The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Alternative Medicine
- Artificial Intelligence
- Atlas Shrugged
- Ayn Rand
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Black Lives Matter
- Boca Chica Texas
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Chess Engines
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Designer Babies
- Donald Trump
- Elon Musk
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Fake News
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom of Speech
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- High Seas
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Longevity
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Life Extension
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- National Vanguard
- New Utopia
- Online Casino
- Personal Empowerment
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Private Islands
- Proud Boys
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Resource Based Economy
- Ron Paul
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tor Browser
- Transhuman News
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Zeitgeist Movement
The Evolutionary Perspective
Daily Archives: January 25, 2021
Expanding multilateral frameworks for democracy in Asia and the necessity of Track 1.5 approaches – Brookings Institution
Posted: January 25, 2021 at 5:05 am
Since the late 2000s, regional intergovernmental frameworks and NGO networks have begun to emerge in Asia, demonstrating commitment to the norms and values of democracy. While intergovernmental frameworks have not yet moved beyond verbal commitment, civil society has been steadily forming and developing cross-border networks. The four main drivers for institutional formation are: 1) the central role of small rising democracies motivated to consolidate their democratic regimes; 2) the influence of institutional developments in other regions; 3) the role of civil society actors; and 4) the rise of China as an authoritarian superpower. However, the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to inhibit further development of such institutions. This paper recommends a multi-layered multi-stakeholder approach to further institutional development.
The diversity of political regimes and the emergence of China as an authoritarian superpower present stumbling blocks for the formation of regional democratic frameworks in Asia. The region includes several sub-regions: Southeast Asia, where many countries remain non-democratic or have flawed democracies; Northeast Asia, which is home to North Korea, the worlds most egregious human rights violator, and China, the worlds most influential authoritarian power, as well as democratic Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan; and South Asia, which is home to new and fragile democracies in addition to India, the worlds largest democracy. In addition, Asias anti-imperialist, non-aligned traditions create skepticism about Western democracy promotion, which can be perceived as neocolonialism. Asian democracies as well as authoritarian regimes jealously guard their sovereignty and uphold the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs as a golden rule.
Despite the diversity of regime types, some components of democracy have been accepted by regional governments. Most Asian countries use elections, although severely flawed in some, as a mechanism of choice for the government. Although authoritarian leaders manipulate and utilize elections only to legitimize their own leadership, their continued desire to point to electoral victories shows that elections have an internationally recognized legitimacy even authoritarian leaders cannot resist. In addition, they accept the legitimacy of some parts of human rights: most regional countries are parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and many of them are parties to various international treaties on the rights of certain groups such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
However, civil liberties are a different story. The Asian values debate in the 1990s exemplifies it well: authoritarian political leaders in countries such as China, Singapore, and Malaysia1 positioned civil liberties based on individualism as a Western value, arguing that liberal democracy was not appropriate for Asias communitarian interests. Although the Asian values argument has since lost support, countries in the region show persistent resistance to including values associated with liberalism in regional discussions. Because of these relatively weak levels of support, civil liberties such as freedom of the press, freedom of information, privacy rights, and freedom of action for civil society have all come under significant attack during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to some experts, South and Southeast Asia is now the region with the most severe retreat of liberal democracy in the entire world.
Due to the lack of unified support for liberalism, Asia has fallen behind not only the West, but also Latin America and Africa, in shaping regional institutions for the protection and promotion of liberal democracy.
Due to the lack of unified support for liberalism, Asia has fallen behind not only the West, but also Latin America and Africa, in shaping regional institutions for the protection and promotion of liberal democracy. Nevertheless, since the late 2000s, existing regional intergovernmental frameworks have begun to embrace democratic values, and new frameworks for democracy have emerged.
Southeast Asia was the first sub-region in Asia to take up democracy as a common value. Addressing the issue of human rights and fundamental freedoms in a joint communique in 1993, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) indicated its willingness to formulate a common approach to human rights issues. Subsequent expansion of ASEANs membership made it difficult to take concrete steps towards this goal, but when the ASEAN Charter was adopted in November 2007 it included democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights, and good governance as common principles for ASEAN member states. In accordance with the charter, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) was established in 2009 and the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration was adopted in 2012. The ASEAN Community, formed in 2015, also expressed its willingness to strengthen the promotion and protection of democracy, good governance, rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The Bali Democracy Forum (BDF), though not a formal multilateral institution, opened the arena for discussion on democracy to the countries in the entire Asian region. The Indonesian government, which played a prominent role in encouraging ASEANs focus on democracy and human rights, established the BDF in 2008 as the first regional forum to bring together Asian governmental leaders at the ministerial level. The forums meetings, which include non-democratic governments, aim to promote democracy by sharing democratic experiences and best practices, without condemnation of other countries or comparative assessments between countries.2
A similar multilateral commitment to democratic values came to South Asia in 2011, when the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) consisting of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka adopted the Charter of Democracy, which states that SAARC upholds values that constitute the core of democracy, including the right to live in dignity, the rule of law, freedom, and fundamental human rights. The charter also commits SAARC members to promoting democratic systems in their own countries and in the region and opposing governments that are elected in an unlawful or undemocratic manner.
In addition to broad forums and institutions, the establishment of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or Quad between Australia, India, Japan, and the United States in 2007, and its resumption in 2017, has created the regions most prominent partnership among democracies. While the dialogue has a broad mandate, the participating countries have emphasized democratic values, shared principles, and the value of a rules-based order.
These intergovernmental frameworks nonetheless have various weaknesses. Despite making verbal commitments to democratic norms and principles, they have done relatively little to support civil liberties in the region. The ASEAN Human Rights Declaration is colored by cultural relativism and is weak on affirming human rights as a universal value. Neither the BDF nor the Quad has made joint statements at times of human rights violations in Asia. SAARC has been suspended since 2014 due to tensions between India and Pakistan.
In addition, none of these frameworks are equipped with practical mechanisms to protect and promote democracy. While the AICHR comes closest as a regional mechanism that could protect freedom and human rights, it lacks independence. Participating governments dispatch their approved representatives to the institution, each of which is given veto power, making it impossible for the organization to take more sensitive positions. It is also impractical for the BDF to take substantive actions to prevent democratic backsliding, given its desire to avoid finger pointing among member countries as well as its lack of substantial interaction with civil society.3 The Quad countries have been providing election support, cyber security measures, and rule of law assistance to regional countries bilaterally, with a focus on strengthening the norms of democratic governance, but the dialogue lacks formal multilateral infrastructure.
While progress has been slow in inter-governmental frameworks, non-governmental democracy networks show more promise. The Asia Democracy Network (ADN), established in 2013 as a regional multi-stakeholder platform, has been promoting human rights and democracy through the formation of transnational civil society networks, including NGOs, researchers, parliamentarians, and independent media. Covering the three sub-regions of Asia Northeast, Southeast, and South Asia the ADN promotes democracy through sharing lessons learned and mutual support. The organization has also played a regional advocacy role. At the time of the Cambodian general elections in 2018, for example, the ADN appealed to international and governmental organizations on behalf of Cambodian civil society. While Hongkongers were fighting for freedom in 20192020, the ADN provided advocacy support to activists in Hong Kong.4
ADNs advocacy is supplemented by the Asia Democracy Research Network (ADRN). Established in the same year as the ADN as a network of Asian think tanks, ADRN provides resources and tools for the ADNs activities through research. Although coordination between the ADN and the ADRN remains a challenge, the ADRN has been actively conducting research on various issues pertaining to challenges for democratic governance common to Asian countries.
A new development is emerging as well. In response to the democratic backsliding in Asia, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, in collaboration with Asian democrats, have convened a new Track II democracy dialogue. July 2020 saw the release of The Sunnylands Principles on Enhancing Democratic Partnership in the Indo-Pacific Region which set out the democratic values shared by participants. Asian participants in this process include former high-ranking officials in the governments and judiciary of India, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea, who are currently working actively with civil society. Their links to national-level decisionmakers bodes well for the process eventually becoming a multi-stakeholder regional initiative also involving regional governments.
Four key drivers have promoted the gradual establishment of regional democracy frameworks in Asia. The first key driver was the democratization of Asian countries. As countries in Asia sought to consolidate their nascent democracies, they sought to form regional institutions focused on their unique needs. Small South Asian democracies (Bangladesh, Bhutan, the Maldives, and Nepal) moved for the enactment of the SAARC Charter of Democracy to help check domestic anti-democratic forces and seek regional support. Having troubled relations with India, they also intended to embed India in the regional institution and bind the country to shared regional principles.5 Mongolia, sandwiched between two giant authoritarian countries, Russia and China, played an important role in the establishment of the ADN, seeking to increase its international recognition as a democracy and to protect its independence by joining with other democracies in the region. Pro-democracy actors in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand, who contributed to the establishment of the ADN, tried to secure support and participation from established democracies as well as emerging democracies to maintain their democracies at home, and to create a regional system that would allow them to seek support from each other.6
The second key driver for the creation of Asian democracy mechanisms was the influence of institutional developments in other regions. The ADN, for example, was established by Asian pro-democracy activists who had connected with NGO networks such as Red Latinoamericana y del Caribe para la Democracia (REDLAD) in Latin America and sought to create a similar network in Asia.7 The BDF was influenced by European pro-democracy mechanisms, as part of a bid by the Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono administration to mimic Europe and establish Indonesia as a norm-setter in Asia. The SAARCs emphasis on human rights and democracy was motivated by similar developments in ASEAN.8
The third driver was the invaluable role played by civil society actors. The Institute for Peace and Democracy, together with other Indonesian civil society organizations, has played a prominent role in organizing the BDF and setting its agendas. During the formulation of SAARCs Charter of Democracy, prominent think tanks and NGOs engaged with member states such as Bangladesh and Nepal and promoted the discussion of democracy, in addition to stimulating such discussions on the grassroots level.9 While it is not surprising that civil society members played significant roles for the ADN as a NGO network, civil society actors, especially foundations and think tanks in South Korea and Taiwan, together with democracy activists in Southeast Asia, also played central roles.10 Believing that core norms of democracy such as accountability, transparency, inclusivity, and respect for human rights facilitate more responsive government, these non-state actors facilitated the creation of a vision to promote democratic governance standards in the Indo-Pacific region.
Chinas emergence as an increasingly influential authoritarian superpower is the fourth driver. Faced with Beijings increasing violations of international rules and norms, and its conscious and unconscious export of its own governance model across Asia, regional countries have reinforced the sense that they need to establish mechanisms to maintain the liberal international order. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and the Sunnylands process, in particular, were motivated by such sense of necessity. While they do not intend to antagonize China, they seek to serve as mechanisms with which to preserve the rule-based order where democratic governance and human dignity are protected in the age of Chinas rise.
Regional intergovernmental frameworks for democracy are at risk of entering a stagnant phase in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Indonesia and the Philippines, which promoted the democracy agenda in Southeast Asia, have accelerated their democratic retreat, while Thailand, another country which worked together with those two, has been under a military regime since 2014. While SAARC began to see hope for resumption when the Indian government established a COVID-19 Emergency Fund for SAARC countries, an initiative to which SAARC member states have responded positively, democratic retreat in most member countries is likely to serve as a stumbling block in bringing the organization forward as a defender of democracy.
Instead of resting expectations on region-wide frameworks that include authoritarian countries, democracies should forge their own partnership and lead the discussion to uphold the values of liberal democracy.
Given the greater necessity as well as increased challenges during the pandemic, further development of regional frameworks for democracy requires proactive promoters. Here, this paper recommends a multi-layered multi-stakeholder approach. Instead of resting expectations on region-wide frameworks that include authoritarian countries, democracies should forge their own partnership and lead the discussion to uphold the values of liberal democracy. The Sunnylands process is a useful framework. Related actors should involve government officials in regional democracies in the process.
While governments need to be involved in the process, this could only work if it is a genuine Track 1.5 effort, keeping civil society at the center to maintain the momentum. While government officials come and go, civil society maintain their expertise and knowledge necessary to continue moving the process forward. Asian civil society networks have already become more active in response to the deterioration of democracy and civil liberties during the pandemic. In July 2020 the ADN launched a website called Asia Democracy Chronicles to provide information on civil liberties and human rights repressed under the pandemic in Asian countries. The ADRN has also been publishing research on the topic at a fast pace, advocating for this issue. These actors are not afraid to uphold liberal democracy as a common value for Asia.
At the same time, in order not to exclude authoritarian countries from the table, the existing sub-regional frameworks of ASEAN and SAARC remain important. In order to make these institutions more meaningful, incorporation of civil society actors into the dialogue on democracy is ideal. In addition, a region-wide mechanism that would incorporate the important missing sub-region of Northeast Asia is much needed. For that purpose, the Indonesian government should weaken its grip over the BDF and make it into a multilateral framework with equal footing among member countries. Mixing between the civil society pillar and the government pillar of the BDF is strongly needed as well.
Democratic governments, which are pressured not to bring the agenda of liberal democracy to the table in order not to force regional countries to choose between China and democracies, should encourage the expansion of the roles of the civil society. After all, the true champions of freedom and democracy are the civil society actors.InteractiveGlobal China
Monday, September 30, 2019
Read the original post:
Posted: at 5:05 am
Sierra Rains|The Daily Ardmoreite
Several Marietta residents woke up Saturday morning and foundflyers promoting a Ku Klux Klan organization placed in their yards.
Marietta resident and City Council Member KorDale Lornes said he was on his way to get breakfast when he saw a police officer on the corner from his house picking up a flyer. He opened the back of his vehicle and showed me that there was about 60 of them that he had picked up so far and he was trying to get them picked up, Lornes said.
The flyers appear to be a white piece ofpaper promoting an organization called the Church of the Ku Klux Klan." Each flyer wasinside of plastic Ziplockbaggiewith a few rocks inside. It doesnt look like it was intended to break any windows or anything like that, Lornes said. Probably just a weight to be able to throw it from their vehicle into the yard.
Lornes said the flyers were placed all over townwith no particular area appearing to be targeted. At this time, it seems that the flyers were only placed at residences. Lornes said the Marietta Police Department is investigating the incident and many citizens have been trying to help find the culprit.
I dont feel like its a local because were a pretty tight knit community and surely a local would realize just how quickly word would spread, Lornes said. We reached out to some people here in my neighborhood that we know of who have security cameras.
The Marietta Police Department released a statement on social media Saturday morning, which confirmed the investigation and askedfor the publics assistance.
Officers are investigating the recent unsolicited distribution of religious/political materials in the City of Marietta, the statement read. Please contact us if you received these materials or have surveillance video of those delivering the materials.
Lornes said he plans to meet with theMarietta City Mayor Saturday afternoon to discuss the issue further.
Its 2021 and we should have moved past this long, long ago, said Lornes, who is a person of color. If we all lived by the golden rule, doing to others as wed have done upon us,I think just as a society we would be doing better off. This spread of hatred isnt really what any of us would want our children growing up in.
Anyone with information on the incident is asked to contact the Marietta Police Department at (580) 276-9371.
Posted: at 5:05 am
Deepak Chopra, Special to SFGate
Watching mainstream coverage of the Biden inauguration, you couldnt miss the much-repeated call for uniting a divided nation. The commentary was quite approving; no one seemed to disagree with the theme or the need. But if you turned to right-wing media, the notion of uniting the country was derided as a ploy and scorned as bad faith. This indicates that gulf that lies between vision and outcome.
It is much better to have a vision than not, because a vision makes your intentions clear and keeps the goal in sight. A vision that is destined to fail, however, has no real use. Bringing the country together isnt different from bringing a wounded relationship together. The needed skills are psychological. The right-wing has taken advantage of this fact for decades, as many commentators have noted, by tapping into grievances. But stoking peoples complaints, grudges, fears, and fantasies of revenge is a negative vision. As recent events have shown, the people you manipulate this way eventually leads to bad faith and eruptions of a violent, chaotic kind.
So how do you get someone to yes when that person is dead set against you? The necessary tactics depend on understanding two things: 1. The basic principles of negotiation and 2. Putting yourself in the other sides shoes. Both are always workable, no matter whether we are talking about a broken relationship or a broken political culture.
Principles of negotiation
These principles are well known in diplomatic circles but they are flouted in everyday life all the time. The main reason is that people dont try to learn how successful negotiating works. Instead, they fall back on tactics that hardly ever work, or when they seem to, leave residues of resentment from the other side. The tactics that dont work are easily recognized in our current state of deep division.
How to stay at no
It is worth the time to sit down and reflect on both lists. Getting what you want is a natural impulse, but using the wrong means leads to frustration and futility.
The second thing needed in order to change no to yes is to put yourself in the other sides shoes. One might call this the path of empathy. Nobody really disagrees with the Golden Rule in their heart of hearts, but treating others the way you want to be treated remains hypothetical without an understanding of psychological wants and needs. The most basic wants and needs are common to everyone.
You cant put yourself in someone elses shoes by pretending that you agree with their beliefs, prejudices, and social conditioning when those things are foreign to you. Much less does it work to adopt false empathy with positions you abhor. Divisions dont go away as a condition for getting to yes. Instead, they stop being obstacles.
You put yourself in someone elses shoes by shifting to the needs and wants listed above. They constitute the unspoken agenda in everyones life. Once you see that you and the other side share the same needs and wants, you can start to talk about them. Speak about the unspoken, and you will get much further than keeping silent.
Ive devoted a small space to issues that fill many books, but I think it is necessary to understand that there is a way to clear up the fog of war. War isnt always conducted with armed weapons. Armed words do the job quite well. If there is to be an end to deep divisiveness, one side must be the first to step up and use the tactics that actually work. The situation cant be made any simpler than this.
DEEPAK CHOPRA MD, FACP, founder of The Chopra Foundation, a non-profit entity for research on well-being and humanitarianism, and Chopra Global, a whole health company at the intersection of science and spirituality, is a world-renowned pioneer in integrative medicine and personal transformation. Chopra is a Clinical Professor of Family Medicine and Public Health at the University of California, San Diego and serves as a senior scientist with Gallup Organization. He is the author of over 90 books translated into over forty-three languages, including numerous New York Times bestsellers. His 90th book and national bestseller, Metahuman: Unleashing Your Infinite Potential (Harmony Books), unlocks the secrets to moving beyond our present limitations to access a field of infinite possibilities. For the last thirty years, Chopra has been at the forefront of the meditation revolution and his latest book, Total Meditation (Harmony Books, September 22, 2020) will help to achieve new dimensions of stress-free living and joyful living. TIME magazine has described Dr. Chopra as one of the top 100 heroes and icons of the century. http://www.deepakchopra.com
Posted: at 5:05 am
Dungeons & Dragons players must work together both with their party and their Dungeon Master to have a fun and successful adventure together.
PlayingDungeons & Dragons is a team sport. To embark on and enjoy the adventure set up by the Dungeon Master, all players must bring their best teamwork to the table, otherwise the game may crumble due to poor communication. To have a successful and enjoyable campaign, players must be respectful not just to their DM, but also their party members, to help foster an environment where players can speak freely, bounce ideas off each other, and create powerful strategies.
There are three basic rules DMs and players can implement during the preparation stage of a campaign to help the adventure go smoothly. These skills will help all players feel heard, as well as eliminate the possibility of a misunderstanding. The first of these three golden rules is not to talk out of turn. The quickest way to have aDungeons & Dragons campaign devolve into chaosis for the party to constantly be talking over each other. While it it easy to let player actions be guided by excitement, and it is tempting to express feelings in the moment, players should always try to take a step back and make sure that no one else is talking, and that it is the appropriate time to interject with an idea, attack, or in-character comment. This rule helpsD&D players listen more clearly to their party members, and foster good communication from the start of a campaign.
Related:Dungeons & Dragons: What A Murder Hobo Is (& Why They're Bad)
The second rule that players should implement is to always come to the game session prepared.Dungeons & Dragons often has homework outside of a session. Whether this is reading up on a player's class, investigating lore about a new area, or leveling up a character and preparing the next round of spells, it is important to have these tasks done before the session begins. It is frustrating for players who come prepared to be forced to wait on a party member who put preparation off until the last minute, and can often eat into precious play time. Preparing for the session shows party members that the player is committed, and that they respect the time of their DM and the friends they are adventuring with.
The third rule for a successfulDungeons & Dragonscampaign is player boundaries. Players need to be clear about respectful roleplay while in character. This rule can be difficult, as every party will need to set these boundaries differently. What is okay in one group may not be in another.
This is especially important when it comes to in-character interactions. Players should check with each other before engaging in conversation that could be considered promiscuous, and make sure that the language and actions being used are okay with both players. It's easy to get carried away while in character, and it is important to remember that there are real people behind thatD&DFighter or Barda player may be interacting with. Because of this, connecting and expressing what everyone is comfortable with ahead of time can prevent a situation where a player feels uncomfortable.
If players are respectful and think before they speak or act, aD&D campaign is likely to go smoothly and be enjoyable for all at the table. Touching bases regularly before a play session starts helps to make sure that everyone is still feeling comfortable and confident with how communication has been going. This is an excellent way to create a good atmosphere for aDungeons & Dragons session, encouraging all member of the party to have fun as they journey together through the unknown.
Next:4 D&D Rules DMs Should Only Use Once
90 Day Fianc: Ariela & Biniyam Are Not In Ethiopia With Aviel Anymore
Laura Gray is a writer, illustrator and gamer in cozy Boise Idaho. They have had a wild freelance career in being a nerd, spending time traveling as a professional cosplayer and becoming a published illustrator while working the night grind as an IT tech. Laura is currently a content writer for D&D campaigns and Screenrant while working on personal writing projects for publication. They are also busy welcoming their first child into their life, which has been the best adventure life has given yet.
Posted: at 5:05 am
For as long as history has been written, humanity has struggled to evolve society from the tribal to a more inclusive system. A healthy society nourishes all its members, or it rots from within. Americas experiment with a democratic republic still suffers from tribal exclusivity, where some count more than the rest. This flaw manifests in capitalism as the illusions of exclusive gain and externalized costs. The social function of government is to set boundaries on tribalism, and address the needs of the entire society, without exclusion.
In 1986, President Reagan claimed the nine most terrifying words in the English language are Im from the government, and Im here to help. In the decades since, Republicans have relentlessly disparaged government, sowing public distrust, while working to underfund or eliminate essential social services. This has created massive economic inequity and disenfranchised millions.
Believing they could control him, Republicans embraced candidate Trump, accepting his incompetence, corruption, and disregard for the rule of law, being more focused on power than integrity. In 2020, during the pandemic, the 614 American billionaires increased their net worth by $931B while most Americans suffered. America leads the planet in Covid cases and deaths, due to incompetent federal leadership.
January 6th was the culmination of Republican anti-governmental sentiment when the mob of Trump supporters, incited by his deranged, self-serving lie about a fraudulent election, invaded Congress to stop the peaceful transfer of power. The self-proclaimed patriots were armed, had explosive devices, and were prepared to take hostages. This insurrection was coordinated with actions in thirteen state capitals.
The good news is the attempted coup failed. The legislators and staff were unharmed by the mob. Order was restored later that day, Congress returned to business, and Biden was confirmed as the next president.
The bad news is that five people died, including one policeman. Capitol security was easily overwhelmed, perhaps even complicit in the invasion. Trumps defense department appointees delayed authorizing the Maryland National Guard to enter and restore order. Six Republican Senators and a majority of Republican House members voted to thwart the will of the electorate.
Keep in mind, the core of all this is the big lie that the election was stolen and that violence and opposition to the rule of law was somehow patriotic duty. This lie ignores 60 failed legal challenges, numerous recounts, and the certification by every state governor and secretary of state, a majority Republican-controlled, affirming the election was free and fair. Trump just got fewer votes.
The aftermath is still unfolding. Trump, loyal only to himself, abandoned his supporters and belatedly condemned their actions in a stilted video. The Wall Street Journal and the National Manufacturers Association, among others, have called for Trumps resignation. Pence and the cabinet have been requested to invoke the 25th amendment to immediately remove the president from power, but Pence has gone into hiding and some cabinet members have resigned to avoid the issue. The House has begun presidential impeachment proceedings for sedition and insurrection, which could bar Trump from ever holding public office again. There are calls for resignation, expulsion, or censure of legislators who participated in attempting to thwart the will of the voters. Around the country, prosecution of members of the mob are proceeding, based on selfies, cell phone data and social media videos.
It is understandable that Trump needs to believe in fraud, because he is too mentally damaged to admit that he lost. He should be pitied and given psychological care in a safe environment with no responsibilities. But the sad part is the millions of people who have swallowed the big lie, hook, line and sinker, rather than listening to their inner truth.
What does it mean to be an American? Are rich, white, Christians the only people who count? Or are we truly a land of equal opportunity, open to everyone, without regard to wealth, race, or religion? The mob invaded Congress wrapped in flags and carrying crosses. Republicans with integrity need to call out the autocratic faction that has flourished in their party, and excise it like a cancer. Real Christians, who understand the Golden Rule as the essence of Christs message, need to reclaim the integrity of their religion. It is encouraging to see that this process has begun.
Crispin B. Hollinshead lives in Ukiah. This and previous articles can be found at cbhollinshead.blogspot.com.
See more here:
Posted: at 5:05 am
Dennis Zink| Sarasota Herald-Tribune
Corruption is widespread in business. Some leaders are out-and-out crooks directing malfeasance from the top. More often, employees bend or break rules because those in charge are blind to unethical behavior and may unknowingly encourage it.
So says Harvard Business Review.
A business sector with countless examples of an ethical morass is the automotive industry. Dating from the Ford Pinto era, rear-end collisions often ruptured fuel tanks, resulting in leaking fuel and deadly explosions. Casualties were thought of in terms of a dollar amount to settle lawsuits as a cheaper alternative to fixing the problem. A few years ago General Motors had a massive recall involving faulty ignition parts that was a result of saving pennies at the expense of its reputation and lost lives. Volkswagen cheated on diesel-emissions tests. And in the biggest automotive recall in history, defective Takata airbag inflators in cars made by several manufacturers showed a high risk of killing passengers with pieces of shrapnel.
Sadly, this is only one industry.
The quest for higher profits, conflicts of interest, misguided incentives and coverups of unintended consequences are just some of the reasons business ethics go awry. In the quest for higher profits, cutting corners and other cost savings strategies often backfire and result in the loss of profits and even thedemise of a business.
In a case of the end justifies the means, liar loans were all the rage during the housing boom. Banks and mortgage companies didnt even try to hide it. Government incentives prompted small down payments in an effort to increase home ownership. The ends justified the means until they didnt.
Honesty, perhaps the most important value, is a slippery slope descending into dishonesty through various stages, such as withholding information, telling white lies, using puff or spin, putting lipstick on a pig, exaggeration and understatement, evading or stretching the truth, and outright lying.
Some of my thoughts on business ethics:
Be a good corporate citizen. Social responsibility encourages honesty, dignity, respect and fairness in dealing with your associates, customers and vendors.
Hire ethical people who will do the right thing. The culture of your company should reward safety, diversity, accountability and promote continuous improvement. Culture is made up of the collective behavior of owners, managers and employees.
I am more ethical than you. Surprisingly, employees tend to see themselves as more ethical than anyone else. They see their peers and co-workers on their level as less ethical than themselves. They see those above their level as even less ethical, with ethical standards descending with ascending levels of management.
Personal versus business ethics. As a person, of course, you act ethically. Your company is putting pressure on you to achieve quotas as it relates to sales goals. What are you going to do?
In religion, its the golden rule of reciprocity. Confucius said in 500 B.C., What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.
It all comes down to values. If you go with your gut, you should stay out of trouble. But your business should have a written code of conduct. Ethics is not event oriented, it is value oriented. David Rockefeller said, Honesty in business is non-negotiable. Trust is the foundation of all business success.
The boss. The top dictates the tone on what people say and do in the workplace. Clear and effective company communications are necessary. As the leader, anticipate trouble and be proactive. The best thing a company can do to help it succeed is to take care of its employees and inspire confidence in others.
The greater good. Sometimes there are no good choices. Ask what decision will provide the greatest long-term benefit to the greatest number of people over the long term. Conversely, what decision will do the least harm to the fewest people over the long term.
In the past few decades, there has been a greater emphasis on stressing the importance of ethics education in business. A persons core values are pretty much set by the time they enter the workplace. If you are obeying the laws, following the rules, using your common sense, and going with your gut, then you should be fine. You can always ask people you trust what they would do in a given circumstance.
In summary, business ethics is about how we treat others and how they treat you. Its a two-way street. Most ethical dilemmas are delineated in shades of gray. Try to be aware of your own blind spots.
Finally, if you get the urge to do something questionable because no one will know, remember this: You will know.
Dennis Zink is an Exit Strategist, business analyst and consultant. A Certified Value Builder and SCORE mentor, and the past chapter chair of SCORE Manasota. Dennis created and hosts Been There, Done That! with Dennis Zink, a nationally syndicated business podcast series and SCORE Business TV available at http://www.Time4Exit.com. He facilitates CEO roundtables for the Manatee and Venice chambers of commerce. Dennis led a SCORE team to create the Exit Strategy Canvas and Exit Strategy Roadmap program that provides a real-world methodology for business equity realization. Email him at dennis@Time4Exit.com.
Originally posted here:
Posted: at 5:04 am
news, latest-news, anthony albanese, leadership, tanya plibersek, labor, alp, scott morrison, polling, jim chalmers
If Labor's MPs were dreaming of a magically brighter 2021, it hasn't taken long to come back to reality. At extended Christmas lunches and Boxing Day barbecues, talk would inevitably touch on COVID-19 and Trump, but Labor's woes were never far behind. "Will they stick with Anthony Albanese?" someone might ask - with the kicker, "Should they?" Implicit in such questions is an assumption about impending defeat. With governments dominating the political and economic spheres, these are not times for oppositions. The pandemic rages globally, and despite the development of several vaccine options, international borders will remain firmly closed - possibly into 2022, according to health authorities. And with conditions in the big employment sectors of education, tourism and hospitality still mired in uncertainty, additional targeted government largesse beyond the scheduled JobKeeper end date of March 28 seems certain. That's the power of incumbency. In the months before an expected spring poll, such spending will do the Coalition no harm. Way back in 1986, then-opposition leader John Howard confidently predicted that the times would suit him. But, in a sign of how passive oppositions ultimately are, Howard would first lose the leadership then wait another decade for his time to come. For Albanese, affairs are no more propitious. The penny is dropping within his caucus that the only thing standing between their current third term in opposition and a failure-cementing fourth is several long months of insisting otherwise. Albanese is well liked and respected for his unwavering service to both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, which made him almost unique. But few beyond the leader's office and his closest lieutenants think the NSW stalwart will eat into Scott Morrison's crisis-hardened majority. Not with a primary vote share stuck in the mid-30 per cent range. Many fear a backwards slide despite the Coalition's tin-eared climate denialism, embarrassing toadying towards Trump, ham-fisted management of the China relationship, and long list of ministerial scandals. Even the government's failure to bring stranded Australians home during the corona-crisis has brought little opprobrium. It was the same story last year with Morrison's ill-judged calls for people to head out to the football even while announcing the first tentative crowd bans. Ditto his sustained opposition to school closures and business shutdowns, state border controls, mask-wearing, local movement limits, and his late-March closure of incoming flights - particularly from the US - then the major overseas source of infection. In fact, outside the JobKeeper and JobSeeker spends, for which the Coalition received immediate opposition support, Morrison was either a handbrake or a late convert to measures since credited with driving Australia's infection rate towards zero. Even that goal was pilloried. So, the spin and the substance are some distance apart? That hardly makes Morrison unique. Simply deriding him as "Scotty from marketing" obscures an important political truth: marketing matters. MORE MARK KENNY: This unfashionable PM has proved to be better at the theatre of politics, as the scholar Dr Chris Wallace puts it, having successfully packaged up effective policy under his "national cabinet" brand. As Wallace observed in her 2020 book How to win an Election, "a leader who can do the substance and theatre of politics will beat a competitor who can only do the substance or theatre of politics every time". As an effective piece of political theatre, the national cabinet is pitch-perfect. States have gone along with it because it has served them well too. All three state and territory elections held since COVID-19 have seen incumbent governments returned. WA is next and will surely follow suit. The consensual body's allure is that it replaces politics with problem-solving - tailor-made for Morrison's carefully calibrated presentation as the reassuring non-ideologue, the "can-do" PM. And it has also been useful for facilitating the PM's strategic shimmy out of key federal responsibilities like aged care and the quarantine power, section 51 (IX) of the constitution. I don't run the hotel quarantine, mate. Of course, such cleverness is of limited comfort to the 39,000 Australians desperate to come home (overwhelmingly at their own expense, by the way) but who are barred by their national government's refusal to stand up an adequate quarantine facility. How good is Australian citizenship?! None of this, though, has boosted Labor, prompting discussion of dramatic action such as a switch to a Tanya Plibersek/Jim Chalmers ticket, as leader and deputy respectively. The configuration pairs Left and Right, female and male, NSW and Queensland, and finally, experience and youth. But it also offers the possibility - or is it just hope? - that the personable Plibersek could change the political dynamics, thus wrong-footing the blokey Morrison persona. "It's the zeitgeist," enthused one MP, arguing "there's a bit of [Jacinda] Ardern and a bit of Annastacia [Palaszczuk] about Tanya, and people will listen". "That's where we're failing at the moment; it's no reflection on Anthony, it's just that up against another grey-haired older bloke, people aren't excited enough to change sides". But is it practical? Rule changes forced through by Kevin Rudd certainly made it harder to topple a leader. But a simple caucus majority can rescind that rule - the same majority needed to install a new leader if the intent is there. Other considerations include the transaction costs measurable in voter distaste and internal enmities. Yet proponents say this is overstated, because opposition leaders, unlike PMs, have not enjoyed the perceived imprimatur of voters. The current situation is not unprecedented. In the chapter of her book focusing on the importance of match-ups, Wallace asks the question: "Is the strategy to win the election or hold onto the leadership?" As the 1983 election approached, senior Labor frontbencher John Button presented opposition leader Bill Hayden with a confronting choice. With Bob Hawke circling, Button assured Hayden of his vote in any ballot, but added his view that Hayden might want to consider resigning. Hayden did, and five weeks later Labor began a 13-year stint in power with Hawke at the helm. Could Albanese, perhaps the caucus's pre-eminent loyalist, be similarly persuaded? Not likely, but not unheard of either.
January 23 2021 - 5:26AM
If Labor's MPs were dreaming of a magically brighter 2021, it hasn't taken long to come back to reality.
At extended Christmas lunches and Boxing Day barbecues, talk would inevitably touch on COVID-19 and Trump, but Labor's woes were never far behind.
"Will they stick with Anthony Albanese?" someone might ask - with the kicker, "Should they?"
Implicit in such questions is an assumption about impending defeat.
With governments dominating the political and economic spheres, these are not times for oppositions.
The pandemic rages globally, and despite the development of several vaccine options, international borders will remain firmly closed - possibly into 2022, according to health authorities.
And with conditions in the big employment sectors of education, tourism and hospitality still mired in uncertainty, additional targeted government largesse beyond the scheduled JobKeeper end date of March 28 seems certain.
That's the power of incumbency. In the months before an expected spring poll, such spending will do the Coalition no harm.
Way back in 1986, then-opposition leader John Howard confidently predicted that the times would suit him.
But, in a sign of how passive oppositions ultimately are, Howard would first lose the leadership then wait another decade for his time to come.
For Albanese, affairs are no more propitious.
The penny is dropping within his caucus that the only thing standing between their current third term in opposition and a failure-cementing fourth is several long months of insisting otherwise.
Albanese is well liked and respected for his unwavering service to both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, which made him almost unique.
But few beyond the leader's office and his closest lieutenants think the NSW stalwart will eat into Scott Morrison's crisis-hardened majority.
Not with a primary vote share stuck in the mid-30 per cent range.
Many fear a backwards slide despite the Coalition's tin-eared climate denialism, embarrassing toadying towards Trump, ham-fisted management of the China relationship, and long list of ministerial scandals.
Even the government's failure to bring stranded Australians home during the corona-crisis has brought little opprobrium.
It was the same story last year with Morrison's ill-judged calls for people to head out to the football even while announcing the first tentative crowd bans.
Ditto his sustained opposition to school closures and business shutdowns, state border controls, mask-wearing, local movement limits, and his late-March closure of incoming flights - particularly from the US - then the major overseas source of infection.
In fact, outside the JobKeeper and JobSeeker spends, for which the Coalition received immediate opposition support, Morrison was either a handbrake or a late convert to measures since credited with driving Australia's infection rate towards zero. Even that goal was pilloried.
So, the spin and the substance are some distance apart? That hardly makes Morrison unique.
Simply deriding him as "Scotty from marketing" obscures an important political truth: marketing matters.
This unfashionable PM has proved to be better at the theatre of politics, as the scholar Dr Chris Wallace puts it, having successfully packaged up effective policy under his "national cabinet" brand.
As Wallace observed in her 2020 book How to win an Election, "a leader who can do the substance and theatre of politics will beat a competitor who can only do the substance or theatre of politics every time".
As an effective piece of political theatre, the national cabinet is pitch-perfect.
States have gone along with it because it has served them well too. All three state and territory elections held since COVID-19 have seen incumbent governments returned. WA is next and will surely follow suit.
The consensual body's allure is that it replaces politics with problem-solving - tailor-made for Morrison's carefully calibrated presentation as the reassuring non-ideologue, the "can-do" PM.
And it has also been useful for facilitating the PM's strategic shimmy out of key federal responsibilities like aged care and the quarantine power, section 51 (IX) of the constitution.
I don't run the hotel quarantine, mate.
Of course, such cleverness is of limited comfort to the 39,000 Australians desperate to come home (overwhelmingly at their own expense, by the way) but who are barred by their national government's refusal to stand up an adequate quarantine facility.
How good is Australian citizenship?!
None of this, though, has boosted Labor, prompting discussion of dramatic action such as a switch to a Tanya Plibersek/Jim Chalmers ticket, as leader and deputy respectively.
The configuration pairs Left and Right, female and male, NSW and Queensland, and finally, experience and youth.
But it also offers the possibility - or is it just hope? - that the personable Plibersek could change the political dynamics, thus wrong-footing the blokey Morrison persona.
Tanya Plibersek is the name being thrown around as a potential successor to Albanese. Picture: Sitthixay Ditthavong
"It's the zeitgeist," enthused one MP, arguing "there's a bit of [Jacinda] Ardern and a bit of Annastacia [Palaszczuk] about Tanya, and people will listen".
"That's where we're failing at the moment; it's no reflection on Anthony, it's just that up against another grey-haired older bloke, people aren't excited enough to change sides".
Rule changes forced through by Kevin Rudd certainly made it harder to topple a leader. But a simple caucus majority can rescind that rule - the same majority needed to install a new leader if the intent is there.
Other considerations include the transaction costs measurable in voter distaste and internal enmities. Yet proponents say this is overstated, because opposition leaders, unlike PMs, have not enjoyed the perceived imprimatur of voters.
The current situation is not unprecedented.
In the chapter of her book focusing on the importance of match-ups, Wallace asks the question: "Is the strategy to win the election or hold onto the leadership?"
As the 1983 election approached, senior Labor frontbencher John Button presented opposition leader Bill Hayden with a confronting choice.
With Bob Hawke circling, Button assured Hayden of his vote in any ballot, but added his view that Hayden might want to consider resigning.
Hayden did, and five weeks later Labor began a 13-year stint in power with Hawke at the helm.
Could Albanese, perhaps the caucus's pre-eminent loyalist, be similarly persuaded?
Not likely, but not unheard of either.
Read more from the original source:
Posted: at 5:03 am
On Jan. 6, the white nationalist group Proud Boys assembled near the White House, bowed in prayer. Other supporters of President Donald Trump in combat gear or T-shirts saying God, guns and Trump milled about. Not long afterward, they stormed the Capitol building in an insurrection that left five people dead. Crosses, images of Trump as Jesus, and a banner reading Jesus 2020 appeared in the mob.
Violence is a long thread in American religious history. It goes back to the separatists landing in Massachusetts and the treatment of slaves brought to Virginia, the Salem witch trials, and the lynch mobs in the South that burned crosses.
Before the Gutenburg Bible put scripture into the hands of laymen, the Roman Catholic hierarchy controlled interpretation of Christian scriptures. The Protestant Reformation came about when Christians could read scripture themselves, and their varied understandings resulted in a wide spectrum of religious interpretations. Beliefs already held could be supported by texts or theories often taken out of context. This is called confirmation bias.
Once formed, such beliefs seem immune to evidence that would disprove them. Those who justified violence or cruelty with biblical references did so with certainty of their own righteousness.
Such was the case with slavery. Christians in the American South argued that biblical accounts of slavery in the Roman Empire and ancient Near East were never denounced as sinful. They also saw separation of ancient tribes as racial hierarchy, with whites at the top. Specific passages also pegged women and children as subordinate to men, and the obedience called for in the Bible required tolerance for violent acts. Pre-Civil War interpretation of biblically supported racial and gender inequality created schisms within Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian groups. Although they didnt subscribe to these interpretations, Northern evangelicals did little to stop them. Nor did emancipation.
But to paint all evangelicals with the same brush would be to deny history. The Second Great Awakening, which began in the 1820s, ushered in progressive evangelism which emphasized charity and moral conduct. The Black evangelicals, from whose churches spokesmen such as James Baldwin, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the late congressman John Lewis emerged, encouraged nonviolent action in service of justice and equality. They were disregarded by their white counterparts.
Sociologist Emile Durkheim posited that religion reflects, rather than shapes, the norms and values of a society. If this is so, backlash to the social, political and cultural upheavals of the late 1960s may explain the shift in evangelicals beliefs, away from a social gospel and toward alliances that created a political force that ultimately spawned todays subset of true believers: the Christian nationalist movement proclaiming itself to be the army of God.
Randall Balmer, professor of religion at Dartmouth College, said, Although abortion had emerged as a rallying cry by 1980, the real roots of the religious right lie not in the defense of a fetus, but in the defense of racial segregation.
Evangelical families educated their children in private, all-white schools, and kept them close to the church through the tumultuous Vietnam War and Civil Rights protests. But as these young people became adults, many moved away from the faith. Conservative church leaders needed a rallying cry to keep members in the fold. A 1969 lawsuit against an all-white Christian school in Holmes County, Mississippi, was settled in 1971, when Green v. Connally resulted in the decision to rescind tax exemptions for whites-only private schools.
Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, saw this as an issue that could tap into the belief that racial and gender hierarchies were biblically prescribed. In itself, this issue did not gain traction. When Bob Jones University lost its tax exemption in 1976, Weyrich and Jerry Falwell shifted the emphasis from race to religious freedom.
It was then that they attached their racial argument to another issue many congregants had ignored, or accepted quietly: abortion. Although in 1971, the South Bay Convention had come out in support of the Roe v. Wade court decision, opposition to abortion was pushed by the emergent Moral Majority, which made itself a political force during the Reagan years.
As the religious right became politicized, its views hardened. Not far below the surface, the old opposition to integration and racial justice made its way into legislatures and boardrooms. By their silence, moderate evangelicals enabled this rightward shift. The rapid growth of independent megachurches reinforced a move away from main line evangelical restraint.
It was only a matter of time before an opportunistic grifter came along to take advantage of a ready-made constituency. Donald J. Trump was never particularly religious. His reputation as a showman, womanizer, and shady real estate developer should have made him a non-starter for the 2015 Republican presidential nomination. But he saw how President Reagan had shifted his views to accommodate religious leaders, and made a similarly successful move. Promising morality and an anti-abortion Supreme Court, Trump took over the Republican Party and the country.
His rhetoric from the start appealed to those who saw violence as a reinforcement of the male-dominated white hierarchy that seemed to be slipping away since the 1960s, and his stance in favor of religious liberty and against abortion won the approval of a wider religious constituency. Again, the political zeitgeist determined their articles of faith. A relative posted on Facebook a scriptural passage she claimed predicted Trumps arrival as a God-given savior of immoral America. Such parsing of the Bible is common.
When flash-bangs, tear gas, and mounted police dispersed peaceful Black Lives Matter demonstrators on June 1, 2020, the photo-op of President Trump, Bible in hand, was a signal to those who believe white supremacy to be a biblical given. His smirk told them, Im with you. As Ed Setzer of Wheaton College said in USA Today, The evangelical movement has failed to connect [its] mission to justice and politics.
Instead, its spawned Christian nationalism, which sees religious pluralism and social equality as satanic. With this view, attachment to conspiracy theories from the likes of QAnon came easily.
Andrew Whitehead, a sociologist at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis says that the strange mix of religion, violence and politics seen at the Capitol must be understood through the lens of Christian nationalism, which preached Stop the Steal from pulpits after Trump lost the 2020 popular and electoral votes.
Not until the dangerous tangle of moral certitude, far-right militarism, and resistance to an evolving social order is unraveled will conspiracy theories and racial division lose their appeal to churchgoers, even those who never intend to take to the streets with long guns.
As long as their tacit approval allows disruption of civic life in America, they will hear inciting messages from the pulpit. That, I believe, is reason for a long look at the threat they pose, and reconsideration of their tax exempt status.
Posted: at 5:03 am
Netflixs Bridgerton," COVID-19, prints from the 1970s and climate change may seem unrelated, but they all have at least one thing in common fashion.
As people hone in on their New Years resolutions, fashion designers, retailers, students and scholars are at work predicting what trends will define 2021. While no one can predict the future, plenty of people have already started forecasting fashion trends for this year.
Monica Sklar, a fashion professor at the University of Georgia, said trends start when influential communities such as schools, subcultures or social media groups initiate a new style. Trends dont always take off in order to, they need to be a part of the cultural zeitgeist, she said.
The whole idea of [the zeitgeist] is, What's the cultural view of the time? and What's happening right now that everybody's feeling it in their gut ... in the way that they live their lives ... in their actions day-to-day? Sklar said.
Once a trend is determined, some styles can prove to be influential throughout the ages.
Loretta Paluck, owner of Dynamite Clothing, said in an email that trends from the 1990s like oversized t-shirts, sweatshirts and vintage denim were popular in 2020. She expects the popularity of 90s apparel to continue into the new year with a mix of personality and splash of individuality, she said.
While styles from previous decades can help dictate the fashion status quo, current events also have an undeniable impact on whats trending. Mentally revisiting some 2020 events might be undesirable, but COVID-19, political and economic uncertainty and the Black Lives Matter movement all had a significant impact on the fashion industry last year.
Bridget Helms, senior fashion merchandising major and the president of the Student Merchandising Association, said she noticed the impacts of the pandemic in 2020 trends, such as athleisure and sweatsuits.
In agreement, Helen Majano, senior fashion merchandising major and the head stylist for the Student Merchandising Association, said athleisure paired with Zoom tops an extravagant top paired with sweatpants or leggings had its moment in 2020.
Pop culture can also impact the fashion world. Bridgerton, the Jane Austen meets Gossip Girl Netflix series, has been causing a stir in the words of entertainment and fashion. Helms recently finished the series, and she thinks it will have a significant impact on the trends in the new year.
I've seen a huge following of [Bridgerton] and people wanting to bring corsets back, and its actually on the list for new trends, Helms said.
Helms said in addition to corsets, she expects to see other lingerie-style tops styled over white button-down shirts and dresses in 2021. Other trends like white knee-high boots, pastel colors and bold prints will also be in this year, she said.
In fashion, the pendulum swings from dress-up moments to dress-down moments, Sklar said. Prior to the pandemic, fashion was in a dress-down moment, which helped make the transition to lockdown and working from home easier, she said. After the pandemic, some wonder if fashion will enter a dress-up moment.
Majano predicts that 2021 will bring extravagant trends such as big coats, fringe, exaggerated silhouettes and disco styles. Helms also said that she thinks people might become bolder with their styles after getting to leave the house more in 2021.
People are bored in the house and getting creative. They're putting together outfits that they never would have just to make a statement because now your outfit really shows your personality, Helms said.
The environmental impact of fast fashion will also play a role in shaping the fashion industry this year, as consumers choose to shop local, shop small and shop secondhand for clothing.
Sustainable fashion brands like Paloma Wool and House of Sunny have been on the rise, Majano said. Additionally, Helms said shes been noticing smaller businesses, such as Etsy shops, gain popularity as they use social media like TikTok to promote their designs.
Vintage shopping also continues to be a popular way of buying clothes sustainably. Paluck said in the last year shes noticed her customers become more aware of the importance of sustainable fashion. In addition to being more sustainable than fast-fashion, vintage shopping allows customers to find one-of-a-kind pieces as opposed to cookie-cutter fashion, she said.
Read more here:
Posted: at 5:03 am
PLEASE NOTE: This forecast, assembled by The Hollywood Reporter's awards columnist Scott Feinberg, reflects his best attempt to predict the behavior of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, not his personal preferences. He arrives at these standings by drawing upon consultations with voters and awards strategists, analysis of marketing and awards campaigns, results of awards ceremonies that precede the Oscars, and the history of the Oscars ceremony itself. There will be regular updates to reflect new developments.
FrontrunnersNomadland (Searchlight)The Trial of the Chicago 7 (Netflix)Promising Young Woman (Focus)Minari (A24)Sound of Metal (Amazon)One Night in Miami (Amazon)Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (Netflix)Mank (Netflix)Soul (Pixar)Da 5 Bloods (Netflix)
Major Threats The Father (Sony Classics)News of the World (Universal)Tenet (Warner Bros.) Judas and the Black Messiah (Warner Bros.)
PossibilitiesBorat Subsequent Moviefilm (Amazon)The Midnight Sky (Netflix)The Way Back (Warner Bros.)Malcolm & Marie (Netflix)
Long Shots Never Rarely Sometimes Always (Focus)Palm Springs (Hulu/Neon)The Invisible Man (Universal)
Still to See or Embargoed (alphabetically)Another Round (Samuel Goldwyn Films)Cherry (Apple TV+)Let Him Go (Focus)The Little Things (Warner Bros.)The United States vs. Billie Holiday (Paramount)
FrontrunnersChlo Zhao (Nomadland)Aaron Sorkin (The Trial of the Chicago 7) podcastEmerald Fennell (Promising Young Woman)Lee Isaac Chung (Minari)Darius Marder (Sound of Metal)
Major ThreatsRegina King (One Night in Miami) podcastDavid Fincher (Mank)Spike Lee (Da 5 Bloods) podcast
Possibilities Paul Greengrass (News of the World)Christopher Nolan (Tenet)George C. Wolfe (Ma Rainey's Black Bottom)
Long ShotsFlorian Zeller (The Father)Pete Docter & Kemp Powers (Soul)George Clooney (The Midnight Sky) podcast
Still to See or Embargoed (alphabetically)Lee Daniels (The United States vs. Billie Holiday)Heidi Ewing (I Carry You With Me)John Lee Hancock (The Little Things)Anthony Russo & Joe Russo (Cherry)Thomas Vinterberg (Another Round)
FrontrunnersChadwick Boseman (Ma Rainey's Black Bottom) podcastRiz Ahmed (Sound of Metal) podcastDelroy Lindo (Da 5 Bloods) podcastAnthony Hopkins (The Father)Ben Affleck (The Way Back) podcast
Major ThreatsSteven Yeun (Minari) podcastGary Oldman (Mank)Tom Hanks (News of the World) podcast [one and two]John David Washington (Malcolm & Marie)
PossibilitiesSacha Baron Cohen (Borat Subsequent Moviefilm) podcastKingsley Ben-Adir (One Night in Miami)Eli Goree (One Night in Miami)
Long ShotsLaKeith Stanfield (Judas and the Black Messiah)George Clooney (The Midnight Sky) podcastTahar Rahim (The Mauritanian)
Still to See or Embargoed (alphabetically)Kevin Costner (Let Him Go)Tom Holland (Cherry)Jude Law (The Nest)John Magaro (First Cow)Mads Mikkelsen (Another Round)Trevante Rhodes (The United States vs. Billie Holiday)Justin Timberlake (Palmer)Denzel Washington (The Little Things) podcast
FrontrunnersFrances McDormand (Nomadland)Carey Mulligan (Promising Young Woman) podcastViola Davis (Ma Rainey's Black Bottom)Sophia Loren (The Life Ahead) podcastZendaya (Malcolm & Marie)
Major ThreatsVanessa Kirby (Pieces of a Woman)Meryl Streep (The Prom) podcastMeryl Streep (Let Them All Talk) podcastYeri Han (Minari)
PossibilitiesSidney Flanigan (Never Rarely Sometimes Always)Kate Winslet (Ammonite) podcast [one and two]Michelle Pfeiffer (French Exit) podcast
Long ShotsRachel Brosnahan (I'm Your Woman) podcastElisabeth Moss (The Invisible Man) podcastJulia Garner (The Assistant) podcast
Still to See or Embargoed (alphabetically)Nicole Beharie (Miss Juneteenth)Haley Bennett (Swallow)Carrie Coon (The Nest)Andra Day (The United States vs. Billie Holiday)Clare Dunne (Herself)Diane Lane (Let Him Go)Rosamund Pike (I Care a Lot)Eliza Scanlen (Babyteeth)Robin Wright (Land)
*BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR*
FrontrunnersChadwick Boseman (Da 5 Bloods) podcastSacha Baron Cohen (The Trial of the Chicago 7) podcastLeslie Odom Jr. (One Night in Miami) podcastPaul Raci (Sound of Metal)Daniel Kaluuya (Judas and the Black Messiah)
Major ThreatsDavid Strathairn (Nomadland)Mark Rylance (The Trial of the Chicago 7)Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (The Trial of the Chicago 7)Frank Langella (The Trial of the Chicago 7)
Possibilities Aldis Hodge (One Night in Miami)Bo Burnham (Promising Young Woman) podcastBill Murray (On the Rocks)
Long Shots Will Patton (Minari)Eddie Redmayne (The Trial of the Chicago 7) podcastGlynn Turman (Ma Rainey's Black Bottom)
Still to See or Embargoed (alphabetically)Demian Bichir (Land)Jared Leto (The Little Things)Rami Malek (The Little Things) podcastStanley Tucci (Supernova)
*BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS*
FrontrunnersMaria Bakalova (Borat Subsequent Moviefilm)Youn Yuh-jung (Minari)Amanda Seyfried (Mank) podcastOlivia Cooke (Sound of Metal)Ellen Burstyn (Pieces of a Woman)
Major ThreatsOlivia Colman (The Father) podcastJodie Foster (The Mauritanian)Candice Bergen (Let Them All Talk)
PossibilitiesHelena Zengel (News of the World)Dominique Fishback (Judas and the Black Messiah)Saoirse Ronan (Ammonite) podcast
Long ShotsGlenn Close (Hillbilly Elegy) podcastTalia Ryder (Never Rarely Sometimes Always)
Still to See or Embargoed (alphabetically)Ciara Bravo (Cherry)Vanessa Kirby (The World to Come)Natasha Lyonne (The United States vs. Billie Holiday)Da'Vine Joy Randolph (The United States vs. Billie Holiday)
*BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY*
FrontrunnersNomadland (Chlo Zhao)One Night in Miami (Kemp Powers)The Father (Christopher Hampton & Florian Zeller)Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (Ruben Santiago-Hudson)News of the World (Luke Davies & Paul Greengrass)
Major ThreatsThe Life Ahead (Edoardo Ponti)I'm Thinking of Ending Things (Charlie Kaufman) podcastThe Midnight Sky (Mark L. Smith)
PossibilitiesBorat Subsequent Moviefilm (Peter Baynham, Sacha Baron Cohen, Jena Friedman, Anthony Hines, Lee Kern, Dan Mazer, Erica Rivinoja & Dan Swimer) podcast [Cohen]The Personal History of David Copperfield (Armando Iannucci)
Long ShotsShirley (Sarah Gibbons)Emma. (Eleanor Catton)
Still to See or Embargoed (alphabetically)Cherry (Jessica Goldberg & Angela Russo-Otstot)First Cow (Jonathan Raymond & Kelly Reichardt)Let Him Go (Thomas Bezucha)The United States vs. Billie Holiday (Suzan-Lori Parks)The World to Come (Ron Hansen & Jim Shepard)
*BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY*
FrontrunnersThe Trial of the Chicago 7 (Aaron Sorkin) podcastPromising Young Woman (Emerald Fennell)Minari (Lee Isaac Chung)Sound of Metal (Derek Cianfrance, Abraham Marder & Darius Marder)Soul (Pete Docter, Mike Jones & Kemp Powers)
Major ThreatsMank (Jack Fincher)Da 5 Bloods (Danny Bilson, Paul De Meo, Kevin Willmott & Spike Lee) podcast [Lee]Malcolm & Marie (Sam Levinson)The Forty-Year-Old Version (Radha Blank)
PossibilitiesJudas and the Black Messiah (Will Berson, Shaka King, Keith Lucas & Kenny Lucas)Never Rarely Sometimes Always (Eliza Hittman)Palm Springs (Andy Siara) On the Rocks (Sofia Coppola)
Long ShotsI'm Your Woman (Julia Hart & Jordan Horowitz)Ammonite (Francis Lee)Tenet (Christopher Nolan)
Still to See or Embargoed (alphabetically)Herself (Malcolm Campbell & Clare Dunne)Land (Jesse Chatham & Erin Dignam)The Little Things (John Lee Hancock)Miss Juneteenth (Channing Godfrey Peoples)
*BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE*
FrontrunnersCrip Camp (Netflix)Time (Amazon)Collective (Magnolia/Participant)Welcome to Chechnya (HBO)The Truffle Hunters (Sony Classics)
Rest of ShortlistDick Johnson Is Dead (Netflix)The Dissident (Briarcliff) podcast [Bryan Fogel]MLK/FBI (IFC)City Hall (Zipporah) podcast [Frederick Wiseman]Boys State (Apple)On the Record (HBO Max)The Social Dilemma (Netflix)My Octopus Teacher (Netflix)The Mole Agent (Gravitas)Notturno (Super LTD)
PossibilitiesThe Way I See It (Focus)Acasa, My Home (Kino Lorber/Zeitgeist)John Lewis: Good Trouble (Magnolia/Participant)Totally Under Control (Neon) podcast [Alex Gibney]All In: The Fight for Democracy (Amazon)The Human Factor (Sony Classics)I Am Greta (Hulu)Kingdom of Silence (Showtime)The Fight (Magnolia/Topic)Athlete A (Netflix)Rebuilding Paradise (Nat Geo) podcast [Ron Howard]
Long ShotsBe Water (ESPN) Giving Voice (Netflix)I Am Not Alone (self-distributed)Searching for Mr. Rugoff (still seeking U.S. distribution)Miss Americana (Netflix)Kiss the Ground (self-distributed)Dear Mr. Brody (still seeking U.S. distribution)Oliver Sacks: His Own Life (Zeitgeist)Mucho Mucho Amor: The Legend of Walter Mercado (Netflix) podcast [Cristina Costantini]A Secret Love (Netflix)Circus of Books (Netflix)
Still to See or Embargoed (alphabetically)40 Years a Prisoner (HBO)76 Days (MTV)Apocalypse '45 (Discovery)Assassins (Greenwich)Babenco: Tell Me When I Die (still seeking U.S. distribution)Beautiful Something Left Behind (MTV)Belly of the Beast (PBS)Belushi (Showtime)Coded Bias (PBS Independent Lens)Crock of Gold (Magnolia)The Crying Steppe (Kazakhstan)Desert One (Greenwich)Disclosure (Netflix)The Earth Is Blue as an Orange (still seeking U.S. distribution)Father Soldier Son (Netflix)Feels Good Man (Wavelength Productions/PBS Independent Lens)Finding Yingying (MTV)Fireball: Visitor from Darker Worlds (Apple TV+)The Forbidden Reel (still seeking U.S. distribution)The Go-Go's (Showtime)Gunda (Neon)I Walk on Water (Grasshopper)Mayor (Film Movement)Me and the Cult Leader (still seeking U.S. distribution)The Metamorphosis of Birds (still seeking U.S. distribution)A Most Beautiful Thing (still seeking U.S. distribution)Mr. SOUL! (self-distributed)My Psychedelic Love Story (Showtime)Napoli Eden (still seeking U.S. distribution)Nasrin (Virgil Films & Entertainment)Olympia (still seeking U.S. distribution)Once Upon a Time in Venezuela (Topic)The Painter and the Thief (Neon)The Reason I Jump (Kino Lorber)Reunited (still seeking U.S. distribution)Rewind (Grizzly Creek)Rising Phoenix (Netflix)Softie (Icarus)Stars and Strife (Virgil Films & Entertainment)The State of Texas vs. Melissa (Filmrise)Stray (Magnolia)A Thousand Cuts (PBS)'Til Kingdom Come (Abramorama)To See You Again (still seeking U.S. distribution)Transhood (HBO)Unapologetic (still seeking U.S. distribution)The Viewing Booth (Roco)Vivos (still seeking U.S. distribution)Wild Daze (Cinedigm)Wintopia (still seeking U.S. distribution)With Drawn Arms (Starz)Zappa (Magnolia)
*BEST INTERNATIONAL FEATURE*
FrontrunnersAnother Round (Denmark)Collective (Romania)I'm No Longer Here (Mexico)Two of Us (France)Dear Comrades! (Russia)
Rest of ShortlistNight of the Kings (Ivory Coast)My Little Sister (Switzerland)Apples (Greece)Quo Vadis, Aida? (Bosnia and Herzegovina)Charlatan (Czech Republic)Notturno (Italy)La Llorona (Guatemala)A Sun (Taiwan)The Mole Agent (Chile)Sun Children (Iran)
Other Official Submissions (alphabetical)14 Days, 12 Nights (Canada)Agnes Joy (Iceland)And Tomorrow the Entire World (Germany)Arracht (Ireland)Asia (Israel)Atlantis (Ukraine)The Auschwitz Report (Slovakia)Babenco: Tell Me When I Die (Brazil)Beginning (Georgia)Better Days (Hong Kong)Blizzard of Souls (Latvia)Broken Keys (Lebanon)Bulado (Netherlands)Causa Justa (Panama)Charter (Sweden)The Crying Steppe (Kazakhstan)Dara of Jasenovac (Serbia)Emptiness (Ecuador)The Endless Trench (Spain)Exile (Kosovo)Extracurricular (Croatia)The Father (Bulgaria)Gaza Mon Amour (Palestine)Heliopolis (Algeria)Hope (Norway)Impetigore (Indonesia)Jallikattu (India)Land of Ashes (Costa Rica)The Last Ones (Estonia)Leap (China)The Letter (Kenya)Lunana a Yak in the Classroom (Bhutan)The Man Standing Next (South Korea)The Man Who Sold His Skin (Tunisia)Mindanao (Philippines)Miracle in Cell No. 7 (Turkey)Nafi's Father (Senegal)Never Gonna Snow Again (Poland)Nova Lituania (Lithuania)Once Upon a Time in Venezuela (Venezuela)Open Door (Albania)Preparations to Be Together for an Unknown Period of Time (Hungary)River Tales (Luxembourg)Roh (Malaysia)The Sleepwalkers (Argentina)Song Without a Name (Peru)Songs of Solomon (Armenia)Stories From the Chestnut Woods (Slovenia)This Is Not a Burial (Lesotho)Tove (Finland)True Mothers (Japan)Vitalina Varela (Portugal)What We Wanted (Austria)Willow (North Macedonia)Working Girls (Belgium)You Will Die at 20 (Sudan)
Continue reading here: