richardmurray

@Troy
I like the fact that the bill realizes that the problem the descendent of enslaved have transcends the usa. One of the problems with reparations as an issue is many can't accept that reparations is beyond the usa, it is truly about the relationship between blacks and whites in the american continent. A relationship that is historically far worse than negative. 

My only issue with the bill is , it sadly isn't needed. I have thought about reparations for a while and it occurs to me that if you look at the DOS community from a what happened and what needs to be undone perspective, no study is needed.

What happened? 

DOSers ancestors were ripped from their homes and forced to be part of another community and said ancestors descendents from the 13 colonies  to today live absent a choice for the most part in the community, the usa or the 13 colonies that preceded it,  that their forebears were forced to be a part of.  That is the simple truth of DOS history. So, that is what happened.

How do you undo that? 

Simple, DOSers need a new land all to themselves to replace the lands they were ripped from, and they need resources to build up that land reciprocating all the resources their forebears of themselves provided to make the 13 colonies and the usa what they were.

The problem is, no where on earth is uninhabited . so at least 15,000,000 people will cause chaos by default wherever they go. Exhibit a is israel. at the end of the day, the idea was tried out there and look at palestine, it is a never ending negative situation. Yes, israel has alliances but the palestineans have not forgotten and the situation is simply a blood feud, that will only end when the palestinean or the israeli are gone. DOSers will simply be another israeli group. 

The only internal black problem with reparations is something the prior commentors allude to, correctly, but they don't say straightly. White European power forced Black  African people to be part of the 13 colonies or the usa. But said power occurred for so long, many, not most , but many black people have accepted the usa side the whites in it.  Sequentially, those blacks don't need reparations. Do you comprehend Troy? 

It is historical fact that most free blacks and 99% of the enslaved blacks when the usa was founded didn't want the usa founded or wanted out of the usa. It is historical fact that it was true during the war of 1812 and up to the war between the states. It was during the war between the states that a significant percentage of black DOSers started claiming the usa as their home, and from said war between the states to 2023, the percentage of pro usa+ pro white blacks has grown.

The problem is, reparations at its heart has to be a big middle finger to the usa or the whites in it. But it offers a strong cultural question.

DOSers who have accepted the usa, the black immigrants in modernity who come from all over the world to be part of the usa. the non black immigrants who like the black immigrants come from all over the world to be part of the usa, the WASP enslavers descedants who made the usa,killed the native american and enslaved the black dosers for their usa all have a belief in the usa. A love for it. Reparations at its heart is a dislike/hatred of the usa being provided by the usa itself. And that is why the reparations issue has no traction. As an issue it spits in the face of so many in the usa who love the usa, feel its better, feel it warrants a chance, and again, reparations at its heart is DOSers saying, the usa isn't enough, it isn't wanted. 

And again, I want it comprehended or said in this forum, the Black DOS communities modern relationship to the usa is modern. It really isn't historical in the 13 colonies or the usa itself. When black people talk about forebears fighting to vote, they seem to forget more of their forebears fought to simply kill whites or leave the usa and many of them dreamed more than anything. I paraphrase james baldwin: his father in the black church of his youth hated whites. Many black DOSers have similar stories but we rarely say it in white owned media as we are ashamed or we just don't want the hassle of talking about it. 

So I conclude with a simple restatement. 

Reparations involves Black people's relationship with whites from the 13 colonies to modern usa. But it doesn't need a study. It is an issue that needed to happen in the past, but modern usa wealth doesn't happen if reparations happened in the past. Sequentially, most in modern usa, can't accept the fundamental point of reparations, which garvey best comprehended, that many and I daresay most Black DOSers don't like the usa or the whites <wasp/white asians/white latinos/white arabs/white muslims  white women or similar> in it.  So, reparations is warranted or needed but is contrapose to various communities relationship to the usa, including a large percentage of Black DOSers themselves. 

 

 

Attending to a patient at the severe burns unit.Credit...Zied Ben Romdhane for The New York Times

In a Hospital Ward, the Wounds of a Failed Democracy Don’t Heal
Tunisia’s road to democracy began with a self-immolation, and such cases have filled hospital burn wards ever since, as elected leaders failed to deliver on a promise of prosperity.

By Vivian Yee
Vivian Yee, who covers North Africa for The Times, spent a week at the Trauma and Severe Burns Hospital in Ben Arous, near the Tunisian capital, where she watched doctors carry out their work.

Jan. 3, 2023
The most troublesome patient in the hospital’s severe burns unit was refusing to let the orderlies change the bandages that had encased him since he set himself on fire three months earlier, so Dr. Imen Jami burst into his room, her habitually knit brows drawn as tight as they would go, her lips pressed together in a magenta line.

“Look, I have someone in a coma, and I have no time,” she told the young man. “The final word is that you’ll get on the bed and change your bandages.”

“I’m so tired,” he moaned.

“You’re really not going to have them changed?” she said, looming over him.

“No, I will,” he said, quailing.

The doctor had seen this before: Tunisians who set themselves on fire in the throes of desperation often had little interest in recovering. Unable to support their families in a country that was coming apart, they had only the same old futility waiting for them back home.

In a sense, Tunisia’s 2010 revolution — and the wave of Arab Spring uprisings it inspired — began in this hospital burn ward near the capital, Tunis, and sometimes it seems as if its dying breaths are being taken there, too.

A decade ago, the Trauma and Severe Burns Hospital treated Mohamed Bouazizi, the 26-year-old fruit seller whose self-immolation came to stand for the rage that brought down a dictator and launched a democracy. Now it houses self-immolation patients whose own acts of protest changed nothing, and a host of doctors trying to escape. The country’s collective despair was so great that Tunisians turned once again to the one-man rule they had fought so fiercely to overthrow just a decade ago.

All the while, Dr. Jami had been there on the fourth floor.

She was there in the waning days of 2010, when Mr. Bouazizi was brought into the ward in critical condition, and there when the former dictator, President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, came to pose for a picture at his bedside in an unconvincing attempt to show the public that he cared. Less than three weeks later, on Jan. 4, 2011, Mr. Bouazizi was dead.

She was there in the days that followed, when a surge of young men from around the country inundated the hospital after their own copycat self-immolations.

Outside the walls of the hospital in the Tunis suburb of Ben Arous, Mr. Bouazizi’s death was galvanizing Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution. “Jobs, freedom, dignity,” protesters chanted, and soon the revolt spread from young, struggling men like Mr. Bouazizi to all kinds of Tunisians. By Jan. 14, 2011, Mr. Ben Ali had fled the country, and Tunisia’s uprising had set off others across the region.

The others ended in bloodshed. But for a while, it seemed, democracy was blooming in Tunisia — the Arab Spring’s last great hope. Yet even as Tunisians’ freedoms multiplied, bread got harder to afford, and democracy itself started to seem undignified.

The old regime’s crimes went largely unpunished. Parliament deadlocked. Corruption spread. Unemployment rose. Poverty deepened. Buffeted by inexperience, infighting and bad luck, 10 prime ministers in 10 years failed to make urgent economic changes.

The post-revolution government was dominated by an Islamist party, Ennahda, and religious-secular divisions polarized a society unsure about whether politicians who wanted to govern according to Islamic principles belonged in a democracy at all.

During what Tunisians called the “black decade” after the revolution, the Bouazizi copycats arrived at the hospital by the hundreds. A relative rarity before the revolution, the act of self-immolation soon accounted for a fifth of the burn ward’s cases.

Then, in 2019, Kais Saied — an austere constitutional law professor — was elected president. Harnessing Tunisians’ rage and regret over the revolution, he suspended Parliament in July 2021, sidelined political parties, undercut civil liberties and embraced one-man rule, all but burying the country’s brief experiment with democracy.

And many Tunisians cheered.

People like Dr. Jami and many of her colleagues wanted rescuing, and after a decade of watching elected leaders fumble, they had not seen a better candidate for savior than Mr. Saied.

More than a year after his election, however, the president had been unable to do much about the foundering economy, the soaring prices or the lack of decent jobs. Which was why an estimated 15,400 Tunisians boarded rickety boats bound for Europe last year, only for at least 570 of them to drown, and part of why young men kept setting themselves on fire.

In Tunisia, illegal migration to Europe by boat was called the “harga.” The word translated, literally, to “burning.”

On the burn ward, all the doctors raised their voices so patients could hear them through the thick layers of white bandages that shrouded their heads, but Dr. Jami was loudest of all. Her “good mornings” were trumpet blasts, her entrances laughter and thunder; she could get a roomful of staff laughing with a single line, or upend it with demands for help, now.

The daughter of a nurse, Dr. Jami had studied medicine because it was her father’s dream for her, joining the burn unit soon after it opened in 2008.

She and her office mate, a fellow general practitioner, Behija Gasri, had spent five days straight in the ward during the revolution, changing diapers and mopping hallways themselves because no one else could reach the hospital. So many self-immolation cases were brought in that they ran out of beds and started putting patients on chairs.

Chaos and upheaval: That was all the revolution had brought her, she often thought.

In the decade that followed, most of Tunisia’s self-immolation cases were brought to this hospital, North Africa’s premier burn treatment center, their numbers growing just as the medical staff caring for them shrank. The increasingly bleak economy had pushed thousands of Tunisian doctors to leave the country for better opportunities abroad, including half the burn unit’s senior specialists, and now there was far more work and far less money for the ones who had stayed behind.

But Dr. Jami and Dr. Gasri were still here, even if survival and resilience in the face of adversity, it often seemed, had earned them little more than the chance to survive yet more adversity.

Doing the rounds of their patients every morning in early October, the gaggle of doctors in scrubs and rubber clogs — many of them women, most of them bespectacled, and all of them tired — tended to pass the self-immolation patient’s room without comment.

Day after day, he lay in the dark as the small TV on the wall cast ghostly light on his face, curling and uncurling the unbandaged fingers on his right hand.

Changing his bandages was always an ordeal. When orderlies wheeled him back to his room after Dr. Jami’s scolding, he was groaning in pain.

“Slowly, slowly!” he shouted as they shifted him back onto the bed. This time, Dr. Jami’s office mate, Dr. Gasri, was there to greet him. She spoke softly.

“Help us help you get better soon,” she said.

He said nothing, except to ask a nurse for a new diaper.

Dr. Gasri had the graven, planed face of a Byzantine mosaic saint, the impression of piety reinforced by a daily uniform of white head scarf and white coat. More than a head shorter than Dr. Jami, she moved quietly down hallways where her office mate whirled and strode.

During morning rounds, Dr. Jami massaged Dr. Gasri’s shoulders, patted upper arms in apology as she squeezed past the nurses, whispered jokes in people’s ears. She blew brusque little kisses in greeting, thanks and farewell. Dr. Gasri just smiled.

When Dr. Gasri first joined the unit in its early years, she had barely been able to take it. She fainted the first time she saw and smelled the burned flesh under the bandages.

Still, it was rewarding work. Former patients often came back to thank her and pray for her, she said. Sometimes they brought gifts from their home regions: dates sweet as caramel from the city of Tozeur, or, once, a bottle of fresh milk a farmer had gotten up early to deliver all the way from impoverished Kasserine. By the time it reached Ben Arous, it had gone bad.

Now a former patient was waiting for her in the hall, there with not a gift but a plea.

Ahmed Yaakoubi had first been admitted in 2012 after burning his lower legs in a car accident. Recovery was supposed to take two years, but for nearly a decade now, he had been unable to come up with the money for regular bandage replacements and follow-up treatment. At 25, unable to fully control his lower legs, walking with a limp, he couldn’t find work.

Dr. Gasri smiled at him as they shook hands, but what she had to say was serious.

“I don’t want to lie to you,” she said. “Your legs are worn out. You can’t go on like this.”

He hadn’t changed the bandages that still swaddled both legs from the knee down for four days now, risking infection and maybe even amputation. The charity his neighbors pressed on him after the accident had tapered off four years later, when he started to walk again, though he said one neighbor who was a nurse kept selling him discounted bandages.

But years had turned to a decade, Tunisians’ budgets had gone from modest to minuscule, and now nobody was giving. He felt he was a burden on the neighbor, who could no longer conceal his impatience.

Ten dinars — about $3 — for each hospital visit, 20 for fresh bandages. At the pharmacy, some products he was supposed to use had tripled in price. And he was meant to change the wrappings every day.

“I can’t even afford to eat,” Mr. Yaakoubi told Dr. Gasri. “How can I buy new bandages?”

She told him to come back on Monday. Maybe she would have something for him then. She would ask a few relatives to chip in, and, probably, dip into her own pocket.

The burn unit’s founder and head, Amen Allah Messadi, had set up an association to raise money for patients who couldn’t afford physical therapy, pressure garments, laser therapy, prosthetics and bandages, which was to say most patients. The erratic public health care system instituted after the revolution covered only the formally employed, and by the World Bank’s estimate, nearly half of Tunisians eked out a living off the books.

But the association had paused its fund-raising when Covid-19 hit, and donations dried up as times got harder. These days, it was often the staff who gave, stuffing spare dinars into an envelope that Dr. Gasri kept to help those in need.

Money had never seemed so tight when Ben Ali, the former dictator, was in power. As the regime’s heavily state-controlled approach opened up to private investment, the country’s middle class was considered sound, its education and health care systems solid, its markets’ prices steady.

Yet citified coastal Tunisia was much wealthier than the country’s rural inland, the gap between the Ben Ali cronies who controlled much of the economy and the rest stoked resentment, and the young people who made up nearly a third of Tunisia’s 11 million people, like Mr. Bouazizi, were desperate for decent jobs. He had set himself on fire to protest police harassment after municipal officials confiscated the fruit he was selling and, according to his family, slapped him.

A decade of democracy brought elections, freedom of expression, a thriving press, a muscular civil society and independent institutions, all things the country had never had under French colonial rule or the two dictators who followed. But such intangibles meant little to the revolutionaries who had demanded better lives — materially, and fast.

The foreign debt and economic structure that the new Tunisia inherited from the old Tunisia — the country imported expensive things and exported cheap ones — would have made that a challenge even for experienced leadership, and Tunisia’s new leaders were green, more focused on a new constitution than fixing the economy.

Early governments ineptly tried to hire and borrow their way into prosperity; later governments all failed to overhaul the economy.

But‌ they might have avoided disaster ‌if ‌Western countries had stepped up with far more aid and debt relief, and if not for a run of bad luck: a financial crisis in Europe, a war in neighboring Libya and terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists that crippled the country’s vital tourism industry.

The attacks deepened suspicion of Ennahda, vitriol that eventually tarnished the whole Parliament that the Islamist party had dominated.

The decline of faith in democracy could be measured in voter turnout. Back in 2011, during the first parliamentary elections after the revolution, 92 percent of voters went to the polls. By 2019, when Mr. Saied was elected as an incorruptible-seeming outsider, just 41 percent bothered.

Or it could be measured in self-immolations. With every fresh economic downturn, more people set themselves on fire, and eight years into Tunisia’s democratic experiment, the doctors whom Dr. Messadi had worked hard to recruit started leaving the burn unit, one by one. That left only Dr. Messadi, Dr. Jami, Dr. Gasri and two senior specialists — one of them debating whether to move abroad.

In France, where Tunisian doctors often emigrated, the pay wasn’t much better, at least not at first. But the equipment, facilities, regulations, malpractice insurance and hours were, and many of the unit’s young doctors said they believed there would be less burnout and depression.

In France, there wouldn’t be a political crisis with no sure outcome, or an economy that seemed headed for collapse.

In July, Mr. Saied rammed through a new Constitution in a referendum, demoting Parliament to more of an advisory body and giving himself the kind of presidential powers no leader had enjoyed since Mr. Ben Ali. Western experts warned that the new charter would hasten the end of Tunisia’s democracy.

Then he urged people to vote for a new, revamped Parliament, one that did away with the influence of Ennahda and other political parties. But only about 11 percent of eligible voters showed up for the Dec. 17 elections.

For Dr. Gasri, the surge of hope she had felt during the revolution was still down there somewhere, though it felt harder to remember these days. She said she would understand if her son, who was studying for an architecture degree, left for a few years’ professional experience in Europe, but she wanted him to come back someday.

She would stay.

“If we all leave,” she said, “what will happen to Tunisia?”

To Dr. Jami, it felt like the revolution had been the beginning of a long plunge into darkness. She said she spent most days now in a funk of stomach pain, fatigue and stress.

“Get me a man,” she said, hunting not for a ring but a visa to a Western country. “Get me out of this country.” It was a joke, but if she didn’t have to support her elderly mother, she said, she would be trying to leave.

The latest blow to the doctors had come when Covid-19 hit the hospitals hard, forcing intensive care specialists to the front lines, even as the strapped Health Ministry had to cut residents’ pay.

It was amid the death and chaos that Mr. Saied mounted his power grab. Dr. Jami said she had been cautiously relieved at his intervention. Dr. Gasri was just hoping for the best.

Now it had been more than a year. The staff tried not to dwell on the fact that, with the economy the way it was, with Mr. Saied apparently unable to fix things, many more young men who had tried to self-immolate might come their way.

“It’s one of the best countries, but I want to leave because they destroyed it,” Dr. Jami said to one of the physical therapists during a rare break one afternoon. Her face was soft with tiredness. “They didn’t leave us with any reasons to stay.”

She meant the politicians they had voted for, dutifully, election after election. Soon after, she told Dr. Messadi she wanted to leave early, and went home.

Ahmed Ellali contributed reporting.

MY THOUGHTS

Financial poverty is a powerful thing and many governments or communities in humanity, through a recent heritage of white european domination don't have the culture to handle how to be poor. It is easier to flee to another country, to burn yourself alive, than to be fiscal poor.
Secondly, though more potently, democracy, the rule of the people always exist. The form of government doesn't matter, the people always rule, the question is, how do the people want to be ruled. Sometimes most folk accept someone with a crown. sometimes most folk accept people voted in. Sometimes most folk accept individuals in a minority populace among them deciding among themselves. but the people always rule and yes, even when a commonly called dictator is the head.
Lastly, or rarely stated, the fiscal wealth of the governments deemed wealthiest in humanity, all comes from slavery/genocides/wars/various levels of abuse. Countries like tunisia, who are larger than city states,  who are trying to make financial changes absent the ability to commit genocides/enslavements/wars/abuses to others especially, are always going to have a hard time. Yes, Germany or Japan or China didn't need so much of that abusive power to others but all of them were given money by the usa to prevent them from joining an enemy in the commonly called cold war. To many countries are deemed financially successful absent the truth to their fiscal profit admitted in media alongside.

In Amendment

The quote by the tunisian woman about getting a man for immigration is a great public admission, when it comes to the nature of male or female relationships concerning the immigrant community and those in the countries of wealth.

 

Article URL
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/03/world/middleeast/tunisia-democracy.html

 

A Hindu ritual on the banks of the Ganges River in Varanasi, northern India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has chosen Varanasi as a core vehicle of his assertion of India as a Hindu nation, raising tensions with Muslims.

Russia’s War Could Make It India’s World
The invasion of Ukraine, compounding the effects of the pandemic, has contributed to the ascent of a giant that defies easy alignment. It could be the decisive force in a changing global system.

By Roger CohenPhotographs by Mauricio Lima
Roger Cohen, the Paris bureau chief, and Mauricio Lima spent almost two weeks in India, traveling between New Delhi, Varanasi and Chennai, to write and photograph this piece.

Dec. 31, 2022
Seated in the domed, red sandstone government building unveiled by the British Raj less than two decades before India threw off imperial rule, S. Jaishankar, the Indian foreign minister, needs no reminder of how the tides of history sweep away antiquated systems to usher in the new.

Such, he believes, is today’s transformative moment. A “world order which is still very, very deeply Western,” as he put it in an interview, is being hurried out of existence by the impact of the war in Ukraine, to be replaced by a world of “multi-alignment” where countries will choose their own “particular policies and preferences and interests.”

Certainly, that is what India has done since the war in Ukraine began on Feb. 24. It has rejected American and European pressure at the United Nations to condemn the Russian invasion, turned Moscow into its largest oil supplier and dismissed the perceived hypocrisy of the West. Far from apologetic, its tone has been unabashed and its self-interest broadly naked.

“I would still like to see a more rules-based world,” Mr. Jaishankar said. “But when people start pressing you in the name of a rules-based order to give up, to compromise on what are very deep interests, at that stage I’m afraid it’s important to contest that and, if necessary, to call it out.”

In other words, with its almost 1.4 billion inhabitants, soon to overtake China as the world’s most populous country, India has a need for cheap Russian oil to sustain its 7 percent annual growth and lift millions out of poverty. That need is nonnegotiable. India gobbles up all the Russian oil it requires, even some extra for export. For Mr. Jaishankar, time is up on the mind-set that “Europe’s problems are the world’s problems, but the world’s problems are not Europe’s,” as he put it in June.

The Ukraine war, which has provoked moral outrage in the West over Russian atrocities, has caused a different anger elsewhere, one focused on a skewed and outdated global distribution of power. As Western sanctions against Russia have driven up energy, food and fertilizer costs, causing acute economic difficulties in poorer countries, resentment of the United States and Europe has stirred in Asia and Africa.

Grinding trench warfare on European soil seems the distant affair of others. Its economic cost feels immediate and palpable.

“Since February, Europe has imported six times the fossil fuel energy from Russia that India has done,” Mr. Jaishankar said. “So if a $60,000-per-capita society feels it needs to look after itself, and I accept that as legitimate, they should not expect a $2,000-per-capita society to take a hit.”

Here comes Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s India, pursuing its own interests with a new assertiveness, throwing off any sense of inferiority and rejecting unalloyed alignment with the West. But which India will strut the 21st-century global stage, and how will its influence be felt?

The country is at a crossroads, poised between the vibrant plurality of its democracy since independence in 1947 and a turn toward illiberalism under Mr. Modi. His “Hindu Renaissance” has threatened some of the core pillars of India’s democracy: equal treatment of all citizens, the right to dissent, the independence of courts and the media.

Democracy and debate are still vigorous — Mr. Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party lost a municipal election in Delhi this month — and the prime minister’s popularity remains strong. For many, India is just too vast and various ever to succumb to some unitary nationalist diktat.

The postwar order had no place for India at the top table. But now, at a moment when Russia’s military aggression under President Vladimir V. Putin has provided a vivid illustration of how a world of strongmen and imperial rivalry would look, India may have the power to tilt the balance toward an order dominated by democratic pluralism or by repressive leaders.

Which way Mr. Modi’s form of nationalism will lean remains to be seen. It has given many Indians a new pride and bolstered the country’s international stature, even as it has weakened the country’s pluralist and secularist model.

India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, himself a mixture of East and West through education and upbringing, described the country as “some ancient palimpsest on which layer upon layer of thought and reverie had been inscribed” without any of those layers being effaced.

He was convinced that a secular India had to accommodate all the diversity that repeated invasion had bequeathed. Not least, that meant conciliation with the country’s large Muslim minority, now about 200 million people.

Today, however, Mr. Nehru is generally reviled by Mr. Modi’s Hindu nationalist party. There are no Muslims in Mr. Modi’s cabinet. Hindu mob attacks on Muslims have been met with silence by the prime minister.

“Hatred has penetrated into society at a level that is absolutely terrifying,” the acclaimed Indian novelist Arundhati Roy said.

That may be, but for now, Mr. Modi’s India seems to brim with confidence.

The Ukraine war, compounding the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, has fueled the country’s ascent. Together they have pushed corporations to make global supply chains less risky by diversifying toward an open India and away from China’s surveillance state. They have accentuated global economic turbulence from which India is relatively insulated by its huge domestic market.

Those factors have contributed to buoyant projections that India, now No. 5, will be the world’s third-largest economy by 2030, behind only the United States and China.

On a recent visit to India, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said that the United States wanted to “diversify away from countries that present geopolitical and security risks to our supply chain,” singling out India as among “trusted trading partners.”

Nonetheless, India is in no mood to cut ties with Mr. Putin’s Russia, which supported the country with weapons over decades of nonalignment, while the United States cosseted India’s archenemy, Pakistan. Even in a country starkly fractured over Mr. Modi’s policies, this approach has had near universal backing.

“For many years, the United States did not stand by us, but Moscow has,” Amitabh Kant, who is responsible for India’s presidency of the Group of 20 that began this month, said in an interview. New Delhi has enough rivals, he said: “Try, on top of China and Pakistan, putting Russia against you!”

Mr. Modi’s India will not do that in an emergent world characterized by Mr. Jaishankar as “more fragmented, more tense, more on the edge and more under stress” as the war in Ukraine festers.

“Paradoxically, the war in Ukraine has diminished trust in Western powers and concentrated people’s minds on how to hedge bets,” said Pratap Bhanu Mehta, a prominent Indian political theorist. “India feels it has the United States figured out: Yes, you will be upset but you’re in no position to do anything about it.”

That has proved a good bet up to now. “The age of India’s significant global stature has just begun,” said Preeti Dawra, the Indian-born director of global marketing at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

Arriving in Varanasi, Hinduism’s holiest city, in 1896, Mark Twain remarked on the “bewildering and beautiful confusion of stone platforms, temples, stair-flights, rich and stately palaces” rising on the bluff above the Ganges, the river of life.

Mr. Modi, 72, who adopted the city as his political constituency in 2014 when he embarked on his campaign to lead India, saying he had been “called by the mother Ganges,” has cut a pinkish sandstone gash through this sacred jumble of devotion.

Known as “the corridor” and opened a year ago, the project connects the Kashi Vishwanath Temple, dedicated to the Hindu god Shiva, to the riverfront a quarter-mile away.

The broad and almost eerily spotless pedestrian expanse, with its museum and other tourist facilities, links the city’s most revered temple to the river where Hindus wash away their sins. It is quintessential Modi.

Cut through a labyrinth of more than 300 homes that were destroyed to make way for it, the passage intertwines the prime minister’s political life with the deepest of Hindu traditions. At the same time, it proclaims his readiness to fast-forward India through bold initiatives that break with chaos and decay. Mr. Modi, a Hindu nationalist and tech enthusiast, is a disrupter.

A self-made man from a humble background in the western state of Gujarat, and from a low status in India’s caste system, or social hierarchy, Mr. Modi has come to embody an aspirational India.

Through what Srinath Raghavan, a historian, called “an incorruptible aura and a genius at orchestrating public narratives,” he appears to have imbued India with the confidence to forge the singular path so evident over the 10 months since Russia went to war.

“Modi’s social mobility is in some ways the promise of India today,” Mr. Raghavan said in an interview.

That Modi-inspired promise, as invigorating to the traditionally lower castes of Hindu society as it is troubling to the Brahmins who long ran India, has come at a price.

Vishwambhar Nath Mishra, a Hindu religious leader in Varanasi and an engineering professor, said that the corridor had been a “blunder” that had destroyed 142 old shrines, an example of the bulldozing style Mr. Modi favors.

“We have always been a unique family in Varanasi, Muslims and Christians and Hindus who sit down and work things out, but Mr. Modi chooses to create tensions to get elected,” Mr. Mishra said. “If he is trying to establish a Hindu nation, that is very dangerous.”

Every morning, Mr. Mishra bathes in the Ganges. He heads a foundation that monitors the river and showed me a chart illustrating that the level of fecal matter in it is still dangerously high. So why does he do it? He smiled. “The Ganges is the medium of our life.”

One recent evening, I watched the Hindu prayer ceremony on the riverfront from a small boat. Perhaps two thousand people had gathered. Candles flickered. Chants rose. Along the great crescent sweep of the river, smoke billowed from the pyres that burn night and day. For a Hindu to die and be cremated in Varanasi is to be assured of transcendence and liberation.

A distracting electronic screen flashed behind the ceremony. On it, Mr. Modi’s bearded face appeared at regular intervals, promoting the Indian presidency of the Group of 20 largest global economies, an organization that calls itself the “premier forum for international economic cooperation.”

Mr. Modi, as this elaborate choreography of the spiritual and the political suggested, wants to turn India’s presidency of the G20 in 2023 into a premier platform for his bid for re-election, to a third term, in 2024.

“Big responsibility, bigger ambitions,” proclaimed one slogan on the screen. G20-related meetings are planned in every Indian state over the next year, including one in Varanasi in August.

India wants its presidency of the group to have the world as “one family” and the need for “sustainable growth” as its core themes. It wants to push the transformation of developing countries through what Mr. Kant, the organizer, called “technological leapfrogging.” India, with its near universal connectivity, sees itself as an example.

About 1.3 billion Indians now have a digital identity. Access to all banking activities online, through digital bank accounts, has become commonplace during Mr. Modi’s eight years in power. They were once the preserve of the middle class. Poorer Indians have been empowered.

“Nobody wants the current world order,” Mr. Kant said. “There are still two billion people in the world with no bank account.” India will advocate on behalf of poorer nations. But the issue with Mr. Modi’s “one family” theme is that, just up the road from the riverside prayers, his divisiveness is evident.

It is not easy to get into the complex, at the top of Mr. Modi’s new corridor, where the 17th-century white-domed Gyanvapi Mosque abuts the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. Intense security checks take a long time to negotiate because this is an epicenter of the inflamed Hindu-Muslim tension in India.

Armed guards are everywhere. They stand beside the mosque, which is encased behind a 20-foot metal fence topped with coils of razor wire. They patrol the Hindu crowds, who line up in saffron-color robes beside the temple to make their offerings of milk, sometimes mixed with honey, to the simple stone lingam that is the symbol of Shiva.

The only mammals that cross easily from the Hindu to Muslim worlds, as if to mock the stubborn divisions of humankind, are the lithe gray monkeys that scamper over barriers from shikhara to minaret.

A flurry of legal cases now centers on the mosque. A court survey this year claimed to have uncovered an ancient lingam on the premises of the mosque, so establishing, at least for hard-line Hindus, that they should be allowed to pray there. Large Muslim prayer gatherings have been banned.

In the ascendant Hindu narrative that Mr. Modi has done nothing to discourage, India belongs in the first place to its Hindu majority. The Muslim interlopers of the Mughal Empire and other periods of conquest take second place. Mosque must yield to temple if it can be demonstrated that a temple predated it.

If Mr. Putin has chosen to portray Ukraine as a birthplace of the Russian world inseparable from the motherland and embraced the Orthodox Church as a bastion of his power, Mr. Modi has chosen Varanasi as a core vehicle of his assertion of India as essentially a Hindu nation. Of course, the Indian leader did so in the interest of power consolidation, not conquest.

Three decades ago, the razing by a Hindu mob of a 16th-century mosque in the northern Indian city of Ayodhya, which Hindus believe is the birthplace of the god Ram, led to the death of 2,000 people and propelled the rise of Mr. Modi’s party.

A temple is now being built there. Mr. Modi, who presided over the groundbreaking in 2020, has called it “the modern symbol of our traditions.”

Faced by such moves, Ms. Roy, the novelist, voiced a common concern. “You know, the Varanasi sari, worn by Hindus, woven by Muslims, was a symbol of everything that was so interwoven and is now being ripped apart,” she said. “A threat of violence hangs over the city.”

I found Syed Mohammed Yaseen, a leader of the Varanasi Muslim community, which makes up close to a third of the city’s population of roughly 1.2 million, at his timber store. “The situation is not good,” Mr. Yaseen, 75, said. “We are dealing with 18 lawsuits relating to the old mosque. The Hindus want to demolish it indirectly by starting their own worship there.” Increasingly, he said, Muslims felt like second-class citizens.

“Every day, we are feeling all kinds of attacks, and our identity is being diminished,” he said. “India’s secular character is being dented. It still exists in our Constitution, but in practice, it is dented, and the government is silent.”

This denting has taken several forms under Mr. Modi. Shashi Tharoor, a leading member of the opposition Congress Party that ruled India for most of the time since independence, suggested to me that “institutionalized bigotry” had taken hold.

A number of lynchings and demolitions of Muslim homes, the imprisonment of Muslim and other journalists critical of Mr. Modi, and the emasculation of independent courts have fanned fears of what Mr. Raghavan, the historian, called “a truly discriminatory regime, with its risk of radicalization.”

As I spoke to Mr. Yaseen, I noticed a man with an automatic rifle seated a few yards to his left. Clearly a Hindu, with a tilak in the middle of his forehead, he took some interest in the conversation.

Who, I asked, is this man with a rifle?

“He is my guard, appointed a couple of months ago by the district administration to protect me, given the tension over the mosque,” Mr. Yaseen said.

The guard was a police officer named Anurag Mishra. I asked him how he felt about his job. “I am standing here to protect a fellow human being,” he said. “My religion does not really matter. Nor does his. My superiors told me to do the job.”

Mr. Yaseen said that he was happy to have a Hindu protecting him, even if “I trust in God, not in the guard.”

That one Indian citizen protects another — a Hindu police officer with a rifle safeguarding a Muslim community leader from potential Hindu attack — was at once reassuring, in that it suggested secular, democratic, pluralistic India would not go quietly; and alarming, in that it was necessary at all.

At the G20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, in November, Indian diplomacy played an important role in finding compromise language after several Western countries had pressed for harsh criticism of Russia over Ukraine or even for Moscow’s ouster from the forum. The phrase, “Today’s era must not be of war,” in the leaders’ declaration, and the reference to “diplomacy and dialogue,” were a reprise of Mr. Modi’s words to Mr. Putin in September.

Could India, with its ties to Russia, mediate a cease-fire in Ukraine, or even a peace settlement? Mr. Jaishankar, the foreign minister, was skeptical. “The parties involved have to reach a certain situation and a certain mind-set,” he said.

And when will the war end? “I wouldn’t even hazard an opinion,” he said.

Still, India wants to be a bridge power in the world birthed by the pandemic and by the war in Ukraine.

It believes that the interconnectedness of today’s world outweighs the pull of fragmentation and makes a nonsense of talk of a renewed Cold War. If a period of disorder seems inevitable as Western power declines, it will most likely be tempered by economic interdependence, the Indian argument goes.

With inequality worsening, food security worsening, energy security worsening, and climate change accelerating, more countries are asking what answers the post-1945 Western-dominated order can provide. India, it seems, believes it can be a broker, bridging East-West and North-South divisions.

“I would argue that generally in the history of India, India has had a much more peaceful, productive relationship with the world than, for example, Europe has had,” Mr. Jaishankar said. “Europe has been very expansionist, which is why we had the period of imperialism and colonialism. But in India, despite being subjected to colonialism for two centuries, there’s no animus against the world, no anger. It is a very open society.”

It is also situated between two hostile powers, Pakistan and China.

In December, there was another skirmish at the 2,100-mile disputed Chinese-Indian border. Nobody was killed, unlike in 2020, when at least 20 Indian and four Chinese soldiers died. But tensions remain high. “The relationship is very fraught,” Mr. Jaishankar said.

Escalation at the border is possible at any moment, but it appears unlikely that India can count on Russia, given Moscow’s growing economic and military dependence on China. That makes India’s strategic relationship with the West critical.

In the light of the war in Ukraine, however, each party is adjusting to the fact that the other will pick and choose its principles.

“Ukraine is certainly not seen here as something with a clear moral tale to tell,” Ms. Roy, the novelist, said. “When brown or Black people get bombed or shocked-and-awed, it does not matter, but with white people it is supposed to be different.”

India is in a delicate position. In the face of American criticism, the country chose to take part this year in Russian military exercises that included units from China. At the same time, India is part of a four-nation coalition known as the Quad that includes the United States, Japan and Australia and works for a “free and open Indo-Pacific.”

This is Indian multi-alignment at work. The Ukraine war has only reinforced New Delhi’s commitment to this course. Washington has worked hard over many years to make India Asia’s democratic counterbalance to President Xi Jinping’s authoritarian China. But the world, as seen from India, is too complex for such binary options.

If the Biden administration has been unhappy with India’s business-as-usual approach to Mr. Putin since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it has also been accepting of it — American realpolitik, as China rises, demands that Mr. Modi not be alienated.

At the end of my stay, I traveled down to Chennai on the southeastern coast.

The atmosphere is softer there. The economy is booming. The electronics manufacturer Foxconn is rapidly expanding production capacity for Apple devices, building a hostel for 60,000 workers on a 20-acre site near the city.

“The great mass of Indians are awakening to the fact that they don’t need the ideology of the West and that we can set our own path — and Modi deserves credit for that,” Venky Naik, a retired businessman, said.

I went to a concert where a musician played haunting songs and spoke of “renewing your auspiciousness every day.” There I ran into Mukund Padmanabhan, a former editor of The Hindu newspaper and now a professor of public practice at the newly established Krea University, north of Chennai.

“I do not believe Modi can marshal Hinduism into a monolithic nationalist force,” he said. “There are thousands of Gods, and you don’t have to believe in any of them. There is no single or unique way.”

He gestured toward the mixed crowd of Hindus and Muslims at the concert. “People don’t like to talk about the project of Gandhi and Nehru, which was to bring everyone along and go forward, but it happened, and it is part of our truth, part of the indelible Indian palimpsest.”

Hari Kumar contributed reporting from New Delhi.

Roger Cohen is the Paris bureau chief of The Times. He was a columnist from 2009 to 2020. He has worked for The Times for more than 30 years and has served as a foreign correspondent and foreign editor. Raised in South Africa and Britain, he is a naturalized American. @NYTimesCohen

MY THOUGHTS

India is everything Japan isn't. It is historically multiracial, maintained or supports a caste system that accepts a poor life for some unlike the socialist healthcare system of Nippon, Japan has more usa debt than any other country while India does public business with a smile to USA's modern enemy in media, russia. 
Like CHina with the Ugyars, India with its Muslims , seems to be on a quest to reduce the islamic footprint in the country or at least contain it, while both do large business with islamic strict saudi arabia/iran/qatar or et cetera. so, India is correct, Asia is complex and if Asia is leading the future in humanity then dichotomies are no longer valid, these are complex times coming in the future of the alignments in humanity. 
I do think that india's immigrant community in england/usa or other will have a huge role in the complexity their prime minister speaks of in the future. 

Article Link
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/31/world/asia/india-ukraine-russia.html
 

 

Members of the Bruce family, elected officials and community activists at a ceremony in Manhattan Beach, Calif., last year to return property that was seized from the family’s ancestors in 1924.Credit...Patrick T. Fallon/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

L.A. County to Pay $20 Million for Land Once Seized From Black Family
California officials seized a beachfront property from Willa and Charles Bruce in 1924. Los Angeles County returned it to their great-grandsons last year. Now they’re selling it back.

By Mike Ives
Published Jan. 4, 2023
Updated Jan. 11, 2023, 10:45 a.m. ET
The great-grandchildren of a Black couple whose beachfront property in Southern California was seized by local officials in 1924, and returned to the family last year, will sell it back to Los Angeles County for nearly $20 million, an official said on Tuesday.

The Manhattan Beach site once housed Bruce’s Lodge, a resort established in 1912 by the property’s owners, Willa and Charles Bruce, as a place where Black tourists could go to avoid harassment at a time of rampant discrimination against Black people in California and beyond. It was known informally as “Bruce’s Beach.”

Manhattan Beach officials condemned the property in 1924, paying the Bruces $14,500 and saying that they needed it for a public park. They ultimately left it undeveloped for more than three decades, and the couple lost a legal battle to reclaim it. The land was later transferred to Los Angeles County and now hosts a training center for lifeguards.

But three years ago, nationwide demonstrations against racism and police brutality led to a resurgence of local interest in the Bruce family’s campaign. And last July, after Los Angeles County and the California state legislature worked out the legal details, the county returned the property to the couple’s closest living heirs, their great-grandsons Derrick and Marcus Bruce.

Derrick and Marcus Bruce declined to comment on Wednesday through George Fatheree, a lawyer for the family.

Janice Hahn, who chairs the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, said on Tuesday that the owners had decided to sell the property to the county for nearly $20 million, a value that her office said was determined through an appraisal process.

“This is what reparations look like and it is a model that I hope governments across the country will follow,” Ms. Hahn said on Twitter.

The county received notice of the sale from the family on Dec. 30, and the escrow process will likely be completed in 30 days, Liz Odendahl, a spokeswoman for Ms. Hahn’s office, said in an email on Tuesday evening. Members of the Bruce family could not immediately be reached for comment.

Duane Yellow Feather Shepard, a relative who lives in Los Angeles, said in a telephone interview on Tuesday night that the family was “very satisfied” with the sale price. He said they had wanted to sell the property because it is zoned only for public use.

“They had no choice but to sell it and take whatever they could get out of it, and use it to invest in some other way to develop their family wealth that they’ve lost,” said Mr. Shepard, a clan chief of the Pocasset Wampanoag Tribe of the Pokanoket Nation.

Kavon Ward, who founded a group called Justice for Bruce’s Beach in June 2020 to support the family’s calls for restitution, said in a statement on Wednesday that, “While I am disappointed the Bruces have chosen to sell the land, I understand their decision as the city of Manhattan Beach is anti-Black.”

Ms. Ward is also a founder of Where Is My Land, an organization that seeks to help secure restitution for Black families who have had land taken from them.

The property consists of two adjacent beachfront lots. Ms. Bruce purchased one of them in 1912 for $1,225 and the second eight years later for $10, Los Angeles County has said, noting that the first lot measures about 33 by 105 feet. Mr. Shepard said the two lots are identical.

A persistent question has been whether officials in Manhattan Beach, a city of about 34,000 people that was incorporated in 1912 and is 75 percent white, would issue a formal apology to the Bruce family.

“I think an apology would be the least that they can do,” Anthony Bruce, the great-great-grandson of Willa and Charles Bruce, told The New York Times in 2021.

The couple, who moved to Manhattan Beach from New Mexico, were among the first Black people to settle in the area. They established their beachfront resort in the era of Jim Crow, amid a resurgence of Ku Klux Klan activities across the United States and campaigns of white supremacist terror and lynchings in the South.

Two years ago, the Manhattan Beach City Council voted, 4 to 1, to adopt a “statement of acknowledgment and condemnation” that did not include an apology. The city’s mayor at the time, Suzanne Hadley, condemned the racism against the Bruces but said that an apology could increase the risk of litigation against the city.

Steve Napolitano, the current mayor, said in an email on Wednesday that he saw the sale as a win-win for both the family and the county, which will continue to operate a lifeguard training center on the property.

“Nothing about the transaction changes the past, but it will certainly help the future of the Bruce heirs and we wish them well,” he said.

Jesus Jiménez contributed reporting.

MY THOUGHTS
I am happy for the black clan. If I think on the history of the Black Wealthy, they will do well. To be blunt, the Black Descended of Enslaved one percent tend to be very financially safe. 

Article URL
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/04/us/bruces-beach-la-county.html
 

 

Speaker Kevin McCarthy said this week that Republicans would use their leverage, including the need to raise the U.S. debt limit later this year, to corral spending.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times

U.S. Deficit Fell to $1.4 Trillion in 2022
The deficit was down from $2.6 trillion a year earlier, as pandemic emergency spending slowed, the economy reopened and tax revenue rose. The new figures come as spending fights loom in a divided Congress.

By Alan Rappeport and Jim Tankersley
Jan. 12, 2023
WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficit fell to $1.4 trillion for the 2022 calendar year, down from $2.6 trillion a year ago, as pandemic emergency spending slowed, the economy reopened and tax revenue rose, according to the Treasury Department.

While the annual gap between what the nation spends and what it takes in narrowed, the monthly deficit for December 2022 widened compared with a year ago, suggesting that the deficit will most likely grow again in the year to come. The federal government recorded an $85 billion shortfall last month, up from a $21 billion deficit in December 2021.

The figures released on Thursday come at a moment of heightened attention on the nation’s finances, with Republicans, who now control the House, pledging to push for deep spending cuts and slash the national debt. Despite the smaller annual shortfall, America’s long-term fiscal picture has darkened somewhat in the last year. The national debt topped $31 trillion for the first time in 2022 and interest rates are rising, increasing the amount of money the United States must pay to investors who buy its debt.

Net interest costs have risen by 41 percent over the past calendar year, the data showed. The Peterson Foundation, which advocates debt reduction, reported on Thursday that the jump was larger than the biggest increase in interest costs in any single fiscal year, dating back to 1962.

Republicans have said repeatedly that they will make balancing the federal budget over the course of a decade and reducing the national debt a central focus of their economic agenda this year. They say large deficits under President Biden have contributed to high inflation, which hit a 40-year peak last summer but has eased in recent months. The Labor Department reported on Thursday that prices receded slightly in December.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy said this week that Republicans would use their leverage, including the need to raise the country’s debt limit this year, to corral spending.

“One of the greatest threats we have to this nation is our debt,” Mr. McCarthy said on Fox News. “It makes us weak in every place that we can.”

But Republicans have also prioritized policies this month that would add to deficits. The House passed legislation this week that would rescind much of the $80 billion that was allocated to the Internal Revenue Service last year to beef up its enforcement capacity. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the Republican bill to cut the money would actually increase the deficit by $114 billion through 2032.

Mr. Biden said on Thursday that he would veto such legislation and assailed Republicans for backing a measure that would add to the deficit and make it easier for the wealthy to cheat on their taxes by cutting the I.R.S. enforcement budget. He has repeatedly said he will not negotiate with Republicans on the debt ceiling and will insist that lawmakers raise the limit with no strings attached.

“I was disappointed that the very first bill the Republicans in the House of Representatives passed would help wealthy people and big corporations cheat on their taxes at the expense of ordinary, middle-class taxpayers,” Mr. Biden told reporters at the end of remarks about inflation and the economy. “And it would add $114 billion to the deficit. Their very first bill.”

The president and his aides have said he is open to working with Republicans to reduce the deficit by raising taxes on high earners and corporations — proposals that Republican lawmakers have roundly rejected.

Budget watchdog groups that advocate fiscal restraint have called on lawmakers to enact policies that will stabilize the debt.

“We should not be borrowing $4 billion a day, an apparent debt addiction that is harmful to the economy and the budget,” said Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “We hear a lot of talk about fiscal responsibility, but very little action.”

Ms. MacGuineas and other fiscal hawks have also attacked House Republicans over their debt limit threats, saying that they risk economic calamity — and that Republicans’ vow to balance the budget over 10 years without raising taxes is both politically unfeasible and economically inadvisable.

Mr. Biden has claimed credit for the decline in the budget deficit last year, but it was in large part the result of Congress forgoing another round of pandemic stimulus spending like the $1.9 trillion economic aid package Mr. Biden signed early in 2021. The president has contended that such spending, and other efforts by his administration to fuel economic growth in the recovery from pandemic recession, contributed to stronger-than-expected tax receipts in 2022, helping to lower the deficit.

But administration officials have also predicted that the deficit is set to rise again this year. In an August update to the president’s budget proposal for the 2023 fiscal year, White House economists predicted that the deficit would grow by about 30 percent from the 2022 to 2023 fiscal years. They forecast further increases in the deficit in each of the two years after that.

Alan Rappeport is an economic policy reporter, based in Washington. He covers the Treasury Department and writes about taxes, trade and fiscal matters. He previously worked for The Financial Times and The Economist. @arappeport

Jim Tankersley is a White House correspondent with a focus on economic policy. He has written for more than a decade in Washington about the decline of opportunity for American workers, and is the author of "The Riches of This Land: The Untold, True Story of America's Middle Class." @jimtankersley

Article URL
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/12/business/us-deficit-falls-2022.html

MY THOUGHTS
If I owed 31 trillion dollars ... anyway the two questions are simple
1) can the usa pay back the debt?
2) what will happen if a country that is owed wants to collect?

1) the answer is no. The reasons why are simple. The USA won the cold war by outspending russia in its soviet form. That is where the culture of selling debt comes from. The Japanese are owed over a trillion dollars. But what does the debt really come from?
The USA has a problem. China+ India+ Russia , together have a larger populace than the remainder in humanity and each country is militaristically an opponent to the USA, in one way or the other. Most of the other countries in humanity are satraps to the USA. A minority like North Korea/Cuba or similar are oppressed. 
But the cost of the USA's satraps are expensive, and since Russia China India will not become England Japan Taiwan outside of war, the usa has to finance until the war finally begins 
About Japan < https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2202&type=status > 

2) Nothing and thus the problem. The USA military is the reason why no one will get what they are owed from the usa and why the usa has an unlimited debt value. Seven warship fleets/hundreds of thousand of nuclear missiles/satellite arrays/submarine fleets/thousands to millions of agents in the cia/fbi/nsa/ or similar set of organizations. 
THe USA military in completion is simply an expensive beast that must be maintained to allow the USA to keep gaining debt.
About India < https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2203&type=status >

In conclusion, The USA has been poorly run since the second phase of world war two. Many say how can you say that? but the numbers are true.
Immigrants historically are a financial drain, this is historic fact anywhere in humanity. Why are immigrants drains? immigrants are human beings who need food, water, shelter, and more. All of those things come at a price. Thus if immigrants get it, some already in the country will not. I am not suggesting immigrants take everything away from people already in any country. They do not. But immigrants do present a drain on any country historically.
The financial firms in the USA have fled the labor market in the usa to keep low wage, but now their industries can't afford higher wage if they are to come to the usa. 
The USA can only add to its debt and it works in the trillions every year. 
Thirty one trillion and counting is how the USA has paid for itself and its allies. And it is the prepayment to a war that is inevitable in the future, i argue near future. And the next global war will use nuclear weapons which is honest since the last global  war ended with nuclear weapons. 

 

IN AMENDMENT
two prior articles

 

 
President Biden said on Friday that the federal budget deficit fell to $1.4 trillion.Credit...Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times

Federal Budget Deficit Fell to $1.4 Trillion as Pandemic Spending Eased
The gap between what the government borrows and what it spends narrowed amid less spending and higher tax receipts.

By Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Alan Rappeport
Oct. 21, 2022
WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficit fell to $1.4 trillion for the 2022 fiscal year, from $2.8 trillion a year ago, a reduction driven primarily by the winding down of pandemic emergency spending and a surge in tax receipts, according to the Treasury Department.

President Biden trumpeted the deficit reduction on Friday morning, saying the fact that it was cut roughly in half was evidence that his economic policies were working. With soaring inflation as one of the top concerns among voters ahead of tight congressional elections, Mr. Biden has often cited a shrinking budget deficit as a way to bring down rising costs.

“Today we have further proof that we’re rebuilding the economy in a responsible way,” Mr. Biden said during his remarks from the White House. “We’re going from historically strong economic recovery to a steady and stable growth while reducing the deficit.”

Mr. Biden seized on the moment to also portray the November congressional elections as not a referendum on his administration but a “choice” between his economic agenda and the policies that he said a Republican-controlled Congress would put in effect. He said Republicans would cut Social Security benefits, increase the deficit and undo his efforts to lower prescription drug prices.

“It’s mega-MAGA trickle down,” Mr. Biden said. He blamed Republicans for fueling the deficit during the Trump administration with large tax cuts. “The kind of policies that have failed the country before, and it’ll fail it again,” he said.

Deficit hawks were quick to attribute the deficit reduction under Mr. Biden to the phasing-out of pandemic relief spending, including the president’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan. And they warned that Mr. Biden’s plans to forgive certain amounts of student debt would weigh heavily on the nation’s finances going forward.

“In fact, the deficit would have been almost $400 billion lower had the Biden administration not decided to enact an inflationary, costly and regressive student debt cancellation plan in August,” Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which argues for deficit relief, said in a statement. “It should be no surprise that the Federal Reserve is having a hard time getting inflation under control when fiscal policymakers keep making their job even harder with more borrowing.”

Republicans said Mr. Biden was misleading Americans about the deficit as he tried to embrace the mantle of fiscal responsibility and argued that the president’s policies had fanned inflation.

“President Biden is ignoring the facts about his own spending to fit his political narrative,” Representative Jason Smith, a Republican from Missouri, said on Twitter. “He says deficits are going down because of his policies, but in reality he’s spending more and fueling higher prices.”

Mr. Smith added that deficits were higher than projected because Democrats passed such an expensive stimulus package last year.

The national debt in the United States continues to be unsustainable in the long term. Treasury Department figures released this month revealed that America’s gross national debt exceeded $31 trillion for the first time, a milestone that the Biden administration did not observe with any fanfare.

While the deficit’s decline was primarily driven by reduced Covid spending, the economic rebound from the depths of the pandemic also gave the government’s coffers a boost, as corporate tax revenue came in faster than expected. A robust labor market and rising wages, which have struggled to keep up with inflation, also resulted in an increase in individual income tax receipts.

When measured against the total economic output of the United States, the federal budget deficit amounted to 5.5 percent of gross domestic product.

The federal government continued to spend more than it earned in the 2022 fiscal year and to borrow money at a fast clip. Total federal borrowing increased by $2 trillion to $24.3 trillion total, partly driven by additional borrowing to finance the federal budget deficit. The U.S. government pays interest to its bondholders, and as the Federal Reserve raises interest rates, those costs are rising.

Interest on the public debt increased 28 percent from last year and is expected to continue growing as the Fed raises rates. Higher rates could add an additional $1 trillion to what the federal government spends on interest payments this decade, according to estimates from the Peterson Foundation. That is on top of the record $8.1 trillion in debt costs that the Congressional Budget Office projected in May.

Still, the administration portrayed the 2022 deficit figures as a sign that the economy was strong and that the White House was focused on improving America’s “fiscal health.”

“Today’s joint budget statement provides further evidence of our historic economic recovery, driven by our vaccination effort and the American Rescue Plan,” said Janet L. Yellen, the Treasury secretary. “It also demonstrates President Biden’s commitment to strengthening our nation’s fiscal health.”

Even as some Democrats, as well as Ms. Yellen, have called for the statutory debt limit to be abolished to carry out congressionally authorized government spending, Mr. Biden said such a move would be “irresponsible.”

But the president, citing the reduced deficit and last month’s streak of gas price declines, said he believed the recent economic outlook of the United States would give Democrats an edge in the midterm elections. A New York Times/Siena College poll this month found Republicans had a slight edge with the share of likely voters who said economic concerns were the most important issues facing America, leaping since July to 44 percent from 36 percent.

“I think that we’re going to see one more shift back to our side,” Mr. Biden said. “Let me tell you why I think that. We are starting to see some of the good news on the economy.”

Zolan Kanno-Youngs is a White House correspondent covering a range of domestic and international issues in the Biden White House, including homeland security and extremism. He joined The Times in 2019 as the homeland security correspondent. @KannoYoungs

Alan Rappeport is an economic policy reporter, based in Washington. He covers the Treasury Department and writes about taxes, trade and fiscal matters. He previously worked for The Financial Times and The Economist. @arappeport

What is the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling, also called the debt limit, is a cap on the total amount of money that the federal government is authorized to borrow via U.S. Treasury securities, such as bills and savings bonds, to fulfill its financial obligations. Because the United States runs budget deficits, it must borrow huge sums of money to pay its bills.
When will the debt limit be breached? Congress passed legislation in December 2021 to raise the limit by $2.5 trillion and stave off the threat of default until 2023. On Jan. 13, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen warned that she expected the United States to hit the limit on Jan. 19 and that, unless the statutory cap were raised, her powers to delay a default could be exhausted by early June.
Why is there a limit on U.S. borrowing? According to the Constitution, Congress must authorize borrowing. The debt limit was instituted in the early 20th century so that the Treasury would not need to ask for permission each time it had to issue debt to pay bills.
What would happen if the debt limit was hit? Breaching the debt limit would lead to a first-ever default for the United States, creating financial chaos in the global economy. It would also force American officials to choose between continuing assistance like Social Security checks and paying interest on the country’s debt.

Article URL
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/21/us/politics/federal-budget-deficit.html

 

The federal government continued to pump huge sums of money into the economy to help workers and businesses cope with the pandemic.Credit...Emily Elconin for The New York Times

The U.S. budget deficit hit a record $1.7 trillion in the first half of the fiscal year.
The United States is doling out twice as much money as it takes in.

By Alan Rappeport
Published April 12, 2021
Updated Oct. 22, 2021
The United States budget deficit grew to a record $1.7 trillion in the six months since October, as the federal government continued to pump huge sums of money into the economy to help workers and businesses cope with the pandemic.

The figure comes in the wake of a $1.9 trillion economic rescue package that Congress passed in March and as the Biden administration and Democrats are considering spending trillions of dollars more on a sweeping legislative package to overhaul the nation’s infrastructure.

Federal spending is far outpacing revenue — the United States is doling out twice as much money as it takes in, having spent a record $3.4 trillion so far this fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, and collected just $1.7 trillion in tax revenue.

The spending continued at a record clip in March, when the government spent $927 billion, the highest total on record for any March and the third highest total of any month to date. The deficit for March was $660 billion.

A Treasury official said that the data showed a substantial increase from a year ago, when the pandemic was just setting in and the economy was starting to shed jobs. The budget deficit, which is the gap between what the government spends and what it takes in, is expected to continue to swell in the coming months as money from the stimulus bill continues to roll out.

In the first six months of the fiscal year, spending was up sharply for nutrition assistance programs, economic impact payments and expanded jobless benefits. Money for small-business loans made through the Paycheck Protection Program and funds for education and health providers also contributed to the record outlays.

Economic policymakers have said that the budget shortfall is a long-term concern but that it is manageable now.

“The U.S. federal budget is on an unsustainable path,” Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, said on CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday. “Meaning the debt is growing faster than the economy. And that’s kind of unsustainable in the long run.”

He added: “That doesn’t mean debt is at an unsustainable level today. It’s not. We can service the debt we have.”

Alan Rappeport is an economic policy reporter, based in Washington. He covers the Treasury Department and writes about taxes, trade and fiscal matters. He previously worked for The Financial Times and The Economist. @arappeport

Article URL
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/12/business/united-states-budget-deficit.html
 

 

Tananarive Due has a new short story collection coming out called The Wishing Pool. 
It is published by brooklyn new york city based akashic books , you can preorder using the link immediately below
https://www.akashicbooks.com/catalog/wishing-pool/

If you want to see a community attempt to design our own book cover for the book, use the forum link in the comment

My thoughts in reply to the source
I don't see a problem at all. But I grew up in a home where my parents worked together to pay bills, to rear me. This concept of the male role or the female role is silly or dysfunctional.
A woman has the right to have a dominant charater type like a man has the same right. 
The following image is shared as a photo of proper gender representation

https://twitter.com/ShadayaKnight/status/1626159504575414274

I don't see the problem with either. If Oprah side her partner/husband wants to appear side to side while Rihanna's partner/husband want to be seen with her in the lead and him being led carrying their child what is the problem? 
I am a heterosexual man, a rare thing I tout , but I do now cause a dysfunctional mentality exist among many, and I argue most, of my fellow heterosexual men. And that is this idea that the man is lessened, or taken out of masculinity, ala emasculated, when he appears in any role where a woman is in a superior posture.
I do not know Rihanna, but if we actually knew each other, and we became intimate, and she said she wanted to have a child side me, and I said yes, I will not feel lessened or emasculated because we are in a photo shoot like the one above. 
I can't even comprehend why I will feel lessened or emasculated. I will not feel embarassed or insulted by Rihanna or the photographer. In the photograph, Rihanna doesn't have a chain around the man's neck. She isn't walking in front disconnected which was a common and still visible married posture in public in Nippon or Japan. 
The best question is, if Rihanna was holding the baby and being led by the male, would that then be an image of proper gender roles by those who judge the Rihanna photo above as emasculating to men? 
Not for me. If my wife, no too easy, if my girlfriend wants to create a baby side me and I concur, then I have no problem at all with her wanting to have such a photo shoot. Notice I didn't mention money. I wouldn't mind this photoshoot. Now if my girlfriend has Rihanna's money, I daresay this photoshoot is warranted. I don't mind being the father whether my girlfriend is rich or poor if we both agree. But, I am not ashamed to say my girlfriend who has joined me in creating a baby, and another baby:), who is a billionaire warrants the photo. I am not less of a man because a woman is a billionaire and I am looking for work/hustling/struggling through my own road. 
I think men who feel emasculated by Rihanna's photo are why so many women who are financially successful don't trust men. Cause many, and i argue most in global humanity, heterosexual men, whether rich or poor, feel/think/believe/know a woman , whether she is financially superior to them or not, needs to act like a housewife. 
I recall a scene in Crazy Rich Asians, I never read the book, when a male character fiscally poorer than the female character he is married to couldn't handle their environment or reality in their community.
My fellow Heterosexual Men, calm down:) Your manhood isn't lessened because a woman can make more money than you, can want children without marrying you, can not need to rely on you for what men forced women to rely on men for in the past. Men in the USA...Embrace the opportunity to have only love as what is needed living side women. Don't undermine women as men in most other places in humanity who seem infatuated to a male dominant gender structure in their community. 
Calm down and be happy women are free. Wouldn't you want your daughter to be able to be whatever she wants and not feel through peer pressure in her mind or where she lives she has to give a man an unfair or unwarranted or unnecessary role to her, just for his ego side the ego of many , and I argue most, in his gender community.

CITATIONS

source

https://twitter.com/ShadayaKnight/status/1626112523190648833

The emasculation of men continues...you can already tell who the man is in this relationship...that dude about to be a proud mother of 2

 

referral
https://twitter.com/MisterLassiter/status/1626639429153738752

 

This guy has 260K plus followers. We are doomed to more of his fragility and stupidity...pretty much forever

IN AMENDMENT to the referral
I oppose the position of the source but I don't think men who are unafraid of women are near extinction. The reality is, the future will have many men who feel/know/think a woman has a natural subservient place. The good news is that the future will also have at least as equally strong spaces for men who oppose that position. 
It isn't doom and gloom. And I comprehend the frustration. I am a heterosexual man. Yeah, lust isn't a sin, it is powerful, necessary, human. And shouldn't be cast aside. Lust all to often plays a huge role in men's, heterosexual men's physical desires for women. The key isn't to delete lust or run away from it or succumb to it, but to embrace love + liking more than lust. For when you love or like a woman, your lust can exist without guiding you to desiring a woman ill. 
 

CELEBRATING BLACK JOY

 

 

GDBEE COLORING PAGES for Black History Month 2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High resolution versions , support gdbee and give what you can please

https://gdbee.gumroad.com/l/coloring2023

 

I have some coloring pages as well in my gallery. Here are a few, enjoy as well

https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/art/Princess-Candace-ink-899639286

 

https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/art/Ebonee-in-my-style-ink-shape-897403440

 

https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/art/Addietober-Day-26-creepy-clown-ink-896624091

 

https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/art/My-Cookie-in-Cookie-Run-Style-BW-895979382

 

https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/art/Addietober-Day-17-bugs-ink-895211656

 

https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/art/Retrofuturism-pinup-model-R-black-and-white-894908633

 

https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/art/Addietober-Day-7-JAck-O-LAntern-ink-894195815

 

https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/art/Addietober-Day-5-Black-Cat-Ink-894114250

 

https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/art/Addietober-Day-11-Crows-ink-894624695

 

GDBEe pages

https://aalbc.com/tc/search/?&q=gdbee&type=core_statuses_status&quick=1&author=richardmurray&search_and_or=or&sortby=newest

 

 

Stephanie Mills Interview

 

your thoughts? I am just simply a stephanie mills fan

Lance Reddick

rest in peace

PHOTO LINK

if you want to make donations to his memory

MOMCares or https://www.momcares.org/

 

 

Michelle Yeoh and opportunity

Silicon Valley Bank and risk in fiscal capitalism

Tiktok and the war over who owns the internet

Maternity Deaths in the usa

Londonium, the roman name for london

The live streaming former elected official in japan

 

Michelle Yeoh with her historic trophy. She has roles lined up but no starring ones.Credit...Sinna Nasseri for The New York Times

 

After Her Oscar Win, Will Michelle Yeoh Get to Lead Again?
The historic victory should mean opportunities to star again, but too often after such milestones, Hollywood doesn’t find central roles for women of color.

By Kyle Buchanan
Published March 15, 2023
Updated March 17, 2023

We’re conditioned to think of an Oscar win as the endpoint to a journey. For some actors, holding that trophy is the realization of a dream held since childhood. For others, it’s the culmination of a well-deserved comeback.

But what happens after that win? In our eagerness to treat Oscar victories as career capstones, do we pay too little attention to the opportunities that are supposed to come afterward, yet often don’t?

I’ve been mulling that over since Sunday night, when Michelle Yeoh took the best actress Oscar for “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” It happened at the 95th edition of the Academy Awards, the kind of big, tantalizing milestone that prods you to contemplate what has come before, and Yeoh’s win proved especially historic: The first Asian star to win best actress, she was greeted onstage by Halle Berry, the first Black woman to have pulled off that feat.

Asking Berry to announce the winner with Jessica Chastain (the previous year’s winner) was a gamble twice over. If Yeoh had lost to one of her four competitors — all of whom were white women — the ensuing photo op would have served as a stark example of a best-actress category that has been hostile to women of color for 95 years. And though Berry has returned to the Oscars several times since her 2002 win for “Monster’s Ball,” it has always been as a presenter and never as a nominee. To see her there is to be reminded that an Oscar win carries no guarantees when an actress is already liable to receive fewer scripts and career opportunities than her white counterparts.

So though Yeoh’s triumph was a long time coming, and I teared up as she addressed “all the little boys and girls who look like me watching tonight,” I also found myself worrying that it won’t be enough. The people in the Dolby Theater looked awfully proud of themselves after Yeoh’s win, but if they really want to do right by her, they have to keep writing lead roles for 60-year-old Asian actresses; otherwise, it’s just empty back-patting.

That, after all, was the real breakthrough of “Everything Everywhere,” Yeoh told me in October. We were at an awards event where, flanked by the “Everything Everywhere” directors Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, she reminisced about a Hollywood career that had mostly been filled with supporting parts.

“Look, I’ve been very blessed — I’ve continuously worked, and I’ve worked with great directors,” she said. “But for the first time, I’m No. 1 on the call sheet, thanks to these guys. I do meaningful roles, like in ‘Crazy Rich Asians’ and ‘Shang-Chi,’ but it was not my movie.”

Yeoh said she hoped that “Everything Everywhere” would not be a one-off, but more than a year after the film’s release, it’s unclear when, or if, she will have another lead film role. Coming projects — including the big-screen musical “Wicked,” the third “Avatar” movie, and the ensemble mystery “A Haunting in Venice” — all consign her to supporting parts. Though she is a headline-making superstar who led the hip studio A24 to its biggest ever worldwide hit, Yeoh is still too often treated as additional casting rather than the main event.

“Even you, Michelle Yeoh — on the top of the world — has struggled to find the right roles,” Kwan told her when we met in October. “I think that has taken a lot of people by surprise.”

Yeoh laughed ruefully. “I read scripts and it’s the guy who goes off on some big adventure — and he’s going off with my daughter!” she said. “I’m like, no, no.”

Few Hollywood movies are conceived with a woman over 50 as the central character, and the ones that are greenlit tend to offer those leads to a triumvirate of white women: Meryl if she’s older, Cate if she’s younger and Tilda if she’s weirder. To ensure that Yeoh can be first on the call sheet again, filmmakers must think more creatively, as Kwan and Scheinert did when they revamped “Everything Everywhere” for Yeoh after conceiving the film as a Jackie Chan vehicle. (And while they’re at it, can they find something juicy for last year’s best supporting actor, Troy Kotsur, similarly a boundary breaker — with “CODA,” he became the first deaf man to win an acting Oscar — who has been seen in little since?)

As momentum in the best-actress race swung from the “Tár” star Cate Blanchett to Yeoh over the last few weeks of awards season, I kept hearing a common refrain from voters: While Blanchett already had two Oscars and would surely be nominated again — she has eight nominations overall — this could be Yeoh’s only chance at gold. Though I understand the practicality of that argument, I hope those voters understand that their job isn’t done simply because of how they marked their ballot. Yeoh’s Sunday-night win is a big one, but the real victory will come when the lead roles that had long eluded her grasp start to become commonplace. If Hollywood can make that so, then instead of an endpoint, Yeoh’s historic Oscar will serve as a long-needed new beginning.

Kyle Buchanan is a pop culture reporter and serves as The Projectionist, the awards season columnist for The Times. He is the author of “Blood, Sweat & Chrome: The Wild and True Story of Mad Max: Fury Road.” @kylebuchanan

ARTICLE
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/15/movies/michelle-yeoh-oscars-next.html

 

A bank official trying to reassure worried depositors in 1933. Credit...Associated Press

The Silicon Valley Bank Rescue Just Changed Capitalism
March 15, 2023

By Roger Lowenstein

Mr. Lowenstein is a financial journalist and author of “When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management.”

After a career of writing about bank failures, I wound up in the middle of one when my bank, Silicon Valley Bank, was seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. On Saturday, when I tried to pay a bill online, I was greeted by this not very reassuring missive:

“This page will be unavailable throughout the weekend, but will resume next week in accordance with the guidance provided by the F.D.I.C.” I wasn’t truly worried; small depositors like me had long ago internalized the rule that it made no sense to worry about your bank’s condition, since the risks of failure were borne by the F.D.I.C.

Federal deposit insurance was introduced 90 years ago during the heart of the Great Depression. Ever since then, small depositors within the F.D.I.C. limit of coverage have slept soundly. Now, in light of the bank failures of the last few days and the F.D.I.C.’s extension of coverage, why will any depositor worry about risk? Having bailed out depositors of two banks in full, how will the government refuse others?

Established as part of the landmark Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation initially provided deposit insurance up to $2,500, supported by premiums from member banks. The act was written by two Democrats, Senator Carter Glass of Virginia and Representative Henry Steagall of Alabama. Steagall wanted to protect rural banks, which had many small depositors, from contagious panics.

In that era, banking “progressives” were centered in the heartland. During the 1920s, low farm prices led to waves of bank failures. Various states adopted insurance, but the statewide systems failed. Scores of bills for federal insurance were also introduced.

The idea was controversial. The president of the American Bankers Association protested that insuring deposits was “unsound, unscientific and dangerous.” It was opposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and by his Treasury secretary, William H. Woodin. Roosevelt opposed insurance because he thought it would be costly and also encourage bad behavior. If there was no need to mollify depositors, then banks would be free to take all sorts of risks. Today we call this “moral hazard.”

In 1933, an estimated 4,000 banks failed. Roosevelt took office in March, and declared a national bank holiday to prevent more failures. After a pointed debate, in June Roosevelt signed the Glass-Steagall Act.

The F.D.I.C. definitely prevented panics. From its creation until America’s entry into World War II, banks failed at a rate of close to 50 per year, not bad considering the economic depression in most of that period. And most of the banks that failed were small.

By the postwar period, deposit insurance seemed to have been created for an era that no longer existed. Bankers schooled in the 1930s tended toward prudence, and the industry was risk averse. The failure rate was exceptionally low. That all changed in the 1970s and ’80s. A combination of financial deregulation, revived animal spirits on Wall Street, and rising inflation led to financial instability and swings in interest rates. Voilà — bank failures returned.

In recent days, many have been reminded of 2008 and ’09 (165 banks failed in those two years alone). But for the most part, that crisis was not the result of depositors pulling funds. Bear Stearns, Lehman and others failed or sought bailouts because overnight funding from professional investors disappeared. It dried up for two good reasons: Banks like Lehman had too much leverage, and they were overexposed to a very weak and widely held asset, mortgage securities.

That was not the case with S.V.B.

This panic was a classic bank run, and it bears an echo to a different historical episode. In the 1980s, lenders known as savings and loans had invested their funds in long-term mortgages paying a fixed rate of interest. When the Federal Reserve, under pressure of rising inflation, began to jack up rates, S.&L.s had to pay higher rates to attract deposits.

The mismatch between the cost of their money and the (lower) rate that their mortgages earned sank the industry. Many switched to riskier assets to juice their returns, but as these investments soured, their problems worsened. Roughly a third, or about 1,000, S.&L.s failed. The F.D.I.C. was not (luckily for it) involved, because the S.&L.s were covered by a separate federal insurer. This agency, known as F.S.L.I.C., became insolvent, and the subsequent bailout was estimated to have cost taxpayers more than $100 billion.

Silicon Valley Bank’s failure looks a bit like an S.&L. crisis in miniature. Like its 1980s counterparts, S.V.B. grew extremely rapidly, had many assets parked in fixed, long-term bonds, and was done in when inflation caused the Fed to raise interest rates, raising the cost of keeping deposits.

Like the S.&L.s, Silicon Valley Bank was heavily concentrated. It catered to start-ups for whom an S.V.B. account was a matter of status. One tech savant who had recently changed jobs (aren’t they always switching jobs?) told me that in his experience, roughly two thirds of start-ups banked with S.V.B. (the bank claimed that nearly half the country’s venture capital-backed technology and life science companies were customers).

These crises provoked a widening of the federal safety net. Until the 1970s, the F.D.I.C. limit on deposit coverage increased only slowly. But in 1980, as banks came under pressure from soaring inflation, Congress raised the cap to $100,000, over the objections of the F.D.I.C. itself. In the 2008 crisis, the limit was raised to $250,000. And after the failure of IndyMac in 2008, the F.D.I.C., when possible, quietly protected uninsured depositors.

In the rescue of S.V.B. on Friday and of Signature Bank in New York two days later, the F.D.I.C. overtly ignored the cap and rescued all depositors, irrespective of size. This is a breathtaking leap.

Rescued seven-figure depositors were primarily venture companies steeped in the ideology of investing. The first plank of capitalism is that it entails risk. You cannot sensibly invest without assessing the chance for loss. If venture firms relied on groupthink rather than financial due diligence, that was their doing. In the case of Signature, which was exposed to the crypto industry, the rescue probably bailed out gamblers on speculative assets.

Federal officials have seized on a technicality to claim that it is not a bailout: Any required rescue payments will come from a special assessment on (private) banks, not the public. Prudent banks, which hedged their exposure to interest rates and suffered a competitive cost for doing so, will be hit with the added expense. Most likely, banks will pass along the rescue costs in the form of higher fees to consumers.

Strictly speaking, President Biden’s assurance that taxpayers are not on the line was accurate. However, in the sense that banking customers are a pretty big group, the “public” will be affected.

Moreover, the hazardous effect on behavior will be the same.

The regulators clearly failed to monitor S.V.B.’s unhealthy mismatch of assets and liabilities. Their job will be more difficult in the future, as risk taking on deposits has effectively become socialized. What if a bank opts to attract more funds by raising its interest rate on deposits? Can the regulators permit it? Wait a second, this is what all banks do.

Once you take risk out of a part of a bank’s operations, it is hard to let market principles govern the rest. We should expect, at a minimum, tougher standards on bank capital (as now exists at the biggest banks), more regulation and higher costs. As this newspaper’s DealBook newsletter has predicted, more loans will move away from F.D.I.C.-member institutions to so-called shadow banks such as hedge funds, outside the purview of regulators.

In past bank failures, uninsured depositors did not lose all — 10 to 15 percent was typical. And in this episode, there wasn’t any systemically bad asset à la mortgages in 2008. Given that the risk was contained, and that the Federal Reserve provides liquidity to banks facing runs (and provided emergency liquidity this week), allowing uninsured depositors of banks that fail to suffer a haircut might have been healthier for the system in the long run.

And the bailout does nothing to address the condition that fostered financial instability: inflation. It may even exacerbate it. This is not what Henry Steagall had in mind.

Roger Lowenstein is a financial journalist and the author of “Buffett” and, most recently, “Ways and Means:Lincoln and His Cabinet and the Financing of the Civil War.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

ARTICLE
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/15/opinion/silicon-valley-bank-rescue-glass-steagall-act.html

 

TikTok’s chief executive, Shou Zi Chew, in the ByteDance offices in Singapore. The White House is hardening its stance toward the Chinese-owned video app.Credit...Ore Huiying for The New York Times

U.S. Pushes for TikTok Sale to Resolve National Security Concerns
The demand hardens the White House’s stance toward the popular video app, which is owned by the Chinese internet company ByteDance.

By David McCabe and Cecilia Kang
March 15, 2023
阅读简体中文版閱讀繁體中文版
WASHINGTON — The Biden administration wants TikTok’s Chinese ownership to sell the app or face a possible ban, TikTok said on Wednesday, as the White House hardens its stance toward resolving national security concerns about the popular video service.

The new demand to sell the app was delivered to TikTok in recent weeks, two people with knowledge of the matter said. TikTok is owned by the Chinese internet company ByteDance.

The move is a significant shift in the Biden administration’s position toward TikTok, which has been under scrutiny over fears that Beijing could request Americans’ data from the app. The White House had been trying to negotiate an agreement with TikTok that would apply new safeguards to its data and eliminate a need for ByteDance to sell its shares in the app.

But the demand for a sale — coupled with the White House’s support for legislation that would allow it to ban TikTok in the United States — hardens the administration’s approach. It harks back to the position of former President Donald J. Trump, who threatened to ban TikTok unless it was sold to an American company.

TikTok said it was weighing its options and was disappointed by the decision. The company said its security proposal, which involves storing Americans’ data in the United States, offered the best protection for users.

“If protecting national security is the objective, divestment doesn’t solve the problem: A change in ownership would not impose any new restrictions on data flows or access,” Maureen Shanahan, a spokeswoman for TikTok, said in a statement.

TikTok’s chief executive, Shou Zi Chew, is scheduled to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee next week. He is expected to face questions about the app’s ties to China, as well as concerns that it delivers harmful content to young people.

A White House spokeswoman declined to comment, as did a spokeswoman for the Treasury Department, which has led the negotiations with TikTok. The Justice Department also declined to comment. The demand for a sale was reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal.

TikTok, with 100 million U.S. users, is at the center of a battle between the Biden administration and the Chinese government over tech and economic leadership, as well as national security. President Biden has waged a broad campaign against China with enormous funding programs to increase domestic production of semiconductors, electric vehicles and lithium batteries. The administration has also banned Chinese telecommunications equipment and restricted U.S. exports of chip-manufacturing equipment to China.

The fight over TikTok began in 2020 when Mr. Trump said he would ban the app unless ByteDance sold its stake to an American company, a move recommended by a group of federal agencies known as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS.

The Trump administration eventually appeared to reach a deal for ByteDance to sell part of TikTok to Oracle, the U.S. cloud computing company, and Walmart. But the potential transaction never came to fruition.

CFIUS staff and TikTok continued to negotiate a deal that would allow the app to operate in America. TikTok submitted a major draft of an agreement — which TikTok has called Project Texas — in August. Under the proposal, the company said it would store data belonging to U.S. users on server computers run by Oracle inside the United States.

TikTok officials have not heard back from CFIUS officials since they submitted their proposal, the company said.

In that vacuum, concerns about the app have intensified. States, schools and Congress have enacted bans on TikTok. Last year, a company investigation found that Chinese-based employees of ByteDance had access to the data of U.S. TikTok users, including reporters.

Brendan Carr, a Republican on the Federal Communications Commission, said the administration’s new demand was a “good sign” that the White House was taking a harder line.

“There is bipartisan consensus that we can’t compromise on U.S. national security when it comes to TikTok, and so I hope the CFIUS review now quickly concludes in a manner that safeguards U.S. interests,” Mr. Carr said.

The White House last week backed a bipartisan Senate bill that would give it more power to deal with TikTok, including by banning the app. If it passed, the legislation would give the administration more leverage in its negotiations with the app and potentially allow it to force a sale.

Any effort to ban the app or force its sale could face a legal challenge. Federal courts ultimately ruled against Mr. Trump’s attempt to block the app from appearing in Apple’s and Google’s app stores. And the American Civil Liberties Union recently condemned legislation to ban the app, saying it raises concerns under the First Amendment.

David McCabe covers tech policy. He joined The Times from Axios in 2019. 

Cecilia Kang covers technology and regulation and joined The Times in 2015. She is a co-author, along with Sheera Frenkel of The Times, of “An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook's Battle for Domination.” @ceciliakang

ARTICLE
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/15/technology/tiktok-biden-pushes-sale.html

 

Tammy Cunningham with her son, Calum. She gave birth while hospitalized with severe Covid-19.Credit...Kaiti Sullivan for The New York Times

 

Covid Worsened a Health Crisis Among Pregnant Women
In 2021, deaths of pregnant women soared by 40 percent in the United States, according to new government figures. Here’s how one family coped after the virus threatened a pregnant mother.

By Roni Caryn Rabin
March 16, 2023
KOKOMO, Ind. — Tammy Cunningham doesn’t remember the birth of her son. She was not quite seven months pregnant when she became acutely ill with Covid-19 in May 2021. By the time she was taken by helicopter to an Indianapolis hospital, she was coughing and gasping for breath.

The baby was not due for another 11 weeks, but Ms. Cunningham’s lungs were failing. The medical team, worried that neither she nor the fetus would survive so long as she was pregnant, asked her fiancé to authorize an emergency C-section.

“I asked, ‘Are they both going to make it?’” recalled Matt Cunningham. “And they said they couldn’t answer that.”

New government data suggest that scenes like this played out with shocking frequency in 2021, the second year of the pandemic.

The National Center for Health Statistics reported on Thursday that 1,205 pregnant women died in 2021, representing a 40 percent increase in maternal deaths compared with 2020, when there were 861 deaths, and a 60 percent increase compared with 2019, when there were 754.

The count includes deaths of women who were pregnant or had been pregnant within the last 42 days, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy. A separate report by the Government Accountability Office has cited Covid as a contributing factor in at least 400 maternal deaths in 2021, accounting for much of the increase.

Even before the pandemic, the United States had the highest maternal mortality rate of any industrialized nation. The coronavirus worsened an already dire situation, pushing the rate to 32.9 per 100,000 births in 2021 from 20.1 per 100,000 live births in 2019.

The racial disparities have been particularly acute. The maternal mortality rate among Black women rose to 69.9 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2021, 2.6 times the rate among white women. From 2020 to 2021, mortality rates doubled among Native American and Alaska Native women who were pregnant or had given birth within the previous year, according to a study published on Thursday in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The deaths tell only part of the story. For each woman who died of a pregnancy-related complication, there were many others, like Ms. Cunningham, who experienced the kind of severe illness that leads to premature birth and can compromise the long-term health of both mother and child. Lost wages, medical bills and psychological trauma add to the strain.

Pregnancy leaves women uniquely vulnerable to infectious diseases like Covid. The heart, lungs and kidneys are all working harder during pregnancy. The immune system, while not exactly depressed, is retuned to accommodate the fetus.

Abdominal pressure reduces excess lung capacity. Blood clots more easily, a tendency amplified by Covid, raising the risk of dangerous blockages. The infection also appears to damage the placenta, which delivers oxygen and nutrients to the fetus, and may increase the risk of a dangerous complication of pregnancy called pre-eclampsia.

Pregnant women with Covid face a sevenfold risk of dying compared with uninfected pregnant women, according to one large meta-analysis tracking unvaccinated people. The infection also makes it more likely that a woman will give birth prematurely and that the baby will require neonatal intensive care.

Fortunately, the current Omicron variant appears to be less virulent than the Delta variant, which surfaced in the summer of 2021, and more people have acquired immunity to the coronavirus by now. Preliminary figures suggest maternal deaths dropped to roughly prepandemic levels in 2022.

But pregnancy continues to be a factor that makes even young women uniquely vulnerable to severe illness. Ms. Cunningham, now 39, who was slightly overweight when she became pregnant, had just been diagnosed with gestational diabetes when she got sick.

“It’s something I talk to all my patients about,” said Dr. Torri Metz, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at the University of Utah. “If they have some of these underlying medical conditions and they’re pregnant, both of which are high-risk categories, they have to be especially careful about putting themselves at risk of exposure to any kind of respiratory virus, because we know that pregnant people get sicker from those viruses.”

Lagging Vaccination
In the summer of 2021, scientists were somewhat unsure of the safety of mRNA vaccines during pregnancy; pregnant women had been excluded from the clinical trials, as they often are. It was not until August 2021 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came out with unambiguous guidance supporting vaccination for pregnant women.

Most of the pregnant women who died of Covid had not been vaccinated. These days, more than 70 percent of pregnant women have gotten Covid vaccines, but only about 20 percent have received the bivalent boosters.

“We know definitively that vaccination prevents severe disease and hospitalization and prevents poor maternal and infant outcomes,” said Dr. Dana Meaney-Delman, chief of the C.D.C.’s infant outcomes monitoring, research and prevention branch. “We have to keep emphasizing that point.”

Ms. Cunningham’s obstetrician had encouraged her to get the shots, but she vacillated. She was “almost there” when she suddenly started having unusually heavy nosebleeds that produced blood clots “the size of golf balls,” she said.

Ms. Cunningham was also feeling short of breath, but she ascribed that to the advancing pregnancy. (Many Covid symptoms can be missed because they resemble those normally occurring in pregnancy.)

A Covid test came back negative, and Ms. Cunningham was happy to return to her job. She had already lost wages after earlier pandemic furloughs at the auto parts plant where she worked. On May 3, 2021, shortly after clocking in, she turned to a friend at the plant and said, “I can’t breathe.”

By the time she arrived at IU Health Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis, she was in acute respiratory distress. Doctors diagnosed pneumonia and found patchy shadows in her lungs.

Her oxygen levels continued falling even after she was put on undiluted oxygen, and even after the baby was delivered.

“It was clear her lungs were extremely damaged and unable to work on their own,” said Dr. Omar Rahman, a critical care physician who treated Ms. Cunningham. Already on a ventilator, Ms. Cunningham was connected to a specialized heart-lung bypass machine.

Jennifer McGregor, a friend who visited Ms. Cunningham in the hospital, was shocked at how quickly her condition had deteriorated. “I can’t tell you how many bags were hanging there, and how many tubes were going into her body,” she said.

But over the next 10 days, Ms. Cunningham started to recover. Once she was weaned off the heart-lung machine, she discovered she had missed a major life event while under sedation: She had a son.

He was born 29 weeks and two days into the pregnancy, weighing three pounds.

Premature births declined slightly during the first year of the pandemic. But they rose sharply in 2021, the year of the Delta surge, reaching the highest rate since 2007.

Some 10.5 percent of all births were preterm that year, up from 10.1 percent in 2020, and from 10.2 percent in 2019, the year before the pandemic.

Though the Cunninghams’ baby, Calum, never tested positive for Covid, he was hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care unit at Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis. He was on a breathing tube, and occasionally stopped breathing for seconds at a time.

Doctors worried that he was not gaining weight quickly enough — “failure to thrive,” they wrote in his chart. They worried about possible vision and hearing loss.

But after 66 days in the NICU, the Cunninghams were able to take Calum home. They learned how to use his feeding tube by practicing on a mannequin, and they prepared for the worst.

“From everything they told us, he was going to have developmental delays and be really behind,” Mr. Cunningham said.

After her discharge from the hospital, Ms. Cunningham was under strict orders to have a caretaker with her at all times and to rest. She didn’t return to work for seven months, after she finally secured her doctors’ approval.

Ms. Cunningham has three teenage daughters, and Mr. Cunningham has another daughter from a previous relationship. Money was tight. Friends dropped off groceries, and the landlord accepted late payments. But the Cunninghams received no government aid: They were even turned down for food stamps.

“We had never asked for assistance in our lives,” Ms. Cunningham said. “We were workers. We used to work seven days a week, eight-hour days, sometimes 12. But when the whole world shut down in 2020, we used up a lot of our savings, and then I got sick. We never got caught up.”

Though she is back to work at the plant, Ms. Cunningham has lingering symptoms, including migraines and short-term memory problems. She forgets doctor’s appointments and what she went to the store for. Recently she left her card in an A.T.M.

Many patients are so traumatized by their stays in intensive care units that they develop so-called post-intensive care syndrome. Ms. Cunningham has flashbacks and nightmares about being back in the hospital.

“I wake up feeling like I’m being smothered at the hospital, or that they’re killing my whole family,” she said. Recently she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Calum, however, has surprised everyone. Within months of coming home from the hospital, he was reaching developmental milestones on time. He started walking soon after his first birthday, and likes to chime in with “What’s up?” and “Uh-oh!”

He has been back to the hospital for viral infections, but his vocabulary and comprehension are superb, his father said. “If you ask if he wants a bath, he’ll take off all his clothes and meet you at the bath,” he said.

Louann Gross, who owns the day care that Calum attends, said he has a hearty appetite — often asking for “thirds” — and more than keeps up with his peers. She added, “I nicknamed him our ‘Superbaby.’”

ARTICLE
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/16/health/covid-pregnancy-death.html

 

Two skeletons that were found last year as part of an archaeological dig in northern England.Credit...West Yorkshire Joint Services

A 1,600-Year-Old Coffin May Shed Light on Roman Britain
A lead-lined coffin that was discovered in northern England could offer clues about the area’s transition from the Roman Empire to its Anglo-Saxon period.

By Jenny Gross
Published March 15, 2023
Updated March 16, 2023
LONDON — British archaeologists have uncovered an ancient coffin in a 1,600-year-old cemetery in northern England, a discovery, they said, that could shed light on the end of Roman Britain and the establishment of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.

Discovered during an archaeological dig in Leeds, the lead-lined coffin contained the remains of an aristocratic woman who most likely lived in the fourth century.

Archaeologists also found the remains of more than 60 people who lived in the area more than a thousand years ago. Some bodies were buried on their backs with their legs straight out, in accordance with late-Roman customs. Others adhered to the Anglo-Saxon tradition, within which burials often included items such as clothes fasteners and knives.

The archaeological dig was part of a consultation process for a company applying for permission to build on the site. Archaeologists had previously uncovered late-Roman stone buildings and a number of structures in the Anglo-Saxon architectural style in the area.

“Very quickly, we started finding burials,” said David Hunter, the principal archaeologist of the West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service, which works with the West Yorkshire planning authorities. “The potential is there to give us much better information on how this transition from the Roman population to Anglo-Saxon England happened.”

Mr. Hunter said that the presence of both late-Roman and early-Anglo Saxon people on the same burial site was unusual. Whether the use of the graveyard had overlapped between the two eras would determine the significance of the find, he added.

The Roman occupation of Britain, from 43 A.D. to around 410, transformed the culture, as settlers from Europe, the Middle East and Africa arrived. Around the third century, market towns and villages were established, and Roman objects became more common even in poor, rural areas, according to English Heritage, which manages prehistoric sites, medieval castles and Roman forts in England.

After the Romans retreated from Britain, society became much more insular and parochial, Mr. Hunter said. A lot is unknown about the period, including how the area transitioned from being part of the Roman Empire in the early fifth century to part of the English nation in the 10th.

“Different people have different theories as to how this could have happened: It could’ve happened by cooperation, it could’ve happened by aggression,” he said.

These findings may add to knowledge about an era that is largely undocumented, Mr. Hunter said. Radiocarbon dating could help determine exactly when the remains were buried. Chemical tests could reveal the diets and ancestry of the people.

Researchers would also like to understand why there were a number of instances in which two or three people were buried in the same grave, as well as why there were multiple burial styles in the same cemetery.

Mr. Hunter said that the two different burial styles could be for reasons of practicality; Since the area was already recognized as a burial place by Roman Britons, it would have been easier for subsequent groups of people to have used the same site.

While the discovery was made in February 2022, the findings were only announced on Monday, in order to keep the site safe and conduct tests on some of the findings, the Leeds City Council said in a statement. The discovery of a lead-lined coffin is rare, with only a few hundred having been discovered in Britain, said Kylie Buxton, on-site supervisor for the excavations.

The council has not released the exact location of the dig. After the analysis is completed, the lead coffin may be displayed at the Leeds City Museum, in an exhibition on death and burial customs, officials said.

A correction was made on March 16, 2023: An earlier version of this article referred imprecisely to English Heritage. The organization manages prehistoric sites, medieval castles and Roman forts in England, not in the rest of Britain. (Other groups manage such sites in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.)
When we learn of a mistake, we acknowledge it with a correction. If you spot an error, please let us know at nytnews@nytimes.com.Learn more

Jenny Gross is a general assignment reporter. Before joining The Times, she covered British politics for The Wall Street Journal. @jggross

ARTICLE
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/15/world/europe/uk-roman-burial-leeds.html#:~:text=By Jenny Gross March 15%2C 2023 LONDON —,Roman Britain and the establishment of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.

 

Mr. Higashitani, seen on a computer monitor, celebrating after winning his election to a seat in the House of Councillors in July 2022.Credit...Kyodo News, via Getty Images

 

How to Get Kicked Out of Parliament: Livestream Instead of Legislating
The upper house of Japan’s Parliament almost unanimously voted to expel an eccentric YouTuber who won a seat last year. The reason: He never showed up for work.

By Tiffany May and Hisako Ueno
March 15, 2023
Since he was elected to Japan’s Parliament in July, Yoshikazu Higashitani has spread celebrity gossip on his YouTube channel, explored the sights of Dubai and handed out snacks to children displaced by an earthquake in Turkey.

One thing he has not done is show up for work.

On Wednesday, he was expelled from Japan’s upper house of Parliament, the House of Councillors, making him the first elected lawmaker in the country to be removed from office in more than seven decades.

Before his short-lived career as a lawmaker, Mr. Higashitani, 51, was well-known for his lengthy livestreams during which he dished out salacious celebrity gossip under the alias “GaaSyy.” He ran for Parliament from Dubai, claiming that he could not return to Japan because the police were investigating him for fraud. While in self-imposed exile, he campaigned and promised to expose dozens of celebrity scandals.

To the surprise of many, he won — running as the candidate of the single-issue NHK Party, which is dedicated to making changes to how Japan’s national broadcaster is funded. But he has missed every session in the House of Councillors since then.

In the meantime, he has maintained diverse interests, balancing his lengthy rants about celebrities with breezy posts about touring La Sagrada Familia in Spain and playing water sports in Thailand, using the hashtag “#endlesssummer.”  Last week, he said he traveled to Turkey, and in videos posted online was seen distributing snacks to children in areas devastated by a February earthquake, in front of a camera crew.

The founder of the NHK Party, Takashi Tachibana, told reporters in January that the police had asked Mr. Higashitani, a fellow party member, to cooperate with investigations related to accusations of defamatory comments and threats he had made in his videos, and that the YouTuber would return to the country in March. (The police declined to comment.)

In February, the House of Councillors demanded that Mr. Higashitani apologize in an open session, a disciplinary act second only to expulsion. He had agreed to do so, only to backtrack on that decision last week, saying that he did not feel safe enough to return, despite having immunity from arrest as a lawmaker.

Mr. Tachibana said last Wednesday that he would step down as head of the party. “As party leader, I will take responsibility for GaaSyy’s failure to keep his promise that he would come back to the upper house to make an apology,” Mr. Tachibana said at a news conference.

He added that the party would be renamed “Seijika Joshi 48 To,” which translates to Politician Girls 48 Party, and that the actress Ayaka Otsu would replace him. Mr. Tachibana said that the party would broaden its goals and would also recruit only female candidates to run for upcoming local elections.

Koichi Nakano, a professor of comparative politics at Sophia University in Tokyo, said that the party’s rebranding was a response to a movement to increase the number of female candidates in elections.

“NHK Party must have thought that they can poke fun at that in a right-wing, misogynist way, by treating female candidates as if they were teen pop idols like AKB48,” Professor Nakano wrote in an email, referring to a popular female pop group.

He added that Mr. Higashitani’s notoriety and what he characterized as the populist appeal of his party got him elected. “It’s unusual, to a degree, but Japan has had its own share of media-celebrities who are complete amateurs of politics, including comedians, actors and pop singers, though none was as unserious as GaaSyy,” Professor Nakano added.

Jeff Kingston, a professor of Asian studies at Temple University’s Japan campus, wrote in an email: “The NHK party, despite rebranding, has achieved little except to register discontent with the establishment and unhappiness with the mandatory fees every household has to pay, even if they don’t watch NHK.”

Muneo Suzuki, who heads a key disciplinary committee in Parliament, told reporters on Tuesday that Mr. Higashitani had already been given ample time to correct his behavior, but that he had ultimately undermined the electoral process. “GaaSyy doesn’t understand what democracy means in principle,” he said.

Dozens of protesters, mostly members of the Seijika Joshi 48 Party, rallied in front of the legislature before lawmakers cast votes over whether to expel Mr. Higashitani. Among the 236 lawmakers who attended the session, all but one voted in favor of his ouster.

Mr. Higashitani could not be immediately reached for comment, but in a statement read on the House floor by Satoshi Hamada, a fellow lawmaker, Mr. Higashitani said that his removal was unjust.

“There will continue to be people like me running for office. If you do not want the world you have made to be destroyed, please exclude those people from candidacy from the very beginning,” he wrote in the statement. “I wish the same punishment upon lawmakers who leave their seats immediately after propping up their nameplates and ones who are asleep and don’t show up like myself.”

Tiffany May covers news from Asia. She joined The Times in 2017. @nytmay

Hisako Ueno has been reporting on Japanese politics, business, gender, labor and culture for The Times since 2012. She previously worked for the Tokyo bureau of The Los Angeles Times from 1999 to 2009. @hudidi1

Article
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/15/world/asia/japan-parliament-youtuber-expelled.html
 

 

The problem with the film industry in the USA and Kemet

 

OPENING THOUGHTS

Historical fact versus Film industry goals. 

 

A film, with chadwick boseman before the black panther called, Gods of egypt , had only one Black god of egypt. Thoth. But, all the gods of Kemet, which the hellens< the romans called the hellens greeks, the greeks called kemet egypt> took over through the macedonian rule of hellens, are Black, all of them. So all the gods of egypt should had been Black. 

In parallel, Cleopatra is white. I didn't say she wasn't Egyptian. She spoke the native tongue. In the same way the Mamluks , who are from eastern europe, are not native to Kemet but lived most of their lives in Kemet, they called egypt, while being muslim. So, the problem is the film industry in the USA has a goal with many projects. The goal is simple. Unbind all characters from racial definition, a key to araciality. The problem is, history isn't a false thing, history is fact. Cleopatra was not black, just like the Mamluks. But this doesn't mean most people in Kemet or Egypt are white. 

But i wanted to do research and find out, who is the lawyer that filed the complaint because as always, the internet story linked to me has no citation. 

I found the following and I will end with lcosing thoughts

 

ARTICLES

 

TITLE
Egyptians complain over Netflix depiction of Cleopatra as black

 

CONTENT
by David Gritten
BBC News
A Netflix docudrama series that depicts Queen Cleopatra VII as a black African has sparked controversy in Egypt.

A lawyer has filed a complaint that accuses African Queens: Queen Cleopatra of violating media laws and aiming to "erase the Egyptian identity".

A top archaeologist insisted Cleopatra was "light-skinned, not black".

But the producer said "her heritage is highly debated" and the actress playing her told critics: "If you don't like the casting, don't watch the show."

Adele James made the comment in a Twitter post featuring screengrabs of abusive comments that included racist slurs.

Cleopatra was born in the Egyptian city of Alexandria in 69 BC and became the last queen of a Greek-speaking dynasty founded by Alexander the Great's Macedonian general Ptolemy.

She succeeded her father Ptolemy XII in 51 BC and ruled until her death in 30 BC. Afterwards, Egypt fell under Roman domination.

The identity of Cleopatra's mother is not known, and historians say it is possible that she, or any other female ancestor, was an indigenous Egyptian or from elsewhere in Africa.

Netflix's companion website Tudum reported in February that the choice to cast Adele James, a British actress who is of mixed race, as Cleopatra in its new documentary series was "a nod to the centuries-long conversation about the ruler's race".

Jada Pinkett Smith, the American actress who was executive producer and narrator, was meanwhile quoted as saying: "We don't often get to see or hear stories about black queens, and that was really important for me, as well as for my daughter, and just for my community to be able to know those stories because there are tons of them!"

But when the trailer was released last week many Egyptians condemned the depiction of Cleopatra.

Zahi Hawass, a prominent Egyptologist and former antiquities minister, told the al-Masry al-Youm newspaper: "This is completely fake. Cleopatra was Greek, meaning that she was light-skinned, not black."

Mr Hawass said the only rulers of Egypt known to have been black were the Kushite kings of the 25th Dynasty (747-656 BC).

"Netflix is trying to provoke confusion by spreading false and deceptive facts that the origin of the Egyptian civilisation is black," he added and called on Egyptians to take a stand against the streaming giant.

On Sunday, lawyer Mahmoud al-Semary filed a complaint with the public prosecutor demanding that he take "the necessary legal measures" and block access to Netflix's services in Egypt.

He alleged that the series included visual material and content that violated Egypt's media laws and accused Netflix of trying to "promote the Afrocentric thinking... which includes slogans and writings aimed at distorting and erasing the Egyptian identity".

Three years ago, plans for a movie about Cleopatra starring the Israeli actress Gal Gadot triggered a heated debate on social media, with some people insisting that the role should instead go to an Arab or African actress.

Gadot subsequently defended the casting decision, saying: "We were looking for a Macedonian actress that could fit Cleopatra. She wasn't there, and I was very passionate about Cleopatra."
 

URL

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-65322821

 

<Rough translation of the arabic to english from google translate>
TITLE
"Falsification of facts and Cleopatra was not black." Zahi Hawass comments on Netflix's latest movie

 

CONTENT
Zahi Hawass, former Minister of Antiquities and archaeologist, commented on the film "Cleopatra", which was revealed by Netflix yesterday, and drew criticism from public opinion in Egypt for portraying the "black" Ptolemaic queen, considering it a falsification of history.
Hawass commented in an exclusive statement to «Al-Masry Al-Youm» on the film, saying: «That is a falsification completely, Cleopatra was Greek, in the sense that she was blonde and not black», and considered that the film «falsification of facts and an attempt to attract illustrious historical names such as Queen Cleopatra, with the aim of promoting that the Egyptian civilization is black».
Hawass pointed out that there is a trend in the world in recent years led by American blacks and blacks in South America, to claim that the Egyptian civilization is originally black, stressing that «this talk has no basis at all».

The archaeologist pointed out that the black civilization has no connection with the Egyptian civilization, pointing out that the black civilization did not rule Egypt except in the twenty-fifth dynasty during the era of the Kingdom of Kush, that is, at the end of civilization. (The number of families of the Egyptian civilization is 30 families).

Hawass proved that the Egyptian civilization is different from other African civilizations, pointing out that the Egyptian temples have drawings of Egyptian kings, and the Egyptian king is depicted beating his enemies, explaining that the temples depict his enemies either «African, Nubian, Libyan or Asian, and all of them have a different shape».

Hawass continued that «Netflix is trying to create confusion to spread false and false information that the origin of the Egyptian civilization is black», and called on Hawass to take a stand against the Netflix platform.

Netflix launched a promotional advertisement for a documentary about Queen Cleopatra, directed by Jada Ninket Smith, wife of the famous American star Will Smith, and will be shown on the platform on May 10, and actress Adele James was chosen to play the role of the Ptolemaic queen.
Queen Cleopatra, the last ruler of the Ptolemaic dynasty, was born in 69 BC and died in 30 BC in Alexandria.
 

URL

https://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/2864818

 

<Rough translation of the arabic to english from google translate>
TITLE
After the crisis of the movie Cleopater the brunette. Public prosecutor's complaint against Netflix demanding that the platform be banned

 

CONTENT
Lawyer Mahmoud Al-Samri submitted a report to the Public Prosecutor to close the Netflix platform, after the announcement of the documentary film Cleopater Al-Samra, and to take all legal measures against those in charge of this work, and against the management of the platform for its participation in this crime, and to investigate them and block its broadcast in Egypt and address all concerned authorities, especially the National Media Authority, to achieve this.
The complaint filed against Netflix stated: It was recently noted that the Netflix platform broadcasts some visual materials and content that violate the controls of media content, which we are accustomed to in Arab and Eastern societies in all countries of the Arab and Islamic region, as most of what is presented by this platform contradicts Islamic and societal values and principles, especially Egyptian.
As stated in the communication after the crisis of Cleopater's black film: The platform's management reached them to display advertising and attractive ads seen by millions in the world, and spread on their official pages documented via Facebook, recently, an invitation to watch a documentary film about Queen Cleopatra, who was of Greek origin that she is black and all the pharaohs at the time have black skin, unlike Egyptian history and civilization, to promote the thought of Afrocentric spread widely on social media, which have slogans and writings aimed at distorting and obliterating the Egyptian identity In a crude and worrying way for us as Egyptians we have a historical civilization that nations talk about over time and the issue of these owners of this thought is largely supported by large external parties to falsify the facts of the Egyptians.

The communication against Netflix continued on the Black Cleopatra Declaration: From the standpoint of preserving the Egyptian national and cultural identity among Egyptians all over the world and taking pride in it, and consolidating the spirit of belonging to the homeland, and accordingly, we ask and request you to take the necessary legal measures against this platform, and to stop displaying every work whose purpose is to obliterate and distort the Egyptian identity, by playing in the minds with attractive advertisements and films aimed at falsifying and distorting history in Egypt, and also accusing those in charge of forgery of this work jointly And assistance from the management of the platform.

At the end of his communication, Al-Samri called for taking all legal measures against those responsible for this work and against the platform's management for its participation in this crime.

URL

https://www.cairo24.com/1783644

 

CLOSING THOUGHTS

My first thought in closing is a question. Did Zahi Hawass or  Mohamed-El-Sayed-El-Semary file a lawsuit against gods of Egypt. Because don't tell me that the gods of Egypt were nordic ? How is that not a falsification? 

And even though, and I quote

 

... the world of Gods of Egypt never really existed. It is inspired by Egyptian mythology, but it makes no attempt at historical accuracy because that would be pointless — none of the events in the movie ever really happened. It is about as reality-based as Star Wars — which is not real at all ... Maybe one day if I get to make further chapters I will reveal the context of the when and where of the story. But one thing is for sure — it is not set in Ancient Egypt at all.

—Director Alex Proyas, December 2015

 

if Gods of Egypt can be forgiven for that then the African Queens series by Jada Pinkett Smith can be forgiven. These films are meant to make Black women of African descent feel good about themselves. These films are not meant to be documentaries. 

 

Now Adele James who portrays Cleopatra said, if you don't like the casting don't watch the show.  And to be fair, the lawsuit, though gaining global attention isn't for a global ban, it is for a ban in Kemet itself. Which is not unusual in film. Many governments ban films involving the history. China banned Seven Years In Tibet. This is not uncommon. 

 

But Hawass and James and Jada Pinkett for me, offer an interesting question about the series and casting and identity. 

The first thing I thought was, why didn't they chose Nefertiti ? 

They could had chosen Hatshepsut but she is to dominant. Hatshepsut goes into other arguments about women's role in general and Jada Pinkett probably wanted to step away from that. But Nefertiti is legendary and she has a bust that is preserved. I want you to take a look at the show poster and then Nefertiti bust.

 

Adele James as Cleopatra

 

The bust of Neferitti

 

Doesn't ADele James look like Nefertiti? 

Why not Nefertiti?  Why did Jada Pinkett SMith have to use Cleopatra, whom I have said countless times in AALBC is a white woman. I didn't say she wasn't egyptian and I didn't say she didn't have black blood. 

Take a look at the following image of an actor named Ty Burrell. A white man.

 

Said actor, Ty Burrell has an ancestor, as Black as the night. And, in his own words <you search the "finding your roots" episode, he admitted that people in his community growing up stated that in whispers about his clan>

So Cleopatra being white doesn't mean she doesn't have Black ancestors. It doesn't mean she can't claim Kemet. Charlize Theron says she is south african. She isn't XHosa or Zulu. 

The point is Cleopatra is a white woman. But being in the phenotypical ranges commonly labeled white or black doesn't define one's background or how one defines themselves. Look at the following of Fredi Washington, who played the first Peola in the first film version of Imitation of Life 

She look more like Betty Davis than Lena Horne and Lena Horne is extremely Yella. And Fredi Washington never called herself anything but Black. Hawass would call Fredi Washington light skinned. 

So I see three points, in any order. 

 

Phenotype in modern USA based media, film in particular but even outside ala Hamilton the play with all the white or blanco historical figures being played by negros/mullatoes/mestizoes, likes to suggest an araciality to historical figures. Anyone can play anybody is the message, in my mind at least. So, The Dagda of the Tuatha de danaan  can be played by a male or female person, kid or elder, with blue black skin and a large black afro. While... Ogun of the Yoruba Orishas can be played by a male or female person, kid or elder, with long blonde hair and snow white skin. Now the question is why? well, the USA has a problem. It's population is the most multiracial or multicultural or multiheritaged in modern humanity and is only growing more multi every day. But, alot of negativity or hatred or dislike is between the parts of the people. The USA populace doesn't have enough love  in its populace to become a family, a set of loving ones. But maybe it can be engineered to be a clan <ala the country of immigrants claim which is false to the native american or partial to enslaved black people as they were unwilling>, perhaps even better a creed<ala the shared belief in individual rights, government of elected officilals through voting, a set of laws that need to be abided and respected absent the use of arms>. Various individuals or groups of people in the USA across all racial spectrums are trying to make the USA into a clan or creed and in the arts, this has led to hamilton or this film of Cleopatra. I see two goals, the first is to deracialize historical figures to support the idea that one can be a racial stranger in a community, the usa, and be part of it instantaneously if they abide by the rules of the clan or creed. The second is to support the idea that one can idolize, be proud of, adopt someone who isn't of their race as part of their essence.   Do I artistically like this? no. I prefer historical truth. But that is only a matter of taste, it doesn't warrant a large multilog for me. Any artist knows, no work makes everybody happy, and it shouldn't. 

 

Phenotype outside the USA, race, is simpler but when applied to the USA media's portrayals of race, become very complicated. I have been to africa. I can tell you, many women <not most> of North Africa, today, are white women. Now, they are african. They are muslim. And they are not nordic in appearance. Many Northern African women do share the mediterranean look with Southern European women, ala why in Europe, many northern europeans would call southern europeans dark. But they are white women. But they don't see themselves as Europeans. and this is the problem with race outside the usa in comparison to in the USA. In the USA race in general is usually reduced, made simpler, rightly or wrongly. But in BRasil you have Pardo, you have the brown skinned. In African there is no one drop rule, being black doesn't equate to african in africa.  In India, people who look like my mother's father, will argue they are not black because in asia, black equates to african. In asia, the word dark is used for people who in the usa will be deemed black. So outside the USA phenotype, appearance, has other rules and when you apply the goals , the phenotypical goals,  in USA media to places outside the USA it is dysfunctional. But, part of the dysfunction doesn't merely stem from the combination of two unequals or the attempting to find a multiracial center in the USA end, but also the old rigidities of race in many places outside the USA. I live in New York City and anyone who knows latin americans knows that in their homes, the dark or black or negra members of the familia are not treated like in the disney film encanto. Rosie Perez said it best herself, that in the latin community a colorism exist deeply. So when latin americans talk about latin unity, I scoff at that because I know fully well that in their homes, in their community that unity dissolves into a rulership by whites or light skins or alveno's or blancos over everybody else, negra, zambo, indios, et cetera. And it is the same in an India or in Egypt or other North African governments. The communities under said governments have rigid inequal racial categories that are accepted as part of their essential identity. Thus El Semary talks about national Identity even though most people in Egypt if they were in Mississippi in the 1960s would be called nigger on a daily basis. while most of the wealthy in Egypt if in the same Mississippi would be deemed the White elite. Which in Egypt is how the whites treat the blacks, as an elite. 

 

The importance of media. Hawass is correct. Video media in modernity are the books of yore. The video is how many or most learn, rightly or wrongly. Sequentially, any historical lies in video will be treated as truth or history by many. The question is, it is dangerous. I argue it isn't. But I will explain why. Growing up as a kid my parents provided me with nonfiction or fiction by black people that allowed my perceptions of black people to exist without need of white people. I didn't need public school. I didn't need colleges or universities. I didn't need the television or some video media. Sadly , many people in modernity need an external because their parents are ignorant, they don't know. In the black community in the USA, many black people like to say that the black community doesn't know enough about itself, but the truth is, that is all communities in humanity. The reason why is simple, most communities in humanity are recovering from being completely dominated by another community in humanity and that recovery tends to be a crude or complicated thing. Rarely as smooth as in the fiction books, Sequentially, media serves a huge role, like the images on the early european christian church walls to the illiterate in europe. It doesn't convey the truth, but it conveys a message easier. 

 

Preproduction in the arts, is an underrated thing. What I know on the outer rim boundaries of the entertainment industry in the usa is how often arts are produced absent a lot of quality preproduction. I am not suggesting a system exist to evade negative criticism. But, I wonder about Jada Pinkett's series. Why go from Nzinga to Cleopatra. In my mind, Jada Pinkett wanted to show being African is not equal to being african. While that is the truth I would had advised her to use another.  I can see why Nefertiti was not used based on the phenotypical range. Nefertiti is black, looks black, regardless to people like Hawass saying otherwise. But, I think the one of the Kandake's, like Shanakdakhete or Amanirenas<one of my personal favorites>, or other queens of Nubia or Kush and its descendants to Sudan or Aksum, like Gudit<who I learned of doing research for this post>,  and its descendants to modern ethiopia. Hawass is correct. Cleopatra is not black. But he is incorrect in one key way. The problem with Kemet and Egypt is that the Upper Nile, the south of the land because in the nilotic world the north is where the Nile flows from which is south if you base north on the pole nearest Europe which is what most in modern humanity do, has always been in a cohabitation with the peoples south of it, whether Nubia or Kush or Aksum. In the same token, the Lower Nile, which is the one that border the modern day mediterranean, has always been in connection to Hellens/the larger Europe or Asia. So, when Hawass talks about the non Blackness of Egypt I argue the Kandake's are to the upper nile what cleopatra is to the lower nile. Female rulers representing the external communities to either half of kemet. And that kind of interpretation is needed in preproduction. It doesn't mean it will happen. But in preproduction it is rarer than people think. 

 

The power of negative media. The first season involved Nzinga of congo and the second involved Cleopatra. Now considering the slap from her husband to chris rock happened nearly a month after the first season with Nzinga started, it proves the power of negative media. The show from Jada Pinkett wasn't mentioned alongside the slap. The slap was mentioned as the central issue of Jada Pinkett, Will Smith, plus Chris Rock. Her series was barely mentioned if at all. The movie, Emancipation, starring Will SMith was prejudged through people's view to the actor, and Chris Rock's standup was expected and eventually did rotate around this issue, one negative moment dominated all three of their recent time. 

 

I conclude with a simple point. All EL Semary wants is the show banned in egypt itself. Not an issue. And neither is the depiction of Cleopatra. I already spoke of Hamilton. None of the key points advertised in the media are important.

 

The location of Mohamed El Sayed El Semary 

https://yellowpages.com.eg/en/profile/Mohamed-El-Sayed-El-Semary/315467

 

IN AMENDMENT

I finally found evidence to answer my question about gods of egypt in the post above, I didn't find a page and quit on it as I have other things to do but after @Troy asked the same question. I tried again, and read the following

 

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl3847128833/weekend/

Mar 2-6    -    $39,360    -    1    -    $39,360    $39,360    1
Mar 9-13    -    $14,958    -62%    1    -    $14,958    $60,950    2
Mar 16-20    -    $13,675    -8.6%    1    -    $13,675    $77,216    3

 

So, Gods of Egypt wasn't banned, wasn't called to be banned in Egypt. People saw it in egypt. So, this invalidates the desire of the few in Egypt to pan the cleopatra film by Jada Pinkett Smith. And what does it prove. It proves that, the issue here isn't  that the Cleopatra film in question isn't phenotypically or other racially correct, it is that, it is produced by Jada Pinkett SMith, a Black woman of the USA in the NEtflix zone, which is going to be mostly seen online in streaming. This is the true issue. Black produced and mostly on streaming not in theaters. Hawass and  EL Semary realize that most of the young in egypt, like most poor people in the usa , get film through streaming, not theaters, they are afraid of said Cleopatra's visions being displayed amongst the youth, which will get some youth to question the Europhilic-whitephilic aspects of egyptian culture that have been peddled or enforced by those in power in egypt.

 

REFERRING COMMENT

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/10236-the-problem-with-the-film-industry-in-the-usa-and-kemet/?do=findComment&comment=60302

 

Preserving Our Memories for the Future A Webinar with the South Side Home Movie Project + Orientation to New Online Tagging Tools Hosted by the Chicago Public Library 6:30pm, Wednesday, March 29, 2023 Register here before 3pm for the Zoom link   Home movies capture a range of details about everyday neighborhood life in Chicago, from fashion to food to how people walk down the street. During moments of social change, they also show historic events from a unique perspective, revealing what it was like to watch Myrlie Evers receive a posthumous award for her husband Medgar in Grant Park in 1963, or to visit the Wall of Respect in Grand Boulevard in 1968. The South Side Home Movie Project has been collecting and preserving home movies from Chicago’s South Side neighborhoods since 2005, and now holds over 700 of these rare glimpses of South Side life in their local film archive. For Women’s History Month, join the SSHMP team in partnership with Chicago Public Library for a virtual guided tour of the project, featuring home movies with women both behind and in front of the camera, from the 1920s-1980s. SPECIAL NOTE: This session will also debut SSHMP’s new Community Tagging Tools, which let you add your own memories to the home movie database and identify the people, places and events you recognize. For the first time, Chicagoans from across the city are invited to try out this custom crowd-sourcing interface so that your stories become part of SSHMP’s virtual archive. Join us for a live demonstration and hands-on orientation to this new way to contribute your memories to Chicago’s history.  How to Attend This event takes place on Zoom; click here to register by 3:00 pm Weds, 3/29/23. Only one registration per household is needed. You’ll receive an email link to the secure Zoom link before the event. Automatic transcription is included in all CPL events using Zoom. Image: Dr. Helen Nash filming at Niagara Falls, 1959, from the Dr. Helen Nash Collection.   BLACKWOOD POST   My first thoughts on BlackWood, my label for the black statian, of the u.s.a.,  film industry.  https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=1837&type=status  Alien VS Predator review from Movies That Move We and the existence of the BlackWood before modernity, 2023 https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=1855&type=status  What is the definition of a Race Film, and the supposed last Race Film  https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=1860&type=status  South Side Home Movie Project being awarded https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=1882&type=status  How Maya Glick's independent film based on Storm exposes the flaw in Black Thespians approach to fantasy or science fiction in Hollywood and why they ignore Blackwood https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=1981&type=status  The problem in wanting Hollywood to be aracial while knowing it is white, and wanting hollywood to be aracial while knowing blackwood will be limited in outreach beyond black people https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2006&type=status  Most fiscally wealthy blacks are extreme anti-segregationists and why that curtails black development in fiscal capitalism. If you only want images that cater to all audience and no images that cater to one then you don't want to see birth of a nation which caters to a white audience, but you also don't want the mirror to birth of a nation that no one black financed. https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2029&type=status  the importance of the film industry on the self esteem of Blacks in the U.S.A. https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2109&type=status

Half of NYC households face cost of living crisis

Half of working-age households in New York City do not make enough money to cover basic needs, according to a new report.

That marks a significant jump from the group's 2021 study, when it found that 36% of households were struggling.

It said the surge was driven by the sharp rise in prices in recent years - especially for housing and childcare.

It comes as families around the world are facing rising living costs.

In 2023, a family of four would need to make more than $100,000 (£80,000) to match costs anywhere in New York City.

That is significantly higher than the roughly $70,000 median household income in the city reported by the US census.

The report was commissioned by the Fund for the City of New York, which is backed by the Ford Foundation, and the charity, United Way of New York City. A similar study has been conducted periodically since 2000.

The analysis examines the "true cost of living", a measure that reflects local costs and housing size.  

It is more comprehensive metric than the official poverty measure in the US, which was developed in the 1960s. By that measure, just 16% of households in New York City are living in poverty."There are many more people in New York City who struggle to meet their basic needs than the government's official poverty statistics capture," the authors of the report write.

"We find that New York City families struggling to make ends meet are neither a small nor a marginal group, but rather represent a substantial proportion of households in the state."

The report found that single mothers, people of colour and foreign-born were disproportionately likely to be struggling, but the problem also affected those with jobs and higher education.

Among households with at least one person working, 40% could not cover basic costs, it found, while more than half of those who did not make enough to cover the cost of living had at least some college education.

The report comes as many countries are struggling to rein in rapidly rising prices, which were once thought to reflect temporary shocks stemming from the pandemic and war in Ukraine but have proven stubbornly persistent.

Inflation, the rate at which prices rise, is expected to be 7% globally this year, according to the IMF's most recent outlook.

In the UK, inflation is at 10.1%, close to a 40 year high.

ARTICLE
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65394860

 

FULL REPORT
https://1drv.ms/b/s!ArspJ5yABJDqg8EsiSlQIdYn0kDlcA?e=LnBJgs

 

Commission
The Aevemor from TheBootesArtVoid
Black and white
https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/art/Commission-TheBootesArtsVoid-04-26-2023-b-w-960001249

Colored version
https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/art/Commission-TheBootesArtsVoid-04-26-2023-color-960000846

If you like the work, commissions are open

microcalligraphy
https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/commission/Microcalligraphy-signatures-1487995

 

I.S.D. cup for the I.R.C.L. Tour of Earth.

 Il Sol Depth cup for the champion of the Interplanetary Recycle Craft League Tour of Earth.

This is the I.S.D. cup or Il Sol Depth cup for champions of the twenty third Interplanetary Recycle Craft League Tour of Earth.

Each element represents something. The base represents the Interstellar Medium, the space outside the Sun's gravitational power. 
The golden-esque cup looking like dust/gas is the Heliosphere, yes the sphere of the sun, created by the sun which the solar system we live in exist in. I chose the color for the effect. 
The greyish spirals above is an interpretation of the Heliospheric current, which is shaped like an archemides spiral but after hours and hours and some lost attempts:) I just went for spiral rings. One day I may upload the sketches. 
In the center is the sun and the planets from mercury to Jupiter are present at top. 
And yes, it can be used as a sipping cup. 
At the bottom is a small indentation representing the milkyway.  The eye where our sun resides. 

 

Sketchfab URL: https://skfb.ly/oGJuE

Still image : https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/art/I-S-D-cup-for-the-I-R-C-L-Tour-of-Earth-960470478

 

The trophy was made for @arcencieldigitalart 3D art contest
https://www.deviantart.com/arcencieldigitalart/journal/Contest-3D-Art-in-all-it-s-forms-956559237

 

The story the trophy is for is the following
https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/art/The-Final-Distance-Of-The-Twenty-Third-I-R-C-L-To-947551245

 

The story was made for the promoting positivity challenge from @rtnightmare
https://www.deviantart.com/rtnightmare/journal/Promoting-Positivity-December-Challenge-937526879

 

It was because of @moonbeam13 I learned of the contest so consider following her folks
https://www.deviantart.com/moonbeam13/status-update/ArcencielDigitalArt-is-hosting-a-new-956762859

 

image aided in use
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere#/media/File:PIA22835-VoyagerProgram&Heliosphere-Chart-20181210.png

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#/media/File:UGC_12158.jpg

 

I used Figuro to create
https://figuro.io/Designer
and Sketchfab to display
https://sketchfab.com/richardmurray3d
 

 

Vanessa Walters’ ‘The Nigerwife’ Explores The Dangers Of Wealth, Lust And Tradition in Lagos
Amy Aniobi is developing the book into a series for HBO.
Kellee Terrell

By 
Kellee Terrell
May 11, 2023, 12:04 PM EDT

Vanessa Walters, author of the new novel "The Nigerwife."ILLUSTRATION: HUFFPOST; PHOTO: JERRIE ROTIMI, ATRIA BOOKS

Right on time for summer, Vanessa Walters’ thriller debut novel “The Nigerwife” < https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Nigerwife/Vanessa-Walters/9781668011089 >  is the perfect beach-ready read. Set in modern-day Lagos, Nigeria, we are introduced to a rarely-known world of the nigerwives — uber-wealthy ex-pat stay-at-home wives who left their home countries and former lives for Nigerian-born husbands. Now, they spend their days in glorious mansions, dripping in lavish jewels and designer clothes and seemingly not a care in the world.

But for Nicole Oruwari, that facade of her perfect life with her handsome husband Tonye and two sons has finally come crumbling down. Then, one night, she goes missing from a boat in the affluent Ikoyi harbor. Terrified, her estranged aunt, Claudine, who raised her back in London, is determined to get to the bottom of her niece’s disappearance and bring her home — alive. But as soon as Claudine arrives, she realizes nothing is what it seems, especially regarding Nicole’s in-laws. Oscillating between the past and the present and Nicole and Auntie Claudine’s perspective, “The Nigerwife” catapults you into a world that most of us have never seen before — and will have you glued to every page.

For Walters, who currently lives in Brooklyn, her book also served as a way to explore her own identity, not just as a Black Brit with Caribbean roots, but as a former nigerwife. Through her critical yet empathetic lens, that authenticity is brilliantly weaved throughout the book as she captures the beauty and chaos of Lagos, all while fearlessly tacking a slew of themes, including generational trauma, colorism, misogyny, the Diaspora and colonialism. It’s no wonder Amy Aniobi bought the book’s rights and is developing it into a series for HBO.

HuffPost chatted with Walters about what inspired her to write this book, tackling the complexities of the Diaspora and her excitement to see “The Nigerwife” on the small screen.

What inspired you to write this book?

Like Nicole, I’m a London girl, and that’s where all my family is, but then I was plunged into a very different life in Lagos. Ultimately, over the years, I had some profound existential questions about life that I’d never had before about community, identity and marriage. I couldn’t read about these things anywhere else. I know firsthand this sense that you’re totally dependent on your husband. Therefore, this sparked questions about what marriage is, what it’s supposed to be, and growing as a person. So being a writer, this is the natural medium for talking through these things and telling the stories of the women I met over the years.

I also wrote this book for the same reason I wrote my first YA book, “Rude Girls,” when I was 16 — I wanted to read about girls like me. Back then, I wrote it so my friends had something to read, but this time, I was more intentional. I wanted to articulate this experience for the wider world.

Having been a nigerwife, what are some of the personal experiences that you and Nicole share?

Absolutely. I was part of the nigerwife community for over seven years, and I believe there’s a universal nigerwife experience, especially around cultural isolation and lack of community. Being from London, growing up with a certain generation, we all listened to the same music and wore the same clothes. In Lagos, nobody could understand me in that way or sing the same lyrics to a song with the same joy my friends in London would. I felt that I had been forgotten. I was no longer part of the particular community I came from. That’s Nicole’s story, and it’s very poignant and important to tell. It’s not easy to articulate because it’s such a specific experience because most people don’t travel that far from their homes. But even in that, readers can still relate to this story.

I also come from a big, complicated family like the Roberts family — definitely not as dramatic, but still one that’s been complicated by years of separation and trauma. My mother was a barrel child (a child whose parents migrated to another country to work, leaving them behind), and my great-great-grandmother was a sugar cane worker, seemingly in slavery-like conditions. How does one live and love when they have a whole life with this level of labor? So looking at my own family paved the way for these characters to come to life and for me to explore similar issues.

 

 

I love how in your book, the city of Lagos is more than just the setting; it’s like its own character.

Lagos is such a thrilling city — a very dramatic city. There’s also so much tension there, partly because of these huge extremes of wealth and circumstance. It reminds me of New York, but here, we shout about it from every rooftop. We’re always having conversations about struggle and trauma, which is one of the most beautiful things about living in New York. But in Lagos, these topics become taboo because of the patriarchy and the more traditional aspects of society, along with this projection of wellness and social success. Poverty becomes taboo. Hardship becomes taboo. All that helps create this tension between the outward perception and what’s really happening.

This book also shows the dark side of marriage — one riddled with control, mistrust, infidelity and a lack of connection. What real-life advice do you want readers to take away from Nicole and Tonye’s relationship?

Marriage is complicated, and I intentionally made Nicole a very complicated and, at times, selfish character. She has an affair with someone who clearly isn’t the love of her life, but she also wants freedom because she doesn’t always have that in her marriage.

I didn’t want to make Tonye a textbook villain, but he makes a lot of mistakes. Yes, he’s good-looking with tons of money, but he isn’t perfect. I wanted to ask questions about what marriage is and how it can go wrong and even under the “best” of circumstances. In a place like Lagos, where there are a lot of labels on people, traditions, and boxes to fit in, how does this impact their marriage?

We go into marriage as individuals and think we have this blueprint, but it only sometimes matches up. Marriage can be amazing and freeing, but it can also feel like being in a straightjacket. (Laughs) Whatever it is, people need to be honest with themselves. Did you make a mistake? Did you give up on yourself and your desires? Are you being respected? Please, don’t be locked into a mistake for the rest of your life because you believe marriage is everything.

You also don’t shy away from the Diaspora wars between Americans, Brits, Caribbeans, Africans, etc. Which we know can be a little too real sometimes on Twitter. Remember the whole tea kettle fiasco? (Laughs) Why was including that important?

It was almost easier to have these conversations in a fictional way in the book than in real life. This way, we can enjoy the exploration and find our own answers. But, I am always interested in observing people and am curious to know why we are the way that we are and how where we come from plays a role in that. It’s fascinating. I remember moving to Nigeria and having people tell me they didn’t realize they were Black until they lived abroad as teens. Before then, they never had to think of themselves that way. But it was more just that because, as a descendant of enslaved people, watching these same people dismiss racism because they didn’t understand it the same way was not an easy conversation to have. How do you know the struggles of colonialism and all the terrible things the British did in Africa and diminish it because you didn’t have the same ancestry as the Caribbean or African-American people?

But I also found that having this understanding of race versus the Caribbean or African-American experience can impact your understanding of feminism and other issues. They’re all connected.

Finally, the book is being developed into a drama series for HBO, thanks to “Insecure” and “Rap Sh*t” writer-director Amy Aniobi. How excited are you for this story to come to the small screen?

It’s a dream. Actually, it’s a dream because this wasn’t even a dream I had before. And Amy is a total inspiration, boss chic. Look at “Insecure.” So many older Black women “grew up” on that show whether they’ve seen it or not; we’ve all been influenced by that show and how we see ourselves as Black women. Most importantly, that show really encouraged me to even tell this story.

Amy is going to bring her writing and directing talent and nuance to this. Plus, she’s Nigerian, and I know she will approach it with that perspective. This is why having Black women in the room is so important. I can’t wait to see what happens next.

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vanessa-walters-the-nigerwife_n_64596f9ce4b09eef83016c4d

An illustration of the Union prisoners’ cemetery in Charleston, published in Harper’s Weekly two years after the May 1865 celebration.
© Alfred R. Waud/New York Public Library

 

Black people may have started Memorial Day. Whites erased it from history.
Story by Donald Beaulieu • Yesterday 6:00 AM

On May 1, 1865, thousands of newly freed Black people gathered in Charleston, S.C., for what may have been the nation’s first Memorial Day celebration. Attendees held a parade and put flowers on the graves of Union soldiers who had helped liberate them from slavery.

The event took place three weeks after the Civil War surrender of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee and two weeks after the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. It was a remarkable moment in U.S. history — at the nexus of war and peace, destruction and reconstruction, servitude and emancipation.

But the day would not be remembered as the first Memorial Day. In fact, White Southerners made sure that for more than a century, the day wasn’t remembered at all.

It was “a kind of erasure from public memory,” said David Blight, a history professor at Yale University.

The contested Confederate roots of Memorial Day
In February 1865, Confederate soldiers withdrew from Charleston after the Union had bombarded it with offshore cannon fire for more than a year and began to cut off supply lines. The city surrendered to the Union army, leaving a massive population of freed formerly enslaved people.

Also left in the wake of the Confederate evacuation were the graves of more than 250 Union soldiers, buried without coffins behind the judge’s stand of the Washington Race Course, a Charleston horse track that had been converted into an outdoor prison for captured Northerners. The conditions were brutal, and most of those who had died succumbed to exposure or disease.

In April, about two dozen of Charleston’s freed men volunteered to disinter the bodies and rebury them in rows of marked graves, surrounded by a wooden, freshly whitewashed fence, according to newspaper accounts from the time.

Then, on May 1, about 10,000 people — mostly formerly enslaved people — turned out for a memorial service that the freed people had organized, along with abolitionist and journalist James Redpath and some White missionaries and teachers from the North. Redpath described the day in the New-York Tribune as “such a procession of friends and mourners as South Carolina or the United States never saw before.”

The day’s events began around 9 a.m. with a parade led by about 2,800 Black schoolchildren, who had just been enrolled in new schools, bearing armfuls of flowers. They marched around the horse track and entered the cemetery gate under an arch with black-painted letters that read “Martyrs of the Race Course.” The schoolchildren proceeded through the cemetery and distributed the flowers on the gravesites.

Other attendees entered the cemetery with even more flowers, as the schoolchildren sang songs including “The Star-Spangled Banner” and “John Brown’s Body.”

“When all had left,” Redpath wrote, “the holy mounds — the tops, the sides, and the spaces between them — were one mass of flowers, not a speck of earth could be seen; and as the breeze wafted the sweet perfume from them, outside and beyond, to the sympathetic multitude, there were few eyes among those who knew the meaning of the ceremony that were not dim with tears of joy.”

In 1865, thousands of Black South Carolinians signed a 54-foot-long freedom petition < look after the first image below >

The dedication ended with prayers and Bible verses from local Black ministers, followed by speeches from Union officers and Northern missionaries, a picnic on the racecourse and drills by Union infantrymen, including some African American regiments. The observance didn’t end until sundown.

And then, Blight said, the event was forgotten. Not right away — but within a few decades, any recollection persisted merely as rumor, in verbal anecdotes.

The reason, he said, is that “by the middle and end of Reconstruction, the Black folks of Charleston were not creating the public memory of that city.”

The Southern generals who stuck with the Union in the Civil War
The portrayal of the Civil War and its aftermath was controlled in the South by groups such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Ladies’ Memorial Association, as well as Confederate veterans, Blight said.

“The Daughters of the Confederacy were the guardians of that narrative,” said Damon Fordham, an adjunct professor of history at The Citadel, a military college in Charleston. “And much of that was skewed toward the Confederate point of view.”

Blight chronicled the 1865 Charleston ritual in his 2001 book “Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory,” based on evidence that Fordham helped him uncover. Blight had been researching the book in 1999, in an archive of the Houghton Library at Harvard University, when he found a collection of papers written by Union veterans that contained a description of the May 1, 1865, events in Charleston.

If the description was accurate, Blight said, he knew that “that event in Charleston deserves its own full commemoration, just because of the poignancy of it, the sheer scale of it.”

But first he had to corroborate it. One of the first places he contacted was the Avery Research Center for African American History and Culture at the College of Charleston. “I called up the curator there,” Blight recalled, “and I said, ‘I just found this in a collection of veterans materials. Have you ever heard of this story?’ And the guy said, ‘No. That never happened.’”

The “guy” was Fordham, who at the time was a graduate student at the college and a research assistant at Avery. Despite his doubts, Fordham knew the center had microfilm of the Charleston Courier, a daily newspaper from that time, so he checked it.

“About two hours later, he called me back, and he said, ‘Oh my God, here it is,’” Blight said. It was a Courier article from May 2, 1865, “describing this extraordinary parade on the old planters’ racecourse.”

Blight went on to find more proof, including an illustration of the fenced cemetery that was published in Harper’s Weekly in 1867. “Pretty soon I had all these sources that no one had ever bumped into, so one thing kept leading to another,” he said. “But even people in Charleston said, ‘No, never heard of it.’ That shows the power of the erasure of public memory over time.”

In the book, Blight describes a 1916 letter written by the president of the Ladies’ Memorial Association in Charleston, replying to an inquiry about the May 1, 1865, parade. “A United Daughters of the Confederacy official wanted to know if it was true that blacks and their white abolitionist friends had engaged in such a burial rite,” he wrote. “Mrs. S.C. Beckwith responded tersely: ‘I regret that I was unable to gather any official information in answer to this.’”

In the 1880s, the bodies of the Union soldiers, the “Martyrs of the Race Course,” were exhumed and moved to Beaufort National Cemetery. The horse track closed shortly after that, and the 60 acres of land became Hampton Park, named for Wade Hampton III, a Confederate general and Charleston native who became governor of South Carolina in 1876. Hampton enslaved nearly 1,000 people before the war, and his governorship was supported by the Red Shirts, a White paramilitary group that violently suppressed the Black vote.

After slavery, Black people desperately searched for family through newspaper ads <look after second image below>
By the end of the century, no vestige of the racecourse, the cemetery or the 1865 parade remained.

More spring graveside memorials followed the one in Charleston. Several occurred in towns across the country in the spring of 1866, and many of these places — such as Columbus, Miss., whose commemoration became annual — claim to have held the original Memorial Day observance. Officially, the nation recognizes Memorial Day as having started in Waterloo, N.Y.

In Charleston, the freed people didn’t have the power to develop an annual tradition after 1865. But the city now recognizes itself, regardless, as the holiday’s birthplace.

“On May 1, 1865, a parade to honor the Union war dead took place here,” reads a state historical marker erected in Hampton Park in 2017. “The event marked the earliest celebration of what became known as ‘Memorial Day.’”

 

URL

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/black-people-may-have-started-memorial-day-whites-erased-it-from-history/ar-AA1bPFSs?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=07a93f22676c4438d2e3eafde7baa12e&ei=5

 

 

This 54-foot-long petition bears the signatures of hundreds of men who participated in the State Convention of Colored People of South Carolina in 1865. (Gwenanne Edwards/Library of Congress, Conservation Division)

 

In 1865, thousands of Black South Carolinians signed a 54-foot-long freedom petition
It goes on display Friday for the first time at the African American history museum in Washington.

By Michael E. Ruane
September 23, 2021 at 7:43 p.m. EDT

 

In November 1865, eight months after the end of the Civil War, a group of African Americans formed a convention in Charleston, S.C., drew up a petition demanding their civil rights and sent it to Congress in Washington.

“We the undersigned colored citizens of South Carolina, do respectfully ask … in consideration of our unquestioned loyalty [that in the] re-establishment of civil government in South Carolina, our equal rights before the law may be respected,” the handwritten document begins.

What followed were 3,740 signatures, then-Sen. Jacob M. Howard (R-Mich.) told his Senate colleagues after receiving the petition — on a document that was 54 feet long.

It was a striking appeal from the newly freed, and previously free, African Americans, asking that they not be forgotten in the country’s postwar reconstruction. Never displayed publicly before, it goes on exhibit Friday at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture.

“The petition is a real touchstone for the expectations and the will of … African Americans …[who saw] this moment in the county’s history as a new beginning,” said Katy Kendrick, exhibitions curator at the museum. It’s a “very powerful and very direct claiming of full rights of citizenship.”

The petition is part of a new exhibit of 175 objects at the museum entitled “Make Good the Promises: Reconstruction and Its Legacies.”

The exhibit covers the turbulent postwar era of Reconstruction as the vanquished Southern states sought to recreate prewar racial oppression, and African Americans fought, ultimately in vain, to prevent it.

And it examines the legacy of that struggle today.

It includes a frightening Ku Klux Klan head mask with horns, made of cloth and animal fur, owned by a Confederate army officer in North Carolina and used to terrorize Black residents.

It includes a document from the Freedmen’s Bureau, the federal agency set up to help the 4 million people newly freed, that tells of a mother’s attempt get her two children back from their former enslaver.

Caroline Atkinson went to the bureau’s office in Vicksburg, Miss., in September 1867, two years after slavery had been abolished in 1865.

But her daughters Elizabeth, 10, and Mary Jane, 11, were still in the hands of one William Atkinson, who had refused to return them unless he was paid $100 — roughly $1,600 today.

She signed the document with an X. The bureau investigated and ordered the children returned to their mother, according to the museum.

There’s an old pew from a former Black church, as well as the stained glass windows picturing Confederate generals that was removed from Washington National Cathedral in 2017.

The Cathedral announced Thursday that the windows would be replaced with racial justice-themed windows created by Black artist Kerry James Marshall.

The exhibit also includes a Bible and nine-page Bible study guide loaned by a survivor of the massacre at Charleston’s Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, where nine African Americans were murdered on June 17, 2015.

That church is across the street from the site of the old Zion Presbyterian Church, where the freedom petition was drawn up 150 years before. (Zion Presbyterian was demolished in 1960, according to a study by the College of Charleston.)

“Reconstruction was a pivotal moment … when the nation had an opportunity to make amends for the injustices of slavery and rebuild itself on a new foundation of racial equality,” Kevin Young, the museum director, said in a statement.

“While some gains were made, this was also a period of voter suppression … violence and unlawful incarceration,” he said. “Because of the work left unfinished … and the decades of discrimination that followed, the struggle … continues in society today.”

The signers of the petition to Congress met at the “State Convention of the Colored People of South Carolina” over six days in late November 1865 at Zion Presbyterian, according to an account of the proceedings printed by a local newspaper. At the time, Zion Presbyterian was the biggest church in Charleston and a center for the Black community.

In addition to the petition, the convention issued a number of resolutions, including:

“That in the death of the late President of the United States, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, this nation has sustained an irreparable loss and we, as a race, deprived of a noble friend. We sympathize with his afflicted family and will ever hold his name in grateful remembrance.”

Lincoln had been assassinated the previous April.

The convention resolved: “That we hereby object to a ‘negro code’ [of law]. … In our humble opinion a code of laws for the government of all, regardless of color, is all that is necessary for the advancement of the interests and prosperity of the state.”

Oppressive state laws restricting the lives of African Americans, called “Black Codes,” soon became a grim hallmark of Reconstruction.

The convention issued an address to the people of South Carolina:

“Heretofore we have had no avenues opened to us or our children — We have had no firesides that we could call our own. … The laws that have made white men great have degraded us because we are colored. …

“But now that we are free, now that we have been lifted up by the providence of God … we have resolved to come forward, and … speak and act for ourselves.”

And it resolved:

“As the old institution of slavery has passed away … we cherish in our hearts no hatred or malice toward those who have held our brethren as slaves, but we extend the right hand of fellowship to all and make it our special aim to establish unity, peace and love amongst all men.”

URL

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/09/23/african-american-freedom-petition-museum-reconstruction/

 

 

Mary Bailey searches for her children. Her ad ran Nov. 24, 1866, in the Daily Dispatch newspaper in Richmond.

 

‘My mother was sold from me’: After slavery, the desperate search for loved ones in ‘last seen ads’

By DeNeen L. Brown
September 7, 2017 at 7:30 a.m. EDT

 

Ten months after the Civil War ended, an enslaved woman who had been ripped away from her children started looking for them.

Elizabeth Williams, who had been sold twice since she last saw her children, placed a heart-wrenching ad in a newspaper:

“INFORMATION WANTED by a mother concerning her children,” Williams wrote March 17, 1866, in the Christian Recorder newspaper in Philadelphia. Her ad was one of thousands taken out by formerly enslaved people looking for lost relatives after the Civil War.

Those ads are now being digitized in a project called “Last Seen: Finding Family After Slavery,” < https://informationwanted.org/ >which is run by Villanova University’s graduate history program in collaboration with Philadelphia’s Mother Bethel AME Church.

In four column inches, the mother summed up her life, hoping the rich details would help her find the children. She listed their names — Lydia, William, Allen, and Parker — and explained in a few words that she last saw them when they were “formerly owned together” by a man named John Petty who lived about six miles from Woodbury, Tenn.

She explained how her family was split apart when she was sold again and taken farther south into captivity.

“She has never seen the above-named children since,” the ad said. “Any information given concerning them, however, will be gratefully received by one whose love for her children survives the bitterness and hardships of many long years spent in slavery.”

The “Last Seen” ads started appearing around 1863. By 1865, when the Civil War ended, they were coming out in streams. Black people torn away from family members by slavery placed thousands of “Information Wanted” notices in black-owned newspapers across the country, seeking any help to find loved ones.

In the ads, mothers looked for their children; children looked for their mothers; fathers placed ads for lost sons; sisters looked for sisters; husbands sought their wives; wives tried to find their husbands. The ads showed in real time the destruction slavery wrought on black families, tearing people apart and scattering generations like leaves in the wind.

The ads often gave detailed physical descriptions of the missing, names of former slave owners, locations subscribers “last saw” family members and sometimes maps, tracing how many times they were sold from one owner to the next until they so far from family members all they had to cling to was sketchy memories.

Many of the Last Seen ads, dating from 1863 to 1902, were placed in the Christian Recorder, the official newspaper of the African Methodist Church. Others ads were placed in the Black Republican in New Orleans, the South Carolina Leader in Charleston, the Colored Citizen in Cincinnati, the Free Men’s Press in Galveston, Texas, and the Colored Tennessean in Nashville.

Judy Giesberg, the graduate program director at Villanova’s History Department, began noticing the newspaper ads while researching the story of Emilie Davis, a free black woman who lived in Philadelphia during the Civil War and kept a diary while there.

“Emilie Davis would write about a lecture she would see or some event in Philadelphia,” Giesberg said. “If she said she went to see Frederick Douglass, we would look in the newspaper to see where he was. It was hard to overlook these ads.”

Sometimes the ads took up columns and columns that would make up whole pages, which captured the weight of the missing and the desperation of subscribers to find them.

Giesberg started collecting the ads with the intention of one day making them available to people online. “I started with the AME Church newspaper,” Giesberg said. “It was the first place I noticed the ads. When I started looking in other black newspapers, I found this was a common phenomenon to include ads taken by people who were one step out of slavery.”

Last August, Giesberg created the “LAST SEEN: FINDING FAMILY AFTER SLAVERY” website, where genealogists and other researchers can search for specific names and locations. Two graduate students — Margaret Strolle and James Byrd — read microfilm to find the material. The site uses volunteers to help transcribe the ads. There are now more than 2,000 ads on the site, of which 1,500 have been transcribed. Since January, the site has been visited by more than 1 million unique visitors.

“There are comparable projects that have collected runaway slave ads,” Giesberg said. What is unique about Last Seen ads, she added, “is they were taken out from the other perspective. They were taken out by the enslaved people.”

The Last Seen ads break down what genealogists and researchers call the “1870 Census Wall.” Before the 1870 Census, there were very few official records of black people.  Enslaved black people were often listed as property, by a check mark, a number or by a gender. They were often listed on bills of sale, like chattel. When researchers try to get information on enslaved black people, they often hit a brick wall when searching for information before 1870.

“What the ads do is reach from the other side of the 1870 Census Wall,” Giesberg said. “The ads place people together in a time before 1870.”

The ads tell real stories of real people with real names, humanizing enslaved people, something slave owners often tried to prevent.

“Slave owners often painted a portrait of enslaved people as part of a happy family in which white men were patriarchs,” Giesberg said. The ads go “beyond that myth, the myth of the benign slaveholder who believes he was a good slaveholder and all the slaves belonged to him. These ads are where real truth lies.”

Enslaved people lived with the constant fear that they or a family member would be sold.

“Slave owners’ wealth lay largely in the people they owned, therefore, they frequently sold and or purchased people as finances warranted,” according to a report by the National Humanities Center, a nonprofit that collects primary historical resources. “An enslaved person could be sold as part of an estate when his owner died, or because the owner needed to liquidate assets to pay off debts or because the owner thought the enslaved person was a troublemaker.”

An exhibit entitled “The Weeping Time” at the Smithsonian’s African American Museum of History and Culture explains the circumstances that often split families apart.

“Night and day, you could hear men and women screaming … ma, pa, sister or brother … taken without any warning,” according to a witness account in the exhibit. “People was always dying from a broken heart.”

Another witness described an emotional scene at a slave auction. A mother clings to her baby while being whipped with a lash because she refused to put her baby down and climb an auction block.

The woman pleaded for God’s mercy, Henry Bibb recounted.

“But the child was torn from the arms of its mother amid the most heart rending-shrieks from the mother and child on the one hand, and the bitter oaths and cruel lashes from the tyrants on the other,” Bibb recalled. “Finally, the poor child was torn from the mother while she sacrificed to the highest bidder.”

In a “Last Seen” ad placed on April 17, 1902, in the Christian Recorder newspaper in Philadelphia, a woman seeks information about “my people.”
“My mother was sold from me when I could but crawl,” the woman writes.

Since the sale, “I never saw any of my people. I was about 39 years old last March and am married and living at Panama, Vernon Co., Mo. My name is Mary Delaney; it used to be Mary Long. Address me at Post office: Panama, Vernon county, Mo.”

In a “Last Seen” ad placed on April 17, 1902, in the Christian Recorder newspaper in Philadelphia, a woman seeks information about “my people.”
“My mother was sold from me when I could but crawl,” the woman writes.

Since the sale, “I never saw any of my people. I was about 39 years old last March and am married and living at Panama, Vernon Co., Mo. My name is Mary Delaney; it used to be Mary Long. Address me at Post office: Panama, Vernon county, Mo.”

Some of the ads were intentionally vague, masking details, and  mysteriously leaving out specific names and locations. These ads showed mental calculations of a people one step out of slavery. Even after Lincoln declared enslaved people in Confederate states to be freed, they were suspicious about the terms of that Emancipation, fearing that at any time they could be pulled back into slavery.

In a June 7, 1883, ad placed in the Southwestern Christian Advocate in New Orleans, an unnamed man searched for his son. The ad is brief: “Mr. EDITOR,” the man wrote, “I desire to hear from my son. His name was Tony Jones. I have not seen him since the war. He lived with Thomas Jones. His mother was Julia Jones.”

If anyone should know Tony Jones — the enslaved man with the same name as his “master”— he asks them to write to him care of P.P. Brooks in Shelbyville, Tex.
The ad is unsigned.

Other ads gave insight into how people lived, their aspirations and successes.

In an ad placed June 28, 1883, in the Southwestern Christian Advocate newspaper in New Orleans, Betty Davis inquires “for my people.” Davis explained that she was separated from her mother when she was three years old.

“I am now 55 years of age,” she wrote. “I learned how to read when I was 50. I take and read the SOUTHWESTERN, it is food for my soul. I am anxious and would be glad to hear something of my mother or my brother Henry. Someone help me.”

Sometimes, the ads led to happy endings.

In an Aug. 26, 1886, ad that ran in the Southwestern Christian Advocate newspaper, which did not charge for publishing letters from subscribers, Alcy Boone wrote a letter to the editor saying she found who she was looking for:

“I have found my mother through the dear SOUTHWESTERN. God bless you and your paper; it resurrects the forgotten, the lost can be found.”

URL

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/09/07/my-mother-was-sold-from-me-after-slavery-the-desperate-search-for-loved-ones-in-last-seen-ads/

How a simple shipping error poisoned most of Michigan
Story by Matt Jaworowski • 8h ago

ST. LOUIS, Mich. (WOOD) — In many ways, St. Louis, Michigan, is your typical small town. Main Street is one of the city’s primary throughways. The “downtown” shopping district spans just a few blocks. St. Louis doesn’t have a Walmart to call its own. That requires a quick drive over to the nearby city of Alma. 
But St. Louis has its own claims to fame. The town of approximately 6,800 people prides itself on being the “Middle of the Mitten” — measured to be the geographic center of the state of Michigan. Signs throughout the city boast about that fact.

A cynic could call it the middle of nowhere, but that isn’t necessarily true. At one time, St. Louis wasn’t just the “middle” of Michigan, it was also the center of a statewide controversy.

Just a couple of short blocks from Main Street, there is a giant swath of open land, about 54 acres in all. It’s surrounded by chainlink fence, with construction equipment and power stations lining the paths. The warning signs are faded by the sun. The lettering that was once a bright red is now a pale pink, but all these years later they still read “Private Property, No Trespassing.”

There is a gated driveway with a sign of its own. You have arrived at the former Velsicol Chemical Plant, now an EPA Superfund Cleanup site. < https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0502194 > On the other side of the driveway is a ceremonial bench, built on behalf of the city. The inscription reads, “We declare our mutual aim that our river and land be restored to their natural condition safe for any use.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been working off and on at the site for more than 40 years now — and the work continues. The Pine River and surrounding areas have been contaminated for much longer than that. But 50 years ago, a simple error at the since-demolished St. Louis plant spread that contamination from a handful of communities to the entire state.

“It is the most underreported disaster I have known in my long journalistic career.”

That’s how Joyce Egginton ends the first paragraph of her book, “The Poisoning of Michigan.” At the time, Egginton was an American correspondent for the London Observer. She says she stumbled onto the story tucked away deep inside an issue of The New York Times.

“I remember calling out to my husband halfway through the task, ‘Can you believe this one?’” Egginton wrote. “Way down on an inside page of the New York Times was a brief account of how in Michigan a large quantity of a highly toxic industrial fire retardant, polybrominated biphenyl (PBB), had been confused at the manufacturing plant with a nutritional supplement for cattle feed. As a result, there had been a massive, slow poisoning of dairy herds for almost a year before the accident was discovered. It was estimated that throughout that time virtually all 9 million people living in Michigan had been ingesting contaminated meat and milk on a daily basis.”

That snippet from The New York Times led Egginton to years of research and interviews, culminating in more than 300 pages packed with details, outlining a quietly escalating tragedy that centered around PBB.

PBB is a group of man-made chemicals that were first manufactured around 1970 and sold primarily as a fire retardant. They were also mixed into many plastics for consumer products, including computer monitors, televisions and textiles. But chemical manufacturers didn’t fully understand the health or environmental impact from these chemicals. Those questions came after the infamous “PBB Disaster.”

It was a late spring day in 1973 when a truck driver made a delivery from Michigan Chemical to the Michigan Farm Bureau’s central mixing facility outside of Battle Creek. The driver thought he had dropped off 50-pound bags of Nutrimaster — Michigan Chemical’s product name for magnesium oxide.

America’s first high-volume ‘PFAS Annihilator’ is up and running in West Michigan
Farmers regularly mix in magnesium oxide as a supplement for milking cows. The compound provides iodine, which cows need, and it also makes the cows thirstier. The more water cows drink, the more milk they produce.

This magnesium oxide was a grayish-white powder and was packed in 50-pound brown paper sacks. The powder tended to get clumpy when exposed to moisture. What the driver had actually delivered was Firemaster, another grayish-white clumpy mixture that was packed in 50-pound brown paper bags.

“Except for the color coding on the bags, Nutrimaster and the powdery form of Firemaster could easily have been mistaken one for the other,” Egginton wrote. “Which is exactly what happened when, during a temporary nationwide paper shortage in the winter of 1972-73, Michigan Chemical Corporation ran out of preprinted bags and made do by simply hand-stenciling the trade names in black.” 

Tens of thousands of animals tainted with PBB were slaughtered and buried in pits on state land to limit contamination spread. (Courtesy Archives of Michigan)
© Provided by WOOD Grand Rapids

Tens of thousands of animals tainted with PBB were slaughtered and buried in pits on state land to limit contamination spread. (Courtesy Archives of Michigan)
© Provided by WOOD Grand Rapids

Tens of thousands of animals tainted with PBB were slaughtered and buried in pits on state land to limit contamination spread. (Courtesy Archives of Michigan)
© Provided by WOOD Grand Rapids

 

In the ensuing few years, < https://www.michigan.gov/mdhhs/safety-injury-prev/environmental-health/topics/dehbio/pbbs/history > more than 500 farms across the state had to be quarantined. Approximately 30,000 cattle, 4,500 swine, 1,500 sheep and 1.5 million chickens either died from PBB-related ailments or had to be killed. That doesn’t count the sick animals that showed clear signs of PBB toxicity but were still allowed to be sold off and slaughtered.

Rick Halbert, one of the first farmers to press the Farm Bureau on a problem with his feed, explained to Egginton how his herd’s health fell off a cliff.

“As months went by the toxic symptoms in his herd progressed, producing a mangey appearance, matted hair, thickened skin, diarrhea, emaciation,” Egginton wrote. 

Many cows also showed signs of distress during pregnancy, leading to a spike in aborted or stillborn calves.

Gerald Woltjer bought a farm in Coopersville from a farmer who was forced to sell because of PBB contamination. He figured the property could still be successful with a new herd. He was wrong.

“Within two years, Woltjer’s herd — which was never quarantined — was so sick and useless that he was on the verge of bankruptcy,” Egginton wrote. “He told of scrawny cows with perpetually bloody noses ‘who acted like they were blind;’ cows so weak that they could not get up to be milked; cows which had bodily infections but passed inspection to be butchered for human consumption.”

Woltjer realized the land was contaminated and PBB exposure had spread to his herd.

“The longer I lived on that farm, the worse it became,” he told Egginton. “After a time, there were no worms in the soil. There were no field mice, no rats, no rabbits, no grasshoppers. As the cattle were dying, the cats and dogs were dying, too. A fully grown cat would live only six weeks on that farm. Our three dogs went crazy. Our neighbors had bees that were dead in the hives. The frogs were dead in the streams. There was a five-acre swamp that used to croak at night so you could hardly sleep. Then, it was silent. And it was a long time before I knew why.”

Most farmers, completely baffled by the sudden changes, fell into financial ruin. Even with the state eventually instituting PBB testing standards and a program to help compensate for their losses, many farmers faced drastic decisions. For some, it came down to killing your animals or selling an obviously sick one to market in an attempt to make any money back on a floundering investment. Many farmers, like Garry Zuiderveen from Missaukee County, refused to pass along the PBB-contaminated animals.

“We should never have had to make that decision,” Zuiderveen told Egginton. “It was the darkest day in my life when I shot those cows. A farmer is an immensely proud person. Anything wrong with his herd reflects on his husbandry and his herdmanship.”

The Michigan Department of Agriculture eventually opened a large tract of state-owned land in Kalkaska County to be used as a burial pit for tainted animals. But for farmers like Zuiderveen, who clearly had a poisoned herd but tested below the state’s safety threshold, there was no help offered.

Zuiderveen ended up digging a burial pit on his own property. His neighbors and friends came to help, knowing it would be a difficult day.

“We hauled the milk cows from the barn to the burial site on three stock trailers and put them in six or eight at a time. Within 20 seconds after they were unloaded, we shot them with high-powered rifles. This finished them instantly. They did not suffer,” Zuiderveen told Egginton. “My dad would not look at them. Tears were running down his face, a man of 78. … Those fellows don’t know what they put us through. We should never have had to kill our own cows; we were too emotionally involved.”

Zuiderveen wouldn’t take any credit for doing “the right thing.” He credited his Christian upbringing and the concept of being “our brother’s keeper.”

“I knew that, from the information we had at the time, it was the only decision we could make and still face ourselves in the mirror,” he said.

Still, plenty of other farmers couldn’t pull the trigger. Between facing bankruptcy or foreclosure, many felt like there was no other rational choice. As a result, lots of PBB-tainted meat and dairy products were sold at market and scientists estimate virtually everyone who lived in Michigan at the time was exposed to PBB and had some level stored within the fats in their body.

 

Though there were studies being conducted and clear symptoms that could be traced to PBB exposure, specific findings on how PBB impacts the human body came long after the 1973 disaster. By the 1990s, researchers had been able to tie chemical pollution to a rise in hormone-related abnormalities, including breast cancer.

Michele Marcus is a professor of epidemiology at Emory University and is the lead scientist on the Michigan PBB Registry, < https://sph.emory.edu/pbbregistry/about/index.html > which began in 1976. She said that PBB essentially acts as estrogen in the human body. A PBB buildup throws off the body’s hormonal balance, leading girls to mature earlier and boys to mature later and be born with abnormalities in their urinary or reproductive systems.

Researchers also found that PBB was being passed down from one generation to another, even today finding a higher rate of miscarriages in women who were born from mothers or grandmothers who were directly exposed to high levels of PBB.

“The children of the mother are exposed as it crosses the placenta and then again in breast milk because (PBB) is lipophilic. It is stored in fat, and breast milk has a very high fat concentration,” Marcus said.

The latest studies are focused on how PBB impacts a person’s DNA. Marcus explained that PBB does not mutate a person’s genetic sequence, but it can impact how certain genes are “expressed.”

“You start from a single cell. You’ve got your DNA and then the cells change and they differentiate into heart cells, stomach cells, liver cells. And each cell type has a gene expression pattern. So genes are turned off and turned on depending on the function of the cell,” Marcus said. “This is kind of a new field, which is looking at the impact of chemicals or substances on gene regulation, not on the genes themselves. … We found that PBB does impact this methylation pattern and, in fact, that’s part of the evidence that it acts like estrogen because it affects this methylation pattern in the same way as estrogen.”

Some good, some bad: Michigan DNR updates endangered species list < https://www.woodtv.com/news/michigan/some-good-some-bad-michigan-dnr-updates-endangered-species-list/ > 
So can that gene regulation be inherited? Researchers haven’t come to a unanimous conclusion yet, but Marcus believes it can.

“This is a very controversial question and for many years the dogma was no, it can’t (be inherited) because those things are stripped when the sperm are developed. When the DNA replicates that is supposed to be all stripped off,” Marcus said. “But now it seems that that’s not complete. … There have been a lot of studies that are very, very clear in animals that it happens, and the human evidence keeps accumulating.”

The Michigan PBB Registry was launched in 1976 to gather data that could eventually be used to answer these kinds of questions. The study started with approximately 4,000 people and eventually added in their children and grandchildren. Eventually, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services wanted to shut down the research project. But thanks to funding from the National Institutes of Health, it was transferred to Emory University.

Decades later, the St. Louis community remains heavily invested in the PBB disaster and anxious to learn more about how it impacted their health and environment. In 1998, after meeting with the EPA and other state departments, a community group launched the Pine River Superfund Citizen Task Force. < https://www.pinerivercag.org/ > 

Jane Jelenek now serves as the chairperson of the task force. She didn’t live in St. Louis in 1973, but her husband worked at the chemical plant and had other friends and relatives who had direct exposure.

Jelenek said her work is not focused on looking to the past or securing compensation for people who were exposed; those efforts have long failed. Instead, the task force is focused on working with the EPA and holding it accountable to make sure the land is restored. She said it has been an up-and-down relationship.

“We found at our (monthly meetings) that they were more interested in the amount of dollars that they could get to do something that determined how much cleanup they actually would do. We did not think that was a very good measure,” Jelenek said. “And I remember saying at one meeting, ‘We don’t care about the money. We don’t care how much it costs. We just want it done.’”

When will it be done? Thanks to an influx of investment because of the latest infrastructure legislation, work has gotten a boost. Tom Alcamo, the EPA’s remedial project manager for the site, hopes work will be done by 2026. Eventually, the Superfund site will be deemed clean and the land will be turned over to the community.

But the scars will remain. And traces of PBB are still being passed down from one generation to the next.

 

Instead of mixing in a nutritional supplement, the Farm Bureau was unknowingly poisoning thousands and thousands of animals. Even worse, the problem wasn’t limited to one specific type of feed. Any feed that was processed through the same mixer that used Firemaster was now being exposed to PBB, making it even harder for the investigators trying to find the root of the problem.

URL
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/how-a-simple-shipping-error-poisoned-most-of-michigan/ar-AA1c7k2n?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=1b3fa566178a4d0795f5d87c6d30bf42&ei=93
 

 

The Ancestral Tree
A juneteenth poem
the full poem
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/audiobook/the-ancestral-tree-1

 

More Juneteenth art + poetry
https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/art/Juneteenth-2023-966928866
 
 

Youtube video

 

Tiktok video

@richardmurraytiktok The Ancestral Tree excerpt - a juneteenth poem - the full poem https://www.kobo.com/us/en/audiobook/the-ancestral-tree-1 more juneteenth poetry or art https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/art/Juneteenth-2023-966928866 my free email newsletter for more content https://rmnewsletter.over-blog.com/#rmaalbc #aalbc #juneteenth #poetry #poem #rmtja ♬ original sound - richardmurraytiktok

 

My free email newsletter, click subscribe , its free

https://rmnewsletter.over-blog.com/

 

 

KWL Live Q&A – All About Audiobooks with Karen Grey

All About Audiobooks featuring Karen Grey

The Kobo Writing Life team is happy to announce our next Live Q&A on June 29th from 12:00 PM-1:00 PM EST. KWL Director Tara and author engagement manager Laura will be joined by audiobook narrator, author, and audiobook production consultant Karen Grey! Be sure to have your questions about everything to do with audiobooks ready for this amazing talk.

Hello authors!

For our sixth live Q&A of the year (we’re halfway through, everyone – amazing!), audiobook narrator, author, and all-around audiobook expert and founder of Home Cooked Books, Karen Grey (who narrates under Karen White), will be in conversation with KWL’s director Tara and author engagement manager Laura, discussing all there is to do with audiobooks! We will be discussing everything from Karen’s career as an audiobook narrator to audiobook production processes to marketing your audiobooks and more.

https://kobowritinglife.com/2023/06/01/kwl-live-qa-all-about-audiobooks-with-karen-grey/

 

Questions to your experience: 
What must/need to/can't/shouldn't be in the description of an audiobook?
What is the most effective audio book excerpts or samples?
What is the most/least effective audiobook covers?
How should an audiobook be utilized in a newsletter?
What is the most unique utilization of audiobooks you know of?

 

Untimed Index Notes

How she started in the industry
The different labors in the industry: readers/profers/editors- you have to give the different labors time: readers will need to reread. Profers will ask for things to be reread. Editors will massage the audio for the audience.
Picking an reader- wait for the best voice, readers are booked. A reader needs to have read at least twenty books before.
Voice tags and changing your writing to fit audiobooks- read words aloud
If you are an indie author, if the narrator spoke it better than you wrote it, change the ebook. 
Give narrarators a pronunciation list
Accept the suspense of disbelief in a story involving characters not your native or multilingual
You can be the producers in terms of paying narrators
People are paid for how long when book is done not how long they work in composition, the rates are wide, be careful if they are for the full production or just narration
https://www.sagaftra.org/contracts-industry-resources/audiobooks
Cheapest marketing offer is her newsletter
https://airtable.com/shrwJOoufJITREr5H
Any do or do nots for audiobook samples or covers? 
Cover should be professionally created, a square, be recognizeable as ebook. Include narrators.
Sample- less than 5 minutes, choosing a good meaty section, if multiple narrators, represent all of them., highly recommend posting online, avoid any flag words
https://airtable.com/shrwJOoufJITREr5H
https://airtable.com/shrzWXKgatyH0qpny
Advertising on Kobo
Talk about audiobooks in newsletter
Link to use kobo graphics in advertising
https://kobowritinglife.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360059386211-Rakuten-Kobo-Logos-and-Website-Buttons
Audiobook publishers associations have done research , people are liking shorter books, audible has a rule, a book can only be in one bundle
One point of recording short thing, if anything is under an hour for Screen actors guild, you have to pay for one hour. 

 

Many people in the usa are complaining about the supreme court's rulings as if the supreme court didn't make rulings that upended centuries of prior conditions. Making rulings that upend fifty years worth of rulings isn't as devastating. 

But the key here is state power. The future USA will be based on gangs of states in its fold. Those who try to fight that coming reality are fools. 

 

NATO Isn’t What It Says It Is
By Grey Anderson and Thomas Meaney

Mr. Anderson is the editor of “Natopolitanism: The Atlantic Alliance Since the Cold War,” to which Mr. Meaney is a contributor.

NATO leaders convening this week in Vilnius, Lithuania, have every reason to toast their success.

Only four years ago, on the eve of another summit, the organization looked to be in low water; in the words of President Emmanuel Macron of France, it was undergoing nothing short of “brain death.” Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the situation has been transformed. As NATO plans to welcome Sweden into its ranks — Finland became a full-fledged member in April — and dispatch troops to reinforce its eastern flank, European Union allies are finally making good on long-deferred promises to increase military spending. Public opinion has followed suit. If Russia sought to divide Europe, President Biden could plausibly declare last spring that it had instead fully “NATO-ized” the continent.

This turnabout has understandably energized the alliance’s supporters. The statement of purpose from Jens Stoltenberg, its secretary general, that “the strength of NATO is the best possible tool we have to maintain peace and security” has never had more loyal adherents. Even critics of the organization — such as China hawks who see it as a distraction from the real threat in East Asia and restrainers who would prefer that Washington refocus on diplomatic solutions and problems at home — concede that NATO’s purpose is primarily the defense of Europe.

But NATO, from its origins, was never primarily concerned with aggregating military power. Fielding 100 divisions at its Cold War height, a small fraction of Warsaw Pact manpower, the organization could not be counted on to repel a Soviet invasion and even the continent’s nuclear weapons were under Washington’s control. Rather, it set out to bind Western Europe to a far vaster project of a U.S.-led world order, in which American protection served as a lever to obtain concessions on other issues, like trade and monetary policy. In that mission, it has proved remarkably successful.

Many observers expected NATO to close shop after the collapse of its Cold War rival. But in the decade after 1989, the organization truly came into its own. NATO acted as a ratings agency for the European Union in Eastern Europe, declaring countries secure for development and investment. The organization pushed would-be partners to adhere to a liberal, pro-market creed, according to which — as President Bill Clinton’s national security adviser put it — “the pursuit of democratic institutions, the expansion of free markets” and “the promotion of collective security” marched in lock step. European military professionals and reform-minded elites formed a willing constituency, their campaigns boosted by NATO’s information apparatus.

When European populations proved too stubborn, or undesirably swayed by socialist or nationalist sentiments, Atlantic integration proceeded all the same. The Czech Republic was a telling case. Faced with a likely “no” vote in a referendum on joining the alliance in 1997, the secretary general and top NATO officials saw to it that the government in Prague simply dispense with the exercise; the country joined two years later. The new century brought more of the same, with an appropriate shift in emphasis. Coinciding with the global war on terrorism, the “big bang” expansion of 2004 — in which seven countries acceded — saw counterterrorism supersede democracy and human rights in alliance rhetoric. Stress on the need for liberalization and public sector reforms remained a constant.

In the realm of defense, the alliance was not as advertised. For decades, the United States has been the chief provider of weapons, logistics, air bases and battle plans. The war in Ukraine, for all the talk of Europe stepping up, has left that asymmetry essentially untouched. Tellingly, the scale of U.S. military aid — $47 billion over the first year of the conflict — is more than double that offered by European Union countries combined. European spending pledges may also turn out to be less impressive than they appear. More than a year after the German government publicized the creation of a special $110 billion fund for its armed forces, the bulk of the credits remain unused. In the meantime, German military commanders have said that they lack sufficient munitions for more than two days of high-intensity combat.

Whatever the levels of expenditure, it is remarkable how little military capability Europeans get for the outlays involved. Lack of coordination, as much as penny-pinching, hamstrings Europe’s ability to ensure its own security. By forbidding duplication of existing capabilities and prodding allies to accept niche roles, NATO has stymied the emergence of any semiautonomous European force capable of independent action. As for defense procurement, common standards for interoperability, coupled with the sheer size of the U.S. military-industrial sector and bureaucratic impediments in Brussels, favor American firms at the expense of their European competitors. The alliance, paradoxically, appears to have weakened allies’ ability to defend themselves.

Yet the paradox is only superficial. In fact, NATO is working exactly as it was designed by postwar U.S. planners, drawing Europe into a dependency on American power that reduces its room for maneuver. Far from a costly charity program, NATO secures American influence in Europe on the cheap. U.S. contributions to NATO and other security assistance programs in Europe account for a tiny fraction of the Pentagon’s annual budget — less than 6 percent by a recent estimate. And the war has only strengthened America’s hand. Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, roughly half of European military spending went to American manufacturers. Surging demand has exacerbated this tendency as buyers rush to acquire tanks, combat aircraft and other weapons systems, locking into costly, multiyear contracts. Europe may be remilitarizing, but America is reaping the rewards.

In Ukraine, the pattern is clear. Washington will provide the military security, and its corporations will benefit from a bonanza of European armament orders, while Europeans will shoulder the cost of postwar reconstruction — something Germany is better poised to accomplish than the buildup of its military. The war also serves as a dress rehearsal for U.S. confrontation with China, in which European support cannot be so easily counted on. Limiting Beijing’s access to strategic technologies and promoting American industry are hardly European priorities, and severing European and Chinese trade is still difficult to imagine. Yet already there are signs that NATO is making headway in getting Europe to follow its lead in the theater. On the eve of a visit to Washington at the end of June, Germany’s defense minister duly advertised his awareness of “European responsibility for the Indo-Pacific” and the importance of “the rules-based international order” in the South China Sea.

No matter their ascendance, Atlanticists fret over support for the organization being undermined by disinformation and cybermeddling. They needn’t worry. Contested throughout the Cold War, NATO remained a subject of controversy into the 1990s, when the disappearance of its adversary encouraged thoughts of a new European security architecture. Today, dissent is less audible than ever before.

Left parties in Europe, historically critical of militarism and American power, have overwhelmingly enlisted in the defense of the West: The trajectory of the German Greens, from fierce opponents of nuclear weapons to a party seemingly willing to risk atomic war, is a particularly vivid illustration. Stateside, criticism of NATO focuses on the risks of overextending U.S. treaty obligations, not their underlying justification. The most successful alliance in history, gathering in celebration of itself, need not wait for its 75th anniversary next year to uncork the champagne.

 

Article Link

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/11/opinion/nato-summit-vilnius-europe.html

 

I WROTE A LETTER TO NY TIMES IN REPLY TO THIS OP-ED

 

If NATO isn't what it says it is, then Putin's leadership of Russia is mischaracterized. Did as leader of Russia he initiated the current war in Ukraine? yes. But was this unwise for Russia? no. Based on the op-ed's words, Russia will never be an appropriate NATO member as a nuclear power, while the actions of NATO members or Europe West of Russia based on the article are clearly prepared and wanting to be modern satraps <tributary states of the Persian empire> of the USA. And to the future, the Pax Statian has a countdown or conditional , either the condition that Ukraine is a buffer between the militaries of the USA + Russia will end or a countdown to violence will begin as NATO has no where to grow. 

 

IN  AMENDMENT

 

Putin argued that the USA is trying to close around Russia, this opinion piece essentially says, through the will of Europe west of Rusia, Putin is 100% correct and sequentially it is in Russia's interest to stake a claim before Russia is totally surrounded and becomes a satrap of Europe west of Russia while Europe west of russia is a satrap of the usa. 

 

 

 

Time to Break Up Hollywood
Hollywood is trapped in a death spiral, with streaming giants struggling to profit while smothering the industry itself. Finally the writers stood up. But will it be enough?
MATT STOLLER
MAY 14, 2023

 

Today I’m writing about the biggest Hollywood labor dispute in decades, as screenwriters enter their third week striking against streaming giants like Disney, Netflix, Paramount, Warner Bros, and Comcast. Far from a narrow conflict over money, this fight is existential, a question of whether America can be a place where stars are born and movies are made.

As one striker put it < https://strikegeist.substack.com/p/daily-digest-why-this-strike-feels > , the strike is “about the whole corporate dominance of America.” 

(The Ankler’s excellent Strikegeist < https://strikegeist.substack.com/ > newsletter is covering the strike, and I highly recommend it if you are interested in what’s going on day-to-day.) 

Of America’s many inventions, reality TV does not rank as highly as, say, the semiconductor, the laser, the polio vaccine, or manned flight. But from Candid Camera in the 1940s to MTV’s The Real World in the early 1990s, the medium of reality TV has been as influential in its own way as rock music and hip hop. But today, it’s Great Britain, not America, creating many of the most popular reality shows

Here are some of the shows that got their start in the U.K., and then were licensed for an American audience: American Idol, America’s Got Talent, X-Factor, Dancing with the Stars, Wife Swap, Undercover Boss, Super Nanny, Who Wants to be a Millionaire. And there are hundreds more. In the U.K, independent producers have increased their TV related revenues from £1.5 billion in 2004 to more than £2.6 billion in 2017.

What happened? Put simply, governments changed laws so that independent producers gained bargaining leverage in the U.K., and lost it in the U.S.

Let’s start with the U.K. In the early 2000s, the British government embarked on a strategy to grow its independent production industry. It facilitated something called the “Terms of Trade,” < https://cmpa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Appendix-C-Oliver-Ohlbaum-Associates-2018-The-impact-of-the-UK-te...-1.pdf > a broadcaster code of conduct to remedy the bargaining asymmetry between dominant broadcasters and independent producers. This pact required four big public channels in the UK - BBC1, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 - to commission < https://www.smallscreenbigdebate.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/221955/annex-2-statement-future-of-public-service-media.pdf > 25% of their production from independent producers, and to allow those producers to retain copyrights from their work they could license abroad. 

This was a soft break-up of the industry along vertical lines, and it made the U.K a great place to do business. As the CEO of the firm that makes American Idol, The X Factor, and Britain's Got Talent said, "There is no other country where you have these terms of trade. In the UK, it's brilliant!" In 2010, independents held 50% of the market, beating in-house network programming. Exports of British content exploded.

In the U.S., by contrast, legal changes over the last thirty years stripped independent producers of their bargaining power with distributors, diminishing the ability to create great products. In 2019, I laid it out in one of my first newsletter issues, titled The Slow Death of Hollywood < https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-slow-death-of-hollywood > , explaining why weirdly themed movies like Back to the Future became smash hits in the 1980s, and why that wouldn’t happen today. 

In 1985, theater owners had more choices about what content to sell, and could decide to distribute content that was well-liked and popular without assuming a massive barrage of marketing would force them to stock the most popular stuff immediately. So they could afford to show different movies, experiment, and then bring in the popular ones over time. The industry was more decentralized. Stars, directors and writers with good track records, studios, distributors, movie theaters, critics, and moviegoers shared power.

[This market structure harkens] back to bitter battles in the 1930s and 1940s between New Deal antitrust attorneys and studio heads, which culminated in the Paramount Decrees of 1948 < https://www.justice.gov/atr/paramount-decree-review >  and the end of the autocratic so-called ‘Studio System.’ These decrees forced studios to sell their theaters, and prevented them from engaging in tying and bundling practices to force theater owners to take their films. New Hollywood, with countercultural stars like Jack Nicholson, emerged in the 1960s to revamp the industry. In 1985, weird popular movies like Back to the Future took advantage of this open market structure. 

A similar situation existed in the television industry, which was broken apart in 1970 by Richard Nixon’s FCC with Financial Interest and Syndication Rules (‘fin-syn’) < https://www.csmonitor.com/1991/0404/finsyn.html > , and a related rule called the Prime-Time Access Rule (PTAR). These rules blocked TV networks from distributing their own content in prime time, opening the market for TV content to third party producers who would take more creative risks. The Cosby Show, Seinfeld, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, and All in the Family were some of the results of this policy choice to open up the TV market. 

Both the Paramount Decrees and the Fin-syn rules were designed to eliminate conflicts of interest by splitting the studio from the distribution. Studios had to create high quality work, and if they didn’t, distributors could choose to sell someone else’s art.

The rules structured a profitable and high-quality industry, with different kinds of TV shows and movies. Media was a series of markets, from movie theaters and prime time TV, to hundreds of local TV networks for syndication, to video tapes and DVDs, to foreign markets. Creators experimented, while audiences ruled with their preferences. Hollywood is a politically left-wing place, but conservative religious hits, like The Passion of the Christ, got into theaters, and sold tickets.

In the 1980s, antitrust enforcers, influenced by Chicago School scholars like Robert Bork, became far more tolerant of concentration economy-wide. This legal revolution had significant implications for movies. In 1995, the top five movie chains owned a third of U.S. theaters, with the biggest, Carmike, owning < https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/07/business/media/amc-biggest-movie-theater-chain.html> around 2,500. By 2016, the top five held over 53% of the movie theaters in the country, with the largest, AMC, owning 8,380. 

This consolidation changed movies. In the late 1990s, giant new multiplexes “jolted the Hollywood power structure,” < https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB885343258697290000 > as theater operators played the biggest hits on several screens at once. Films began to do most of their business in the first few weeks, so well-branded tent pole movies with strong IP - aka Marvel-style movies - displaced word of mouth. As Adam Mastroianni noted with this chart, movies, along with much of pop culture, became an oligopoly. < https://www.experimental-history.com/p/pop-culture-has-become-an-oligopoly?s=r > 

The Clinton administration enacted another legal change by ending fin-syn rules, causing a merger boom of content and distribution. Immediately, for instance, Castle Rock Entertainment, the production company behind shows like Seinfeld, sold out to Turner Broadcasting, which in turn sold out to Time Warner. Disney bought ABC, and then rolled-up a series of rivals < https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/its-time-to-break-up-disney-part >  to acquire large amounts of well-known intellectual property - like Marvel and Star Wars. 

Then came streaming, which wasn’t very important at first. Prior to 2010, the major studios sold movies to theaters, and TV shows to cable and TV networks. Several sold to Netflix, which they saw as just another distributor. But in 2010, the Obama administration approved the merger of NBC and Comcast, a further erosion of the vertical separation at the heart of the Paramount Decrees and the fin-syn rules.

Technological innovation happens along the legal framework it is born into, so streaming, which could have decentralized had it happened in another era, did the opposite.

When Comcast bought NBC, Netflix, then a minor player, feared it would lose access to content from studios. So it began buying its own movies and shows, combining distribution and production as the first studio-streamer. Apple and am*zon, for whom Hollywood revenues were a rounding error, eventually entered the business. Netflix, Apple, and am*zon put pressure on the traditional studios, who were judged based on profit and loss. Studios realized Wall Street was valuing Netflix stock more highly as a ‘tech’ company. They wanted in on that as well. All except Sony followed Netflix and became studio-streamers.

But something wasn’t right with the streaming model Netflix introduced. There was no way to know ratings or box office take, since Netflix held its own data without third party auditors. Its then-CEO, Reed Hastings, pretended Netflix used its data to scientifically know what users wanted. But that wasn’t true. (See “The Algorithm is a Lie.” < https://entertainment.substack.com/p/the-algorithm-is-a-lie?s=w > ) Netflix was just overpaying for content, and losing money to acquire market share, a technique known as predatory pricing (that used to be illegal until the Supreme Court de facto legalized < https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/509/209/ > it in 1993.) 

Netflix’s model was an attack on the bargain between creators and studios at the heart of the industry. This bargain is that everyone who makes movies or shows - production houses, studios, writers, actors, or directors - split the profits from any individual piece of content, profits generated by selling movies or shows into actual markets. Producers, for instance, often retained the intellectual property of a show, and licensed it. Traditional labor compensation packages, known as ‘residuals,’ are based on theatrical releases, or what ratings TV shows achieved when broadcast. Additionally, both categories might qualify for additional compensation through syndication or DVD sales, foreign market sales, and sometimes streaming. (It’s why the cast of Friends is still making millions of dollars a year even today.)

When Netflix sought to fully integrate the production and distribution, this bargain broke down, because there were no markets or prices to use to value anything. Netflix paid creators an upfront fee, and then that content was on Netflix, with no opportunity to syndicate or sell it elsewhere. Beyond breaking down price signals, Netflix wouldn’t even tell creators how their shows did in terms of ratings. It also refused to allow American production houses to retain IP. Other studios copied Netflix, upending the labor model for content. No one knew what anything was worth.

The lack of market signals screwed up the industry because markets, as it turns out, have an important function in Hollywood. They represent a feedback loop to the studios, telling executives the preferences of the audience, based on whether the audience (or advertisers) are willing to pay. The tacky way to understand this dynamic is that when a movie did well at the box office, other studios would often copy that kind of movie, in hopes of appealing to the large audience that saw the original. But what happens when you can’t get distribution for mid-market movies because the few theater chain owners don’t want it? What happens when there are no TV ratings because it’s all streamed? What happens when, as happened during the pandemic, there is no box office?

Obviously, at some level, people are still paying money in the form of subscription fees. But decisions for what to make happen about individual pieces of content are difficult without this feedback from the audience. A creative executive can’t, after all, green light a streaming service, they can only green light a movie or TV show.

 

When pricing went away, when customers were simply paying a subscription fee every month instead of buying tickets or DVDs, executives had no way to know what to make or how to value anything. As just one example, in 2021, Warner Brothers put their whole slate of films onto their streaming service at the same time as they went into theaters, revealing how executives were mis-pricing their products. Another illustration of a deep structural problem with the industry is that bankable movie stars, the most important commodity in Hollywood, are aging, because you can’t break new stars.

In an attempt to monopolize, studio-streamers accidentally transformed a high-wage, high-profit business into a low-wage low-profit commodified one. For a time, this decline in industry health wasn’t obvious. Netflix had told Wall Street a story that its overall goal was to get customers locked in, and this convinced the street to give the capital to make lots of content regardless of profit. Other studios followed, overpaying for content in the hopes of being the last man standing, in the era of what was known as “Peak TV.” < https://slate.com/culture/2023/03/peak-tv-over-golden-age-hbo-streaming.html >  As Discovery board member John Malone put it < https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/john-malone-talks-streaming-wars-1235264416/ > , “Everyone went for this mad Oklahoma land rush of streaming … That was a fool’s errand.” 

The lock-in was a mirage, as consumers switched services to find content they wanted to watch. No one, as it turns out, wanted a streaming service, they wanted individual shows and movies. Vertically integrated streaming services, contrasted with markets where consumers pay for what they want, aren’t very profitable. HBO, Peacock, and Paramount all lost money < https://www.vox.com/recode/2023/1/5/23539590/streaming-losses-netflix-hbo-peter-kafka-media-column >  in the first three quarters of 2022, and this year, Disney’s streaming services raised prices < https://deadline.com/2023/05/disney-pulling-content-off-streaming-in-strategic-rethink-1235362374/ > and removed content, and still can’t make a penny. 

Most of the consolidation discussed so far is vertical, where studios and distributors combined. But throughout this period, traditional mergers, where rivals bought rivals, also continued. In 2019, Disney bought Fox, shrinking the number of major studios into a narrower oligopoly (and cutting the output of films < https://theankler.com/p/the-disney-fox-deal-whos-right?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=15657&post_id=97369692&isFreemail=false> ). Last year, Discovery bought Time Warner, combining two big buyers of reality TV. 

Consolidation, combining both production and distribution, and shrinking the number of studios, led to budget cuts. For writers, this meant smaller writer rooms, shorter seasons, and worse terms. Writer pay fell by 14% over < https://www.wcvb.com/article/what-do-striking-hollywood-writers-want/43791834 > the last five years, with sweatshop conditions < https://theankler.com/p/showrunner-crisis-its-a-sweatshop > even for those with the most creative control, the showrunners. Others felt it too; independent TV production houses, such as firms who create reality TV shows, struggled. They no longer have any choice but to sell to one of a few studio-streamers. Streamers demanded the intellectual property of anything they bought, which meant independent production houses began working as contract players for a fee, almost like chicken farmers or gig workers. There was no point in creating something great, since all the upside went to the streaming giants. 

Nothing in Hollywood, in other words, is working now that the underlying pricing system has been reduced in importance. The studio-streamers aren’t making money, the workers aren’t getting compensated like they used to, and the cultural relevance of Hollywood is declining. (And that last point is very weird, because Hollywood should have been able to take advantage of the remarkable telecommunications revolution of the last thirty years, but hasn’t.)

This industry-wide collapse is at the heart of the writers strike that’s taking place right now, ever since the industry contract with screenwriters expired at the beginning of the month. What the Writer’s Guild of America (WGA) wants, is a fix to the devastation vertical integration has wrought on the industry. Their official demands are more money, access to data on how their shows do, as well as also minimum staffing requirements for shows and better lengths of employment for writers. To add to the pressure, over the next few months, the Director’s Guild and the Screen Actors Guild will also be renegotiating < https://abc7.com/hollywood-writers-strike-los-angeles-guild-of-america-directors/13229141/#:~:text=The Writers Guild of America's,Editor in Chief Cynthia Littleton. > their contracts. 

Some of the WGA demands address the power imbalance more directly than others. More residuals is a standard labor demand, while better data on streaming would actually ameliorate industry structure. Minimum staffing requirements are a bit more controversial, according to The Ankler’s Richard Rushfield. But fundamentally, the problem the writers face is much bigger than an unfair deal. It is in fact the same problem that everyone - writers, actors, directors, producers, crew members, and executives - all face; the industry itself is badly structured, and there is no political leadership < https://theankler.com/p/rushfield-the-very-bad-choices-that > among studio CEOs to address the dysfunction.

Most in Hollywood feel in their gut the dysfunction, and the proof is in the support unions are showing one another. Believe it or not, labor solidarity in the industry is rare. During the 2007 writers strike, for instance, Teamsters would drive past picket lines and give the strikers the middle finger. Two weeks ago, however, Teamster leader Lindsay Dougherty told < https://strikegeist.substack.com/p/rushfield-day-3-netflix-bears-the >  writers at a strike rally, “If you put up a line, the trucks will fucking stop... The only way we’re gonna beat these mother fuckers is if we do it together."

It’s not just unions. Agents are pitching in, even though agents and writers had been at war relatively recently. And the producers are backing the writers as well, quietly. One strike captain told Elaine Low that “they’ve received boxes of doughnuts from producers who refused to share their names,” but that “the anonymous drive-by doughnuts were well received.” It’s remarkable that producers are afraid to have their names associated with a strike they support, but in a sense, the fear is the point.

Even the Wall Street financiers themselves see the problem, in the form of stagnating share prices. From their point of view, however, the problem isn’t that studio-streamers are too powerful, but that they are too weak. As media tycoon John Malone last year told the New York Times, studios, especially smaller ones, don’t have enough pricing power, and will ”inevitably have to combine in order to try and become profitable.” This view is near-consensus in the C-Suite; former WarnerMedia CEO Jason Kilar recently wrote in the WSJ < https://www.wsj.com/articles/jason-kilar-chaotic-streaming-wars-11670177734 > , he expects there will only be two or three studios remaining after another merger wave, and a bevy of billionaires from Comcast and Discovery are all planning < https://puck.news/lazard-fears-nbcu-c-suite-tea-leaves/?_cio_id=f6c60604e79a01a8c408&utm_campaign=The+Daily+Courant+-+LEADS+(5%2F1%2F23)&utm_content=The+Daily+Courant+-+LEADS+(5%2F1%2F23)&utm_medium=email_action&utm_source=customer.io > for the “inevitable” merger of NBC and Warner Bros. Discovery. And am*zon is reportedly interested < https://nypost.com/2023/03/28/am*zon-reportedly-interested-in-buying-amc-entertainment/ >

 in buying the AMC theater chain.

In other words, rather than returning the industry to profitability by separating out distribution and studios once again, the goal is to further consolidate Hollywood to squeeze pricing power out of consumers and creators.

And that’s why this fight is existential. For the strikers, the problem is how to negotiate a deal providing a reasonable living making commercially viable TV shows and movies. For the studio-streamers, however, preserving a domestic creative industry is fundamentally unimportant. Their problem is a lack of pricing power, aka too much competition among relatively undifferentiated streaming services who must bid against each for both talent and audience. Their way out is to drive a hard bargain, while trying to engineer another set of mergers.

As the Entertainment Strategy Guy notes < https://entertainmentstrategyguy.com/2023/05/09/sending-a-strategy-postcard-from-strike-land/> , and as the reality TV imports from the U.K. show, there is now production capacity all over the world, and shows and movies are regularly imported into the U.S. The South Korean show Squid Game was the most popular show on Netflix, ever. This CNBC headline says it all: “‘Squid Game’ success shines a light on how cheap it is to make TV shows outside the U.S.”  < https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/16/netflixs-squid-game-success-shines-light-on-international-discounts.html > As unimaginable as it might be to think of Hollywood itself disappearing, why couldn’t TV and movies just be one more industry the U.S. outsources? 

In other words, this strike is more than just a problem for the writers, it’s about whether the U.S. wants to have the capacity to make commercially viable movies and television shows. If we do, then we’ll need a real political coalition to break up the studio-streamers.

It’s a good moment to have this conversation, because the strike has focused everyone in Hollywood on problems in the industry. Different stakeholders in the industry are going to have to build a political argument for a revival of some form of the fin-syn or Paramount Decrees. We need Congressional hearings, and industry commissions with recommendations. It could be a Terms of Trade type arrangement so producers get to keep IP, or it could be something else. But it will have to split the industry giants so they are either distributors or studios, but not both. Markets have to exist again. I don’t know how to address consolidated theater chains, but that’s a problem as well.

Finally, I would note that this strike is just one of a series of battles over who controls our media systems. There are of course many legislative proposals and antitrust suits to address social media and big tech, but it goes far beyond that. Last year, for instance, the Biden antitrust division blocked < https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/book-publishing-mega-merger-blocked > a merger of Penguin and Simon & Schuster, foiling consolidation in books. At academic publishing monopolist Elsevier, 40 scientists just resigned < https://www.salon.com/2023/05/10/elsevier-editor-resignation-neuroimage/ > from editorial positions at a journal on brain imaging to protest the “greed” of their publisher. 

There is also anger in the national security world, and on the right, over this problem. Congressman Mike Gallagher, from the Special Select Committee on China, led a delegation < https://deadline.com/2023/04/disney-china-bob-iger-mike-gallagher-interview-1235322443/ > to Hollywood to meet with CEOs about Chinese influence in the industry (which is another consequence of consolidation). There’s a public fight between Tucker Carlson and Fox News, which is about media control as well. Carlson was fired, and was subjected < https://www.axios.com/2023/05/07/fox-news-tucker-carlson > to a non-compete agreement to block him from creating a rival. And who else is fighting with studio giant Disney? That would be Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and at some level this conservative anger is with corporate power. Maybe a ‘break up Hollywood studios’ battle cry would have some pull with them. 

America is a fractured society, but the truth is, most of us have something in common. We love storytelling, and we don’t want a small group telling us what stories we can tell one another. A coalition is possible to save this magnificent art form. When push comes to shove, very few Americans, in Hollywood or elsewhere, are happy “about the whole corporate dominance of America.”

 

 

ARTICLE URL
https://open.substack.com/pub/mattstoller/p/can-a-writers-strike-save-hollywood?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

 

THE IMPACT OF TERMS OF TRADE ON THE UK's TELEVISION CONTENT PRODUCTION SECTOR

 

PRODUCING PUBLIC SERVICE MEDIA CONTENT