex set of ideas and Im afraid I left this show a long way from enlightenment, but its an enjoyable journey.

From Thursday to January 24

View original post here:

Tantra exhibition review: An enjoyable journey on the road to enlightenment - Evening Standard

The Revolutionary Beethoven – Dissent

In the year of the great composers 250th birthday, we can retune our ears to pick up the subversive and passionately democratic nature of his music.

Two hundred and fifty years after Beethovens birth, were faced with something of a paradox: his music is known and beloved all over the world, probably more than that of any other composer, even as its real significance is hardly ever remarked on except in critical studies largely unread by the public. Familiarity, it seems, has bred not contempt but ignorance. We hear the famous melodies for the thousandth time, whether in movies, commercials, or concerts, from the third, fifth, sixth, or ninth symphonies or from piano concertos and sonatas or pieces of chamber music. But the cutting edge of this music has been dulled through overuse. That is, we have forgotten, and no longer seem to hear, the intensely political nature of Beethovens musicits subversive, revolutionary, passionately democratic, and freedom-exalting nature.

In the year of the great composers 250th birthday, it would be fitting to recapture this essence, to retune our ears to pick up the musics political and philosophical message. This is especially appropriate in our own time of democratic struggles against a corrupt and decaying ancien rgime, with its parallels to the Beethovenian era of revolution, hidebound reaction, and soaring hopes to realize the rights of man. Beethoven belongs, heart and soul, to the political left. Centuries after his death, his music still retains the power to transform, transfigure, and revivify, no matter how many political defeats its partisans and spiritual comrades suffer.

We might start with the most famous of Beethovenian motifs: the opening notes of the Fifth Symphony (1808). Weve all heard the legend that they represent fate knocking at the door. The source of this idea is Anton Schindler, Beethovens notoriously unreliable secretary. Sir John Eliot Gardiner, world-renowned conductor, has a different interpretation: he detects the influence of Luigi Cherubinis revolutionary Hymne du Panthon of 1794. We swear, sword in hand, to die for the Republic and for the rights of man, the chorus sings, to the rhythm of da-da-da-duuum. Beethoven was a great admirer of Cherubini, not to mention a devoted republican, so Gardiners theory is hardly far-fetched. In the stultifyingly conservative and repressive Vienna of 1808, Beethoven issued a clarion call to revolution in the very opening notes of one of his most revolutionary, Napoleonic symphonies. No wonder conservatives detested his music!

Beethoven was a child of the Enlightenment and remained so his whole life. Late eighteenth-century Bonn, where he was born, was steeped in the most progressive thought of the age: Kant, the philosopher of freedom, was a lively subject of discussion at the university, as was his follower Friedrich Schiller, the poet of freedom, impassioned enemy of tyrants everywhere. The young Beethoven was heavily influenced by Eulogius Schneider, whose lectures he attended. One of the most important of German Jacobins, Schneider was so radical that in 1791 he was kicked out of the liberal University of Bonn, whereupon he joined the Jacobin Club in Strasbourg. (There, he was appointed public prosecutor for the Revolutionary Tribunal, enthusiastically sending aristocrats to the guillotineuntil he lost his own head a couple years later.) Schneiders republicanism stayed with Beethoven, but it was Schiller whom Beethoven worshiped.

Schillers poem An die FreudeOde to Joy impressed Beethoven immensely. He planned early on to set it to music and finally did so in the Ninth Symphony. But he was just as enamored of Schillers idealistic, heroic plays, such as The Robbers, William Tell, and Don Carlos. Of the latter play, he jotted down his own thoughts as a young man: To do good whenever one can, to love liberty above all else, never to deny the truth, even though it be before the throne. Decades later, we find him exclaiming in a letter, Freedom!!!! What more does one want??? He once wrote in a letter, From my earliest childhood, my zeal to serve our poor suffering humanity in any way whatsoever by means of my art has made no compromise with any lower motive. . . . I am thoroughly delighted, he continued, to have found in you a friend of the oppressed. The historian Hugo Leichtentritt concludes, Beethoven was a passionate democrat, a convicted republican, even in his youth; he was, in fact, the first German musician who had strong political interests, ideals, and ambitions.

Indeed, his first significant composition was his Cantata on the Death of Joseph II, a heartfelt and moving tribute to the enlightened reformer who died in 1790. Beethoven, who always disliked hierarchy, was wholly in sympathy with Josephs attacks on the power of the Catholic Church and the Austrian aristocracy. His contempt for aristocrats was such that, years later, he was able to write an insulting note to one of his most generous benefactors, Prince Lichnowsky: Prince, what you are, you are by circumstance and birth; what I am, I am through myself. There are, and always will be, thousands of princes; but there is only one Beethoven. Even his fashion sense was democratic. A woman who knew him wrote a reminiscence of his behavior in aristocratic Viennese salons: I still remember clearly Haydn and Salieri sitting on a sofa . . . both carefully dressed in the old-fashioned way with wig, shoes, and silk stockings, while Beethoven would come dressed in the informal fashion of the other side of the Rhine, almost badly dressed. He behaved without manners in both gesture and demeanor. He was very haughty. I myself saw the mother of Princess Lichnowsky . . . go down on her knees to him as he lolled on the sofa, begging him to play something. But Beethoven did not.

Beethoven maintained a decades-long fascination with Napoleon, in large part because the little corporal who had conquered Europe by his own efforts was not an aristocrat. He admired Napoleons ascent from such a low beginning, remarked a French officer he befriended in 1809. It suited his democratic ideas. Napoleons crowning himself Emperor, however, did not suit Beethovens ideas, as we know from the anecdote of how he furiously tore up the title page of the Eroica Symphony (1804), which he had originally intendedincredibly, given the political repression in Viennato title Bonaparte. So he is nothing more than an ordinary man! Beethoven raged. Now he too will trample underfoot all the rights of man . . . and become a tyrant! Twenty years later, in the thick of the Restoration, his views had softened: earlier I couldnt have tolerated him [Napoleon]. Now I think completely differently. However bad Napoleon was, he wasnt the despised Emperor Francis IIor, even worse, the Austrian Empires Chancellor Klemens von Metternich.

The Eroica is arguably the most revolutionary of Beethovens symphonies, which may be why it remained his favorite, at least until the Ninth. John Clubbe, author of Beethoven: The Relentless Revolutionary (2019), believes the Eroicas famous first two chords, which crash like cannon shots, represent the cannons fired by Napoleons armies as they marched across Europe. The chords recall the world of the [French] Revolution: exuberant, over-the-top, colossal. They are wake-up calls to jolt [the] somnolent audiences in Vienna and elsewhere. Beethoven loathed the complacent, apolitical, frivolous Viennese of his day, intimidated by repression and censorship into sybaritic silence. The symphony is full of his quintessential techniques of disruption, including sudden dynamic contrasts, extreme dissonance, colossal noise, massive dimensions, density of ideas, bursting of forms and conventions, and even an extra French horn to conjure the atmosphere of revolution. It all serves to communicate the abiding essence of Beethovens music: struggle, ending in triumph. It is not mere personal struggle, such as his struggle against deafness; it is collective, universal, timeless struggle, a war against limits, so to speakartistic, creative, moral, political, even spatial and temporal. John Eliot Gardiners characterization is apt: Beethoven represents the struggle to bring the divine down to Earth. (Gardiner contrasts this with Bach and Mozart, the first representing the divine on Earth, the second giving us the music you would hear in heaven.)

If we listen to Beethoven and do not hear anything of the revolutionary bourgeoisienot the echo of its slogans, the need to realize them, the cry for that totality in which reason and freedom are to have their warrantwe understand Beethoven no better than does one who cannot follow the purely musical content of his pieces, wrote Theodor Adorno. Beethoven was so political that, by the end of his life, some of his friends refused to dine with him: either they were bored of his constant politicizing or they feared police spies would overhear him. You are a revolutionary, a Carbonaro, a friend of his wrote in his conversation book in 1823, referring to an Italian secret society that had played a role in various national uprisings. Well past the point that it had become (to his contemporaries) anachronistic, Beethoven kept the Enlightenment faith.

It is beyond the scope of this article to trace Beethovens hortatory humanism through all its musical permutations, from the bucolic poetry of the Sixth Symphony (he had a nearly pantheistic love of nature) to the peace that passeth understanding of the final piano sonata, with the dazzling variety of forms and content in between. We can hardly ignore, however, the one opera he wrote, whether in its initial form (as Leonore) or its final form almost ten years later (1814) as Fidelio, which he wanted to dedicate to the Greek freedom fighters in their war against the Ottoman Empire. Here was a chance for the great democrat to express his convictions in words. And the words, music, and plot of the opera are unambiguous: in them the Revolution is not depicted but reenacted as in a ritual, to quote Adorno.

Fidelio gives free rein to Beethovens unalloyed idealism, as the choral movement of the Ninth Symphony would do a decade later. The plot is simple (and ostensibly based on actual events that occurred during the French Revolution). Leonore, disguised as a young man named Fidelio, gets a job at a prison where she suspects her husband Florestan is being held for political reasons. He is, in fact, being slowly starved to death in the dungeon for having denounced the crimes of the prisons governor, Pizarro. The minister Don Fernando will arrive the next day to investigate accusations of cruelty in the prison, so Pizarro resolves to kill Florestan in order to keep his existence and unjust imprisonment a secret. Fidelio and a few others are sent to the dungeon to dig a grave; meanwhile, they set most of the prisoners free, at least temporarily, to gather in the courtyard and see the sun once again. When the time is come for Pizarro to kill Florestan, he approaches with a dagger, but Fidelio leaps between him and Florestan and reveals herself, to everyones shock, as Leonore. She threatens Pizarro with a pistol, but at that moment a distant bugle is heard, announcing the arrival of the benevolent minister. Pizarro ends up imprisoned himself, as Leonore frees Florestan from his chains and is celebrated for her heroism by the crowd of emancipated prisoners.

The symbolism and allegorical meanings of the opera are not hard to discern. Beethoven believed in the courage and heroism of women just as much as men, and was just as affected by its contemplation and depiction. All his life he remained as sincere and pure in his valuesas well as in his utterly untamed personality (quoting Goethe)as a nave boy reading Schiller for the first time. Doubtless it is this quality that so moves audiences, that inspires flash mobs with millions of views on YouTube, and that has made his music immortal. The greatest art is always affirmative in spirit, and no one is more profoundly affirmativeor more entitled to affirmation, in light of his terrible sufferingthan Beethoven.

The spirit of his music is as simple as the spirits of his models (he insisted) Socrates and Jesus: good will triumph over evil; cherish freedom but live with moral seriousness, always challenging authority; love your fellow human beings, not parochially, as in the mode of nationalism, but universally; never compromise your ideals or integrity; and above all, struggle for emancipation. Freedom remained the fundamental motif of Beethovens thought and music, Clubbe writes. For Beethoven, this meant the republican freedom to participate actively in politics, or the freedom to create and think and speak what you will, where you will. Politics as the art of creating society, a society that will express a richer and fuller life, was his favorite theme, according to his biographer W.J. Turner.

There is something incongruous about the attendance of the lavishly dressed, moneyed elite at public concerts of Beethoven symphonies or concertos, given his musics expression of such a revolutionary, democratic, humanitarian spirit. Such are the ironies that result when the historical specificity of art is denied or forgotten and all that is left is a vague feeling of aesthetic enjoyment. Still, even the pure aesthetic enjoyment is significant. The music is exquisitely beautiful in the mode of invigoration: no composer in history is more humanistic than Beethoven. As Leonard Bernstein once said,

No composer has ever lived who speaks so directly to so many people, to young and old, educated and ignorant, amateur and professional, sophisticated and nave. To all these people, of all classes, nationalities, and racial backgrounds, this music speaks a universality of thought, of human brotherhood, freedom, and love.

That even reactionaries today can love Beethoven, however perversely, suggests just how universal his music is.

Let us, then, turn again with fresh ears and open minds to the first great democrat of music, in the words of Ferruccio Busoni. Let us draw inspiration from him in our own struggles to humanize and democratize the world. And lets be sure not to forget, in the cultural wasteland that is twenty-first-century America, the nobler aspects of our civilizations heritage.

Richard Wagner called his own music the Music of the Future. Lets hope that Beethovens is the real Music of the Future, and that humanity one day will be free.

Chris Wright has a PhD in U.S. history from the University of Illinois at Chicago and is the author of Worker Cooperatives and Revolution: History and Possibilities in the United States. His website is http://www.wrightswriting.com.

View original post here:

The Revolutionary Beethoven - Dissent

Review: Capital in the 21st Century – Camden New Journal newspapers website

Capital In The 21st Century Director: Justin Pemberton Certificate: 12a

As our heads have been turned by dealing with a global pandemic, it is worth considering one of the root causes not only as to why this awful virus has caused such chaos, but our collective failure to deal with it. The answer lies within this superb film.

Thomas Pikettys book Capital In The 21st Century was hailed as a groundbreaking piece of economic and political history, the sort of tome social democrats and socialists could hold up in their hands and say: this is why we are where we are.

But despite its detailed, accessible analysis, its major flaw is its size: clocking in at 750 pages, it was one mainly read (outside the realms of economists, historians, politicians and students) via distillation in broadsheet Sunday reviews or through soundbites used to back up arguments in broadcast debates.

So the idea of taking his hefty work and turning it into a feature-length documentary isnt just a great and informative watch it is an act of civil worth.

We start in the 18th century, and consider how wealth and power was concentrated in oligarchic land-owning hands, perpetuated by inheritance laws.

The French Revolution and the period of Enlightenment offered a slim glimmer of hope but were soon undermined by bankers and the new industrialists, who established a new order of wealth extremes.

By 1907, for example, 1 per cent in France owned 70 per cent of the wealth, and the pattern was similar in other industrialised countries.

It caused battles for raw materials via empire building and a rise of toxic nationalism as governments sought to deflect the misery of the masses they were responsible for and channel it towards the hatred of people from other places.

The film highlights how after the Wall Street Crash increasing inequality was reversed, a trend that gathered pace after 1945. The new social contract between classes saw economic booms and the whittling down of inequality, a trend that lasted until the mid-70s.

And then things started going awry and we have now returned to 18th-century levels of wealth inequality, a world where the super-rich stash their cash in tax havens and dont care they are blatantly robbing their fellow citizens. We consider how the Common Good our shared store of knowledge, created on the shoulders of generations before us has been stolen by giant tech entrepreneurs.

Piketty asks why we have allowed the 1 per cent to steal from us, highlights the nonsense of the trickle-down theory and how it has led to falling life expectancy, a lowering of living standards and the loss of opportunity. Added to this, the film illustrates how the visions of aspirational wealth caused cultural, physical and spiritual damage.

A primer for change, this is a must-watch for any young person wanting to create a better world from the mess we have created over the past 40 years.

Go here to see the original:

Review: Capital in the 21st Century - Camden New Journal newspapers website

Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith Used This Parenting Technique That Inspired Jaden and Willow To Be Unusually Close – Showbiz Cheat Sheet

The Smith family is a famously tight-knit bunch. Not only do Will, Jada, Jaden, and Willow frequently collaborate on artistic ventures, theyre also just a close family, despite whatever ups and downs they may go through. Jaden (22) and Willow (19) get along particularly well for siblings. According to Willow, that was their parents doing.

When Jaden and Willow spoke to Interview Magazine, they were asked who their biggest inspirations were. Both Smith children said their parents.

Growing up, what stuck out to Willow was how many people sought her parents advice.

All I saw was my parents trying to be the best people they could be, and people coming to them for wisdom, coming to them for guidance, and them not putting themselves on a pedestal, but literally being face-to-face with these people and saying, Im no better than you, but the fact that youre coming to me to reach some sort of enlightenment or to shine a light on something, that makes me feel love and gratitude for you,' she said. They always give back what people give to them. And sometimes they keep giving and giving and giving.

According to Willow, her parents have given her the best possible gift they could ever give her.

What my parents have given to me is not anything that has to do with money or success or anything that society says people should be focusing onits something spiritual that only certain people can grasp and accept. And thats how I act and move in the world today, she said.

RELATED: Why Jaden and Willow Smith Think School Is a Waste of Time

Jaden also says his parents are definitely [his] biggest role models.

He goes on to say that he and his sister want to change the world, and they look to their parents for inspiration.

It all comes from a concept of affecting the world in a positive way and leaving it better than it was than when we came, he said. I feel like that enters into all types of different areas because there are so many different outlets that life has to offer for us. That goes into technology, into music. That goes into science, into spirituality, into education.

Its clear that Jaden and Willow are very close. The interviewer asked them if theyd always been that way.

Yeah, responded Willow. Its crazy, the sibling dynamic. I couldve spent my entire childhood like, I have to love this person. And it becomes a chore.

Willow says their parents never forced them to be close. That way, they developed their own relationship on their terms.

Our parents were never like, You have to love them. It was more like, You have your life. He has his life. And when you guys want to come together, when you guys want to commune, thats up to you,' she said. And throughout us realizing ourselves and realizing each other, we just opened our eyes and were like, Damn, you are the yin to my yang. Not a lot of siblings have that opportunity, because theyre always being pushed together so much. They need their time apart in order to realize themselves and realize who they are.

See original here:

Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith Used This Parenting Technique That Inspired Jaden and Willow To Be Unusually Close - Showbiz Cheat Sheet

Finding God: Christianity and the Global Mystical Societies – THISDAY Newspapers

By Tunji Olaopa

It should be clear to my readers by now, that my dimensioned exploration of Christianity in this series is a journey propelled by an intellectual search for meaning on defining issues that tend to create contention in conversations on the Christian faith and the growth of the Church of Christ. And this had entailed exploring domains of knowledge that ordinarily will be considered weird, and this contribution is one of such. And so, I find myself contending with the fact that, at its core, Christianity is a mystical religion. It indeed embodies several mystical elements that gives it an aura of curiosity and awe. It was also one of the bases for its persecution in time past. It was difficult, for instance, for many non-adherents to come to terms with the idea of the trinity, of the three-in-one God, or of the mystery of salvation. It was even more baffling to contemplate the idea of the Holy Communion and what it signifies. The Bible records, in Matthew chapter 26, and verse 26, Jesus instructed to eat the bread and drink the wine as indicators of his body and his blood. Catholics, in taking the Eucharist, believe that the bread and the wine signify the literal body and blood of Christ; the water and wine are transubstantiated when eaten into the body and blood of Jesus.

One can imagine the shock-effect of this dogma on a cultural context like the ancient Roman society. Under Emperor Diocletian and Galerius, Christians faced enormous persecution, especially during the Great Persecution of 303, when they were accused of cannibalism which the belief in the Eucharist generated. Christianitys relationship with mysticism and the mystical experience began with Catholicism. One of the sources of the mystical union with God is in the supposed transformation of the Eucharist into the body and the blood of Christ. The mystical is so easy to relate to any religion, given the dynamics of hidden rituals and the relation with the mysterious which is what makes religion essentially what it is. Scriptures, for instance, have often been seen as not having literal meanings. When the Bible says, in Deuteronomy 29:29, that secret things belong to God, it alludes to the mystical dimension of scriptures that must be ferret out for understanding.

The Gnostics, of the first century AD, emphasized gnosisor personal spiritual knowledge and experience of the Divine, over tradition and authority of the Church. This rendering of the idea of the mystical relationship with God brings Christianity very close to Greek philosophy, and especially the emergence and consolidation of Neoplatonism, and the understanding of the beauty of the human contemplation of the Logos or the Word. This is the foundation of the Gospel according to John: In the beginning was the Word. From Clement of Alexandria and his mystical theology, it was a short distance to the development of monasticism and asceticism, the experience in the desert that is supposed to mark a great turning point in the souls union with God through the defeat of the selfs demons. While the pre-13th century Christian mysticism denoted Christ as the medium in the union between God and the soul, the 13th century mystical writings, especially of Meister Eckhart, obviated the need for such a mediumGod and the soul becomes indistinguishably one in union. This mysticism declared irrelevant the significance of religious life and practices, and rather advocated a radical aloofness that is a precursor to achieving the presence of God.

It is easy to see how Eckharts mysticism would serve as heretical to the teaching of the church about the connection between the sacraments the church offers, and salvation. Meister Eckhart was therefore condemned by the Pope in 1329. And the 14th century was the beginning of the Churchs acute reaction, through the Council of Vienne, against mysticism. But by the twentieth century, Christianitys connection with the mystical has gone beyond the theological to the historical, with regard to several mystical societies that were, rightly or wrongly, regarded as having some intimate relationship with Christianity. Almost everyone is familiar with the Reformed Ogboni Fraternity (ROF) in Nigeria, and the Rosicrucian Order in the West. Both are in some sense connected or seek to be connected with Christianity as a defining brand. Indeed, both emerged from some understanding of what Christianity is and how it could be reformed or integrated with some theological or cultural beliefs. The Ogboni was a renowned traditional secret society in the traditional Yoruba society, and yet the ROF chose that framework as the core of its rehabilitation of African Christianity.

The case of Rosicrucianism is even more instructive. It emerged, in the 17th century, around the figure of a mystic philosopher and doctor, Christian Rosenkreuz (where the Order derived its name, Rosy-cross), and his knowledge of an esoteric order and knowledge, derived from Christian mysticism and even the Judaic Kabbalah. The Rosicrucians believed that the mysteries are what Jesus referred to in Matthew chapter 13 and verse 11 (it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven). Similar to the vision, in Revelation, about the twenty-four elders kneeling before the throne of God, one of the iterations of the vision behind Rosicrucianism is that of twelve enlightened and exalted beings that surround a thirteenth who is Rosenkreuz. The mission of these beings, as well as all those who would accept the Order and its message, is to reform the entire mankind through the unveiling of the inner spiritual capacities which will allow humans to live in altruism.

However, the consciousness of these mystical societies was awakened most shockingly by Dan Brown, and his popular fictions, from the Da Vinci Code to Angels and Demons. From these popular novels, the world seemed to wake up to the reality of other frightening effusion of Christianity like the Illuminati, the Opus Dei, the Freemasons, and the Knights Templar. All these societies are often represented as being the secret custodians of gnostic knowledge about Christianity or certain hidden mysteries in the word of God. And around them have sprung up all manners of conspiracy theories around, for instance, the Holy Grail, the shroud that wrapped Jesus after his death, or a bit of the cross). Their relationship with Christianity is however caught in the conflicting dynamics of history and speculation that is very difficult to unravel.

One fundamental fact about these societies and orders is that they were generated by presumed or real connectedness with Christianity as grand and compelling growing brand. Most of them emerged by reason of historical circumstances or theological dynamics. The Knight Templars, for instance, came into existence mainly as a result of the Crusades which popes and kings in Europe convoke between the 11th and the 13th centuries. The objective of the Crusades was to dislodge Islam from the Holy Land. By the end of the fourteenth century, the Templars reputation as a monastic order and a military wing was at an end. While Pope Clement revoked its recognition by the Catholic Church in 1312, it was brutally suppressed by King Philip IV of France. Part of King Philips excuse in suppressing the Templars has to do with their secret initiation ceremony, and the distrust it bred. And this led to further conspiracy as to its ancient ties with the establishment of Freemasonry. The same can be said about the Opus Dei. Founded by Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, a Catholic priest, Opus Dei came into existence after the priest claimed to have seen a vision of opus dei (or Work of God). It grew substantially after it received papal commendation in 1947 and 1950. However, despite the growth and strength of the Order, its papal approval and the canonization of Escriva, Opus Dei has not been able to escape the speculation about its mystical antecedents, and the danger it poses to the Church. Again, its secret recruitment dynamics fueled the rumor about its cult status.

Perhaps the most famous of all the global mystical societies is the Illuminati. Unlike the other societies, the Illuminati is the one famous group without a fundamental connection to the Church but to Christianity. However, like others, from the Reformed Ogboni Fraternity to the Opus Dei, the organizational dynamics of the Illuminati is equally shrouded in secrecy. Essentially, like the others too, the original Illuminati recruited Christians and specifically excluded Jews and pagans. Founded in May, 1776 in Bavaria by Adam Weishaupt (hence the societys original name of the Bavarian Illuminati), the Illuminatis original objective, paradoxically, was meant to serve the purpose of pushing the boundaries of the Enlightenment ideals, and standing against superstitions, injustices, clerical excesses. Weishaupt was a professor at a university run by Jesuits who waged war against non-clerical members of staff. This was one of his motivations for forming the group. The key to understanding the organizational framework of the Iluminati lies in the fact that Weishaupt modeled his own society on the ranking and grading systems employed by the Freemasons, considered to be the largest secret society in the world. Both are significantly anticlerical, and even though both have been persecuted by the Church, they both draw on Christians and Christian values as major parts of their frameworks.

The critical question this reflection instigates is: why was it possible for Christianity to generate so much mystical and secret societies that flourished under its umbrella or took up its values and ethos (before some were actively suppressed)? One immediate answer, as we hinted at the beginning, is that Christianity itself lends itself to mystical interpretations of its mysteries. Christianity itself is founded on a fundamental dynamic of relationship between humans and God, the ultimate mystery. And this divine relationship is further made complex by series of mysteries, dogmas and sacraments that are meant to facilitate the capacity of humans to achieve oneness with God. We can then conclude that while there is a specific essence of Christianitya set of minimum spiritual and dogmatic imperativesno one can adequately monitor the heretical and fundamentalist interpretations that they could be subjected to. The point remains that humans can go to any extent to find God.

*Prof. Tunji Olaopa is a retired Federal Permanent Secretary & Directing Staff, National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, Jos (tolaopa2003@gmail.com tolaopa@isgpp.com.ng)

Attachments area

Read the original post:

Finding God: Christianity and the Global Mystical Societies - THISDAY Newspapers

The art of tantra: is there more to it than marathon sex and massages? – The Guardian

Make a cursory web search for the term tantra and you will be confronted with thousands of results providing tips on how to practise tantric sex, paeans to the art of tantric massage and listicles on the choicest tantric sex positions for you and your partner. You might be forgiven for thinking you had strayed into an X-rated section of the internet.

Yet tantra is a spiritual philosophy that originated in the Indian subcontinent and dates back to at least the 8th century AD. Meaning to weave in Sanskrit, tantra has since found its way into everything from Hinduism and Buddhism to western pop culture. With a focus on worshipping previously non-canonical and non-caste-based Hindu goddesses such as Kali and Chinnamasta, the tantric belief sees the world as imbued with a divine feminine energy shakti that we must access if we are to transcend our own ego and reach an enlightened liberation from the cycle of reincarnation. To access this energy, certain tantric practitioners believe in performing sexual rites, as well as confronting their own revulsions by covering themselves in funereal ash, drinking blood and wearing aprons made of human bones.

Tantras ancient legacy and openness to interpretation have seen it become a source of fascination to westerners throughout history. In the 18th century, it was seen as a fearsome black magic by British colonialists and was subsequently harnessed for its anticolonial potential by Bengali revolutionaries, while 19th-century occultists such as Pierre Bernard fused its practice of yoga with its connection to sex to create a new form of American mysticism.

In the 20th century, this reached its apex as 1960s free love movements latched on to tantras bright visual identity and radical rejection of monogamous conservatism to make it the symbol of their burgeoning hippie lifestyles. Soon, John and Alice Coltrane were referencing tantric chants in their free jazz, the Beatles were staying in an Indian ashram, the Rolling Stones had fashioned a logo from the protruding tongue of Kali, and Aldous Huxley was likening his LSD experimentations to a state of transcendence. Tantra and its misunderstood exoticisation was everywhere.

Its not all about sex and rocknroll, says Gavin Flood, professor of Hindu studies and comparative religion at Oxford University. Tantra is about gaining liberation and power through meditation. It is about flaunting purity rules and using desire to remove desire, a thorn to extract a thorn. It is not the Kama Sutra, which posits pleasure as its end. Tantra instead uses desire as one of many tools. Flood argues, in fact, that tantra goes way beyond sex when it comes to finding ways of awakening the bodys energy points, or chakras.

The west has focused on the sexual dimension of tantra and it has become commercialised and domesticated, he says. Tantra is not shocking any more, since sex outside of marriage is the norm now. So we have forgotten how tantra is equally interested in confronting horror as well as pleasure. He says tantric rites the consumption of blood and animal urine, the public display of human remains such as skull cups are a way of confronting the material realities of life in order to ultimately overcome them. Tantra is about threatening traditions to transgress the orthodox, he says, pointing out that theres nothing particularly transgressive about taking a course in tantric massage.

Tantra is the subject of a new exhibition at the British Museum in London that curator Imma Ramos hopes will challenge that stereotype and introduce visitors to the history of tantra and how it inspired masterpieces of visual culture. It was a revolutionary philosophy that placed women at the centre of worship, transcending class and caste boundaries to create a new way of experiencing the world. Even though there is a sense of tantra having been recently appropriated by the corporate wellness industry and sanitised, its rebellious spirit is ripe for reimagining when it comes to gender and politics. It still has an anti-establishment ethos.

Boasting one of the largest collections of tantric objects in the world, the show features remarkably well-preserved miniature blocks of medieval texts and vast stone sculptures of the fearsome goddesses, as well as an exploration of tantras courtly legacy in the expressive paintings depicting gods dancing on their own corpses, headless deities perched on copulating couples, and red-tongued multi-limbed figures, commissioned by the likes of the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan.

Its about flaunting purity rules, using desire to remove desire, or a thorn to extract a thorn

The 18th-century anticolonial tantric imagery also provides a powerful juxtaposition to the fact that the majority of these pieces would have been acquired as a direct result of British rule in India. The final room on tantras 20th century legacies, meanwhile, shows how such post-independence artists as Rasool Santosh and Biren De combined abstract expressionism with a yearning for an authentic precolonial expression of Indian visual identity in tantric depictions of the body.

Housewives with Steak-Knives, painted by British Indian artist Sutapa Biswas in 1986, is a vast work that takes pride of place on the final wall of the show. It depicts Kali as a contemporary Indian woman in a feminist guise, wearing the heads of white authoritarian patriarchy in a garland around her neck and muscularly brandishing a threatening blade. It has become a symbol of tantras ability to subvert gender norms and racial stereotypes.

When that work was made, says Biswas, it was a real affront to racists. It was even spat on when it was in situ at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London. Mainly white men who are unfamiliar with the imagery are threatened by it, whereas lots of women see the character as fierce but a friend. Kali is a complex icon, creator and destroyer. I have always been drawn to tantric goddesses for this transgressive reason. At the time of making that work in the 80s, the portrayal of South Asian women in a British context was as these meek and voiceless chattels. So to frame us as Kali was to celebrate us too.

Biswas believes her depiction of Kali as an anticolonial icon of Mother India makes it an especially apt work for such a setting. It has been my dream for the painting to be in the British Museum since, in order to engage with the painting, you have to engage with the history of British colonialism. She is truly a force to be reckoned with.

Next to the armed housewife is And All the While the Benevolent Slept, a 2008 sculpture by Bharti Kher that depicts the self-decapitated goddess Chinnamasta in the bronze-cast guise of one of Khers own friends. She holds a dainty teacup in one hand and a wooden skull in another, as bent copper wires stream from her cut neck. The work is a visceral expression of both the goddesss power and gender fluidity, confronting the British colonial legacy with the presence of the teacup, as well as taking ownership of her own life-cycle in the act of her decapitation.

I have always been drawn to tantra as an expression of the forbidden, Kher says. It explores self-sacrifice and creation, an awakening of our powerful inner energies, the potential women rarely get to express. Tantra celebrates difference as the very thing that defines us as human beings. So its important to remember that.

Seeing tantra as something sexual is like listening to a radio jingle to understand all of classical music

Given Indian prime minister Narendra Modis current fuelling of Hindu nationalism, tantras inter-religious and inclusive ethos feels more relevant than ever. Tantra has always had a countercultural, rebellious flavour that has tied it to different eras, Rammos says. The fact that it is so easily transmuted across boundaries and ideologies means that it will continue to survive and hopefully be a way of better understanding ourselves and the world we live in.

Tantra is clearly a persistent and alluring ancient philosophy. From medieval images, commissioned to bestow auspicious energy on wealthy patrons, to a goddess worship that went against the rigid caste system and masculine hierarchy of spiritual worship in Hinduism, tantra now finds itself diluted and distorted, a vision that encompasses massage, yoga, sexual practice and new age credo.

Ultimately, says Kher, understanding tantra merely as something sexual is like listening to a radio jingle to understand all of classical music. This is a philosophy that has been around for millennia. It carries with it a powerful visual legacy that goes beyond anything else in the pantheon of western or Asian imagery. It is the fabric of life.

Tantra: Enlightenment to Revolution is at the British Museum, London, 24 September-24 January.

View post:

The art of tantra: is there more to it than marathon sex and massages? - The Guardian

Saying goodbye to the Israeli one-state prophet – +972 Magazine

Meron Benvenisti died last week on Rosh Hashanah at the age of 86. He was a passionate, brilliant, and charismatic iconoclast, a bold and energetic researcher, and a prolific and powerful writer. His visceral attachment to the whole country, his knowledge of and sense of responsibility for Palestinian suffering, and his comfort with confronting conventional wisdom with inconvenient truths, gave his work a compelling urgency that sometimes obscured its lack of nuance.

He was a political organizer, the deputy mayor of Jerusalem in the 1970s, an archeologist, a scholar of the Crusaders, a land dealer, a public policy researcher, and a journalist. But he will be remembered primarily as a prophet a tormented, hyperbolic, anguished, but, in the end, undeniably accurate prophet. Prophets only need to be right about some things to be remembered for their prophecy.Meron was right about one big thing:that the future of Palestine, the future of the Land of Israel, will grow out of a one-state reality from the river to the sea a reality he identified as such earlier than almost any Jewish Israeli.

Merons life, as he described it, was a long process of disillusionment with the conventional Zionism that he absorbed as a youth. His father, who cared not a whit for the countrys Arab inhabitants, was a distinguished geographer who was obsessed with the Zionist principle of Yediat Haaretz (knowing the land). Meron took that principle to its logical extension, loving not only the land but the Palestinian Arabs inhabiting it. Their natural comfort in the landscape and their tenacious human attachment to the places of their habitation not simply to the map image of a politically designated space was his model for what it meant to be what he claimed to be: a native of the country. Intimately exposed to Palestinian suffering and the injustices imposed upon them, he came to see the Zionist project not as building the land, but the obliteration of the landscapes of my childhood.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Israeli scholars and journalists covering the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank began talking about approaching the point of no return echoing the warnings of their Palestinian counterparts. The savviest observers, such as Danny Rubinstein, Yehuda Litani, and Amos Elon, contended that within a few years, or even months, the Gush Emunim settlement movement, and the right-wing parties and governments that supported it, would make the establishment of a Palestinian state impossible.

Meron was the most articulate, most fervent, best informed, and most effective voice among them. Armed with detailed plans and information about this strategy made available to him by the Land Settlement Department of the Jewish Agency, which worked hand in glove with the settlers and Likud government ministers, Meron was able to stimulate a vivid and, for liberal doves, terrifying sense of closing opportunities for peace. It was, he told journalist Thomas Friedman in 1982, five minutes to midnight.

At first, his warnings were hailed by Israeli politicians such as Abba Eban and Lova Eliav. But as time passed, as settler leaders and government ministers praised his findings as proof of the success of their project, and as the number of settlers passed threshold after threshold, Merons former political allies turned on him. Suddenly, he was vilified for supporting the settlement of the entire Land of Israel, secretly hoping to unite the country under a Jewish government by undermining the will to resist annexation with his thesis of irreversibility.

View of the separation wall and Al-Aqsa compound in the background on February 2, 2020. (Olivier Fitoussi/Flash90)

When I was a young professor at Dartmouth College, I hosted Meron and was in contact with him irregularly over the decades. He found my approach irritating, focusing as it did on the implicit theories undergirding his idea of a point of no return, and on whether the data gathered from Gush Emunim and government planners was reliable. We were, in that sense, intellectual rivals, but I greatly respected him. While other analysts and politicians would regularly forecast the passing of a point of no return as a way to mobilize support from worried doves (only to renounce the existence of such a point after it had passed), Meron was faithful to his analysis.

Without any attractive alternative to a two-state solution available, and therefore without being able to reassure his audience that their fondest dreams would not be dashed, he was, except for one brief period during the First Intifada, consistent in his argument that there never would and never could be an independent Palestinian state. He believed that the peoples living in the land, trapped in an intercommunal conflict, would simply have to find a way to live with one another in the same country and in the same state.

I grieve Merons passing. He was not only one of the most dynamic and interesting people I have ever met, but also, even from a distance, one of my most important intellectual and political interlocutors. In the early 1970s, we were both shocked at the hubris and shortsightedness of Israeli policies toward Palestinians. We each developed interests in British rule in Ireland as a case holding warnings and opportunities for Israel and Palestine. His arguments and data gave urgency and definition to my work in the State Department in the Carter administration, on whether the Camp David Accords could be used to advance a land for peace deal or not. In a series of articles and books, I sharpened my thinking on his arguments, which always provoked and deserved rigorous evaluation.

Although I do not believe Meron was right in the late 1980s that the failure of the two-state solution was inevitable, I have come to the bitter but liberating conclusion that, in the world as it did develop, that option is no longer available. That acceptance of the one-state reality, and of the fact that the future will be determined by its dynamics, not by negotiations, required a long and wrenching process of disillusionment and learning. In that way as well as in others, I feel that, with age, I have come to understand Meron better. For as he emphasized in his later writings, throughout his intellectual, political, and spiritual journey from fervent Zionist to a quasi-Canaanitish democrat, he too learned via processes marked more decisively by disillusion than enlightenment.

Continued here:

Saying goodbye to the Israeli one-state prophet - +972 Magazine