Both books reviewed this week were provided to me by NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
Daniel Talbot In Love With Movies Columbia University Press 2022
Daniel Talbot’s In Love With Movies is a delight, from the first chapters about the early years in independent theatres; though Those Who Made Me Laugh in Part 2; Part 3 which, in Unsung Film Pioneers, covers collectors, early distributors and exhibitors; part 4, Acquisitions is an engrossing wander through some of the films shown in Talbot’s theatres; Directors In My Life, enumerates those such as Yasujiro Ozu, Nagisa Oshima, Ousmane Sembene, Roberto Rossellini, Jean-Luc Gordar, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Wim Wenders, and Werner Herzog; Parts 6, 7, 8 and 9 with ‘a memory project’, includes more directors, Criteria and Reflections; Portraits, including friends and legendary a film critic, in Part 10; followed by more on independent theatres in Upper West Side Cinemas; and an epilogue written by Toby Talbot who edited the book. There are excerpts from Dan Talbot’s Festival Notes, an interview between Talbot and Stanley Kauffmann, and an intriguingly titled, Dreams on My Screen. Books: Reviews
George Thomas Clark They Make Movies BooksGoSocial 2021
They Make Movies is a combination of fiction, real events, and interpretations of the protagonists’ attitude towards the films in which they appeared or directed. Some of the events are seemingly told by the subject of the chapter, others appear to be based on reality or the author’s interpretation, described as if they are addressed directly by the subject. The stories are told with humour and, at times, sharp impact. The process is clever, providing researched topics and events, with the aid of fictional devices. Authenticity is supported by the list of film sources, although there are no footnotes to disturb the flow of the account – or to clarify what material is accurate and what might be fictional. As exciting as this presentation could be, I found that I could not warm to the execution of this style in They Make Movies, although some of the observations are well made. Books: Reviews
The information which appears after the Canberra Covid report: masks for Covid 19; UK Tory leadership, Tom Watson; Trump and presidency – a startling admission; Bob McMullan – a thoughtful article on the US Senate mid term elections, first of a series; Democrats and fundraising; Cindy Lou has coffee in a paper cup.
Covid in Canberra since the end of lockdown
Parrots in a tree, seen from my balcony, on a Canberra winter’s day.
Vaccinations – 80.6% : 1 dose, ages 5 – 11; 69.4 % 2 doses, ages 5 – 11; 97.4 % 2 doses , aged 5+; 77.5% boosters, making 3 doses , aged 16+. The rules for boosters have recently changed, and pharmacy waiting times have increased as people take advantage of the availability of additional doses of vaccine for the expanded age groups. Fourth dose take up is not as yet being recorded.
14 July – New cases reported, 1,367; people in hospital, 137; people in ICU 5; people ventilated, 3.
15 July – New cases reported, 1,208; people in hospital, 135; people in ICU, 4; and 3 ventilated.
16 July – 1,104 new cases; 4 people in ICU; and 3 people ventilated. 17 July – 956 new cases; 167 people in hospital; 6 people in ICU; and 3 people ventilated. 18 July – 887 new cases; 171 people in hospital; 5 people in ICU; and 3 people ventilated. 19 July – 1,221 new cases; 170 people in hospital; 6 in ICU; and 3 ventilated. 20 July – 961 new cases; 160 people in hospital; 4 in ICU; and 2 ventilated.
I noticed that more people are wearing masks in shopping centres today. The photobelow looks even better.
I disappoint myself being glued to Twitter. Two and a half years after leaving Parliament, a Tory leadership race has reduced me to scrolling an iPhone for news a thousand times a day.
It looks like Penny Mordaunt is doing so well that her ministerial colleagues can’t afford to let her get on the ballot paper. As the current rules only allow Conservative party members a choice between two candidates, backroom deals will trade votes to squeeze her out. If I were Rishi Sunak, that’s what I’d be doing.
For election strategists, Penny Mordaunt is to Boris Johnson what Cillit Bang was to Mr Muscle. He sacked her from the Cabinet. She owes him little loyalty. Vote Penny? Bang, and the dirt is gone.
To voters, she’s a blank canvass. She can paint a fresh and new picture of conservative Britain. As she doesn’t have much of a record, she offers an unprecedented opportunity for the Conservatives to renew in office that it looks like they’re about to squander.
My former parliamentary colleagues in Labour will be praying for a Rishi Sunak/Liz Truss run-off this week.
* why the asterisk in the subject line?
The fresh new start argument also applies to Tom Tugendhat but looking at his numbers, he is doubtful to make the cut. It’s a pity because he is a brave and honourable man. **
**Tom Tugendhat (along with Kemi Badenoch) has now been eliminated, and the race has been reduced to three candidates, Penny Mordaunt, Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss.
What ?
And now for a thoughtful article about American politics! This is the first of a series about the mid-term elections.
Trump may save the Democrat’s Senate bacon in November.
Bob McMullan
Bob McMullan
All the signs point to a disastrous result for the Democrats in the House of Representatives in the mid-terms in November.
Inflation, the unpopularity of the president and the usual mid-term set-back for the incumbent President’s party should combine to deliver a comfortable majority for the Republicans in the House. After all, the Democrats have only the slimmest of majorities to begin with.
The extent to which the reaction to the Supreme Court decision in overturning Roe vs Wade will change the electoral equation in the House is unknowable at this stage but may prove to be a mitigating factor in November. This may reduce the losses but it is very hard to see the Democrats holding on in the House.
However, the Senate may paint a different picture. In the state-wide races like Senate seats (and Governor’s races) candidates are more exposed and their merits count for more. And Trump has delivered some candidates of very doubtful quality which should give the Democrats a chance to hang on and perhaps even to make gains.
By way of background, the 100 member Senate is currently split 50/50 with the Vice president having a casting vote. In 2022 35 Senate seats are up for election. It would normally be only 34 but a Senator from Oklahoma is retiring early even though he is only 86!
Of the 35 seats in contest the Republicans hold 21 and the Democrats 14. This means that the continuing Senators are 36 Democrats and 29 Republicans. However, many of the Republican held seats up for election this year are rock solid Republican strongholds, including the special election in Oklahoma.
The influential Cook Report suggests as many as 16 of the 21 Republican seats can be considered safe. This is substantially correct, but there may be interesting issues to watch in four of the “safe” seats.
This would mean 12 certain extra seats, taking the Republicans to 41.
The other four usually safe seats are Iowa, Missouri, Utah and Alaska. In Iowa, the Senator seeking re-election for a six year term, Senator Grassley, will be 89 on election day and 95 at the end of the term he is seeking! Early polling was very strong for Grassley but since the Democrat primary in which they chose Michael Franken the most recent polling has seen the gap narrowing. It is difficult to see Grassley losing but it will be worth watching on the night.
In Missouri the problem the Republicans have is a potentially very controversial candidate. Eric Greitjens is a previous Governor who lost office as a result of a series of scandals. At the moment he is leading in the polls for the August 2 primary, although only narrowly. His potential candidature has mobilized senior Republicans in the state to support an Independent Republican. It would not be unprecedented for the Republicans to lose the Senate seat in Missouri due to the selection of an unacceptable candidate. Should Greitjens win the primary it will be another worth watching on the night.
In Utah the interest is generated by a strong Independent candidate, Evan McMullin. He has managed to persuade the Democrats not to run for the seat and as a consequence has an outside chance of beating the incumbent Republican, Mike Lee. Lee was an early critic of Trump but signed on to the “Big Lie” about the stolen election.
The Alaska Senate election is interesting because it is a contest between Lisa Murkowski, a Republican who voted to impeach Trump, and a Trump loyalist Kelly Tshibaka. The interesting question is, should Murkowski lose the primary will she still contest the election as an Independent or take advantage of new voting system in Alaska which will allow the top four candidates in the primary ballot to compete in a ranked choice election in November. I think Murkowski is most likely to win in November.
Should any of these potential Independents win they would not necessarily deprive the Republicans of a majority but they would create more opportunities for negotiation about legislation and appointments. Nevertheless, the wise thing to do is assume that the Republicans will win all four seats in one way or the other. This would take them to 45 seats.
The Democrats have 42 “safe seats” and four others they are likely to win: Illinois; Colorado; Connecticut and Washington state. If we assume that the Republicans are likely to win 45 seats and the Democrats 46, that leaves 9 to be fought over:
Arizona (D) Georgia (D) New Hampshire (D) Nevada (D) Pennsylvania(R) Wisconsin (R) North Carolina(R) Ohio (R) and Florida (R).
I intend to assess the prospects in each of these states and follow-up on them and any other developments of interest in the Senate race on a regular basis.
Arizona Trump’s support for Blake Masters as Republican candidate for the Arizona Senate seat appears to be a blessing for the Democrat incumbent Mark Kelly. The primary will be held on 2 August but polling suggests Masters is leading the internal Republican race by about 7%. However, he does not appear to be the strongest candidate for the general election. At this stage the polling suggests that Kelly is leading Masters by 9-10%. This would be a very difficult gap to close by November.
Georgia The situation here is similar. Herschel Walker, the Trump endorsed Senate candidate, staggers from one crisis to another. This does not mean he cannot win in what is still a slightly Republican state but it makes it harder for the Republicans than it otherwise would be. A recent poll had the Democrat incumbent Senator Raphael Warnock, ahead by 10%. This is an outlier and probably wrong. The RCP average of polls has Warnock ahead by 1-2%. Given the numerous vulnerabilities of Walker I think Warnock has a better than even chance of pulling off another unlikely victory.
New Hampshire The situation in New Hampshire is not clear. The Republican primary is not until September and there is no current sign that I have seen of a Trump-endorsed candidate in the field, The incumbent Democrat Senator, Maggie Hassan, is a former Governor and seems a strong candidate. She won very narrowly last time but should win this time unless national trends count too strongly against her. The lack of a Republican candidate means there in no useful polling data to serve as a guide to the likely outcome. Such current data as there is suggests Hassan is ahead of any of the Republican contenders by more than 4%, but this is likely to change once the candidate becomes clear.
Nevada The Republicans seem to have selected a reasonably good candidate in Nevada in Adam Laxalt to run against the incumbent Democrat Senator Catherine Cortez Masto. Recent polling suggests Cortez Masto has her nose in front but it is likely to be a close contest in November.
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania is another state where Trump’s influence in the Republican primary has opened the door for the Democrats to have a chance of making a gain in the Senate. Trump supported Dr Oz, because he always said nice things about him in his (Oz’s) TV programs! Oz is handicapped by the impression, probably true, that he actually comes from New Jersey, and the extreme positions he had to take up to win the Trump endorsement and then to win the primary. Early polling has the Democrat candidate, John Fetterman, ahead by between 4 and 9%. This would be a gain for the Democrats because the retiring Senator is a Republican. The key question is whether the national trends will be sufficient to enable Oz to close the gap.
Wisconsin The opportunity for the Democrats in Wisconsin is generated by the apparent weakness of the incumbent Republican Senator, Ron Johnson. His approval numbers are very low (37%) and he does not poll well against any of the Democrat alternative candidates. The Democrats will choose their candidate on August 9 and there does not appear to be a clear favorite. They all poll well enough against Johnson to suggest a close race in November. It is hard to believe that an incumbent Republican Senator could lose in the electoral climate in the USA in 2022, but if anyone can do it Ron Johnson can.
North Carolina The Senate contest in North Carolina is close at the moment between the Republican candidate Ted Budd and the Democrat Cheri Beasley. However, Budd has been consistently ahead by between 3 and 4%. Despite the narrow margin and some signs of improved prospects for the Democrats in recent national polls it is not clear what path to victory Ms. Beasley has. The incumbent Republican Senator is retiring.
Ohio Ohio is a state which is going steadily more Republican but in which the Democrats have an opportunity to make a Senate gain in 2022. With the retirement of popular Republican Senator Portman and the subsequent decision to choose a Trump backed candidate, JD Vance, the Democrat Tim Ryan is currently leading in some polls and is competitive in all of them. It would be a surprise if Ryan were to win in 2022 but it appears to be a realistic possibility.
Florida It is hard to see incumbent Republican senator, Marco Rubio, being beaten, Trump won Florida easily and Ron de Santis is running for re-election as Governor which should help the Republican turnout. However, intelligent observers suggest that it is a seat to watch and the Democrats have put up a strong candidate in Val Deemings. Current polling has Rubio ahead by at least 5% and up to 9%.
The Democrats have to win four of these nine states to maintain their 50/50 status which would enable them to continue to use the Vice-President’s casting vote. As they are currently leading in five of the states the evidence suggests that Donald Trump’s control of the Republican party has given the Democrats a realistic chance of maintaining Senate control from 2022-2024.
Some good news for Democrats
Cindy Lou comments on a casual coffee and delicious bread
While I waited for my Indian take away (by the way, the advertised 10% deduction for pick up is not operating although advertised on the menu) I had a coffee and delicious savoury sweet bread close by.
Simple seating, trays and tongs for collecting your bread, pleasant coffee in a takeaway cup – a nice place to wait for your takeaway.
And certainly a great place to collect all sorts of delightful treats…
Thank you, NetGalley, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
I regret having come late to Victoria Purman’s historical fiction, and of the many books she has published I have read only two: The Radio Hour and The Marriage Trap. They both feature a limited number of characters, none of whom is a public figure. However, each is recognisable as representing someone whose story might dovetail easily into the reader’s experience or a group whose story demands to be told. While never neglecting her characters’ individual experiences, Purman weaves around them an absorbing social, economic, and political commentary which reflects Australia’s past. In reading The Marriage Trap this has been an immediate past, with enticing reminders of events with which I am relatively familiar. For younger readers, the narrative is likely to be astonishing at times, with glimmerings of recognition that provide them with the tools to understand their older relatives and the social environment with which they grappled. The Marriage Trap is followed by an insightful acknowledgment of the political changes which have taken place since the setting of this book, which takes place from 1960 to the early 1970s.
Olive, Cathy, and Evelyn are the main protagonists; the introduction of effective birth control, ‘the pill’, is the theme. Olive is a committed Catholic, whose marriage to Len includes dealing with his mother, widow of a Methodist Minister. The weekly Sunday roast is accompanied by her unappreciated lectures on how young women should behave. Cathy is unrepentantly resistant to them; Evelyn is rather in awe. But then, Evelyn at ten is rather in awe of many things – Cathy’s boyfriend, Ringo Starr, and words. The dictionary is Evelyn’s constant companion and adds information as well as gentle humour to the narrative.
Pregnancy, in and out of marriage, for Olive and Cathy is unexpected and the limits it imposes on them are subtly observed. Cathy’s marriage, two children and the end to her career foster her determination that Evelyn will not go into adulthood with as little knowledge as she had – and it becomes clear, as little as Olive knew about her body and ‘the change.’ For Evelyn, many years younger than her siblings, was an unwanted pregnancy resulting from Olive’s lack of knowledge, and her doctor’s incapacity to give her the information she needed. The same doctor, the agreeable old family doctor of Cathy’s childhood, becomes a sinister figure in her search for birth control as offered by the miraculous pill straightforwardly available to her non-Catholic friends. See Books Reviews 2026 for the complete review.
Thomas Doherty How Film Became History The Rise of the Archival Documentary in 1930s America Columbia University Press, April 2026.
Thank you, NetGalley, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
This is a beautifully written narrative of an achievement that has made historical events accessible. This accessibility is reflected in Doherty’s writing, from the story about the early Russian influence on the form arising from the lack of current material to the vast amount that was available by the 1930s. By then a variety of sources were universally recognised for their value, and Doherty’s story draws us into the almost magical way in which raw material became documentaries – some propaganda, some authentic, some accepted into ‘picture houses’ and some denied to the public because of censorship. Although Thomas Doherty refers to well-known films, he also introduces largely unknown material, and in doing so makes another contribution to the knowledge about archival documentaries.
The story of documentaries becoming vehicles for exploring and reporting major political issues is not only exciting, but instructive. Doherty is a master at identifying the complications of censorship and detecting political propaganda plus contrasting it with politically astute and useful material. He also introduces vital discussion of the value of less obviously politically motivated information and its role in treating an audience to easily digested historical research. He is disarmingly honest about the way in which manipulated archival material could be manipulated to take in even the wariest researcher such as himself in a first encounter with one reenactment. The lengthy and detailed story is fascinating. It not only raises historical nature of alarm about reenactments, a well-worn debate about historical ‘truth,’ but the way in which historians work. See Books Reviews 2026 for the complete review.
National Gallery of Australia Exhibition
My photograph of the sign for Women from the Lands, which is at the entry to an exhibition of indigenous women’s art, was out of focus. However, these artists are central to the NGA’s contemporary Indigenous collection.
American Politics
RIP Voting Rights (1965–2026)
The Nation <emails@emails.thenation.com> Unsubscribe
“The Voting Rights Act changed the face and the structure of American politics—and government,” justice correspondent Elie Mystalwrites.
And “on Wednesday, Roberts and his cabal of ruling Republicans finally completed their quest to suppress the strength of the emerging non-white majority in this country.” Louisiana v. Callais “effectively ends any protection against racial gerrymandering and vote dilution, and opens the doors to redistricting across the South that will likely decimate Black and Latino representation in Congress, as well as state legislatures and municipal governments,” David Daleyfurther explains.
And while this case is very much about Black people, “women should be concerned too,” arguesMichelle Goodwin, “especially given state and federal efforts to disenfranchise women’s voting power.”
But it’s not time to give up. New York Attorney General Letitia James leaves us with a stirring call to action: “This institutional injustice will not deter our efforts to ensure that every American has the representation and resources they deserve. Despite the hardships the heroes of the civil rights movement encountered, they marched on. So must we. We cannot afford not to.” –
The Voting Rights Act, among the most consequential pieces of U.S. civil rights legislation, was signed into law in August 1965. It came nearly a century after the 15th Amendment outlawed racial discrimination in voting in 1870.
Despite the amendment, Black Americans had continued to face barriers to one of the nation’s most fundamental rights even after ratification, including violence and intimidation, poll taxes and literacy tests. For many decades before the federal law was passed, activists marched, protested and organized voter registration campaigns. Some were brutally beaten or murdered.
The act required some state and local governments, mostly in the South, to get federal approval before changing their voting laws. It also prohibited election or voting practices that discriminate based on race, which eventually led some states to draw new congressional maps with districts that have a majority of Black voters.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has chipped away at the federal law and its enforcement tools. On Wednesday, the court, which has had a conservative majority, dealt another blow to the historic legislation by throwing out Louisiana’s latest congressional map as an illegal racial gerrymander.
Here’s a look at some events that led to and followed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
MAY TO DECEMBER 1961
The Freedom Rides challenge segregation in public transportation across the South.
The Freedom Rides of 1961 nonviolent strategy aimed to test whether state and local governments were complying with two Supreme Court rulings. One declared that enforcing segregated seating on interstate buses was unconstitutional. The other found that segregated lunch counters, bathrooms and waiting rooms in bus terminals were unconstitutional.
The first Freedom Riders included 13 men and women, both Black and white, who traveled and sat together on interstate buses. The group included 21-year-old John Lewis, who would go on to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives for more than 30 years.
The group planned to ride from Washington to New Orleans on two buses in May 1961. But during multiple stops, they were attacked and beaten and one of the buses was firebombed. The violence forced the Freedom Riders to finish their trip to New Orleans by plane.
Circa 1961. Credit…Pictorial Parade Archives, via Getty Images
More than 400 volunteers participated in the rides, including Doratha Smith-Simmons, known as Dodie, now 82. As an 18-year-old, she rode a bus to a Greyhound station in McComb, Miss., where her group was attacked by a white mob. Ms. Smith-Simmons said recently that while the episode had been terrifying, she “was willing to die for the cause.”
Collectively, the rides — and the violent pushback from their opposition — helped expose the oppression of Jim Crow laws. They gained national attention and pushed the federal government to enforce desegregation laws.
June to August 1964
Freedom Summer helps register voters in Mississippi.
A leaflet from the Council of Federated Organizations, a coalition of civil rights groups, for its 1964 campaign to register Black voters in Mississippi. Credit…Heritage Art/Heritage Images via Getty Images
Freedom Summer was a 1964 campaign led by the Council of Federated Organizations, a coalition of civil rights groups, to register Black voters in Mississippi. More than 700 college students, mostly white and from Northern states, worked with local Black community members over 10 weeks to register voters.
The volunteers distributed registration information, assisted in filling out forms and escorted residents to the courthouses. It was not without risk: Some were beaten and arrested, and their cars were firebombed. Three voting rights activists — Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney — were abducted and murdered outside Philadelphia, Miss.
Of the estimated 17,000 African Americans who tried to register to vote that summer, according to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, only 1,600 applications were accepted. That low number served as evidence of the state’s exclusion of Black voters.
FEBRUARY 1965
A Voting Rights Activist was killed in Alabama.
Jimmie Lee Jackson, a 26-year-old Black farmer, was shot by a white Alabama state trooper while participating in a voting rights march in Marion, Ala. His death spurred, in part, the major civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery. At the time, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was leading a campaign in Alabama to fight for voter rights.
The Bloody Sunday march in Selma becomes a catalyst for voting rights.
What would become known as Bloody Sunday began as a march of about 600 activists in Selma, Ala., protesting the denial of voting rights and the killing of Mr. Jackson. The march was led by Mr. Lewis, who by then was chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and the Rev. Hosea Williams of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
As the group crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they were met by Alabama state troopers and sheriff’s deputies wielding billy clubs, bullwhips and tear gas.
Mr. Lewis was beaten and his skull was fractured.
“My legs went out from under me,” he recounted in a 2012 Democracy NOW! interview. “I felt like I was going to die.”
In March 1965. Credit…Charles Moore/Getty Images
The viciousness of the assault, captured in photos and footage, shocked the national consciousness and built support for the Voting Rights Act.
March 15, 1965
President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a historic speech, asking Congress to act.
Just after Bloody Sunday, President Lyndon B. Johnson made his powerful “We Shall Overcome” speech to Congress. The televised address was watched by 70 million Americans, according to the White House Historical Association. Mr. Johnson argued that ensuring the right to vote was a fundamental principle of the American promise. He urged Congress to act immediately.
“Today is a triumph for freedom as huge as any victory that has ever been won on any battlefield,” he said at a signing ceremony on Capitol Hill.
The Justice Department quickly started enforcing the legislation, suing over poll taxes in Mississippi, Alabama, Texas and Virginia.
The first Black lawmakers are elected to Congress from the South since Reconstruction.
The first Black lawmaker was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1870. But most Black Americans who have served in Congress were elected after the Voting Rights Act, though not all of those representatives were from states directly affected by the act.
The first two Black Southerners to win House seats after the law passed — in fact, since the late 1800s — both won after their districts were redrawn to follow the law.
Barbara Jordan, a former state senator, was elected to a Houston-area seat. Andrew Young, an aide to the Rev. Dr. King, was elected to a Georgia seat that included metro Atlanta. Both ran as Democrats.
The Voting Rights Act was signed into law on August 6, 1965, by President Lyndon B. Johnson.
1993-2013
Several civil rights leaders take office after winning in majority-minority House districts.
Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, served as the No. 3 Democrat between 2007 and 2023, and Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia, who remains the top Democrat on the House Education Committee, both took office in January 1993.
Legal challenges under the Voting Rights Act were reshaping congressional maps across the South. New maps helped several civil rights leaders successfully run for office.
Bennie Thompson, center, won a special election in 1993 to represent a Mississippi district. Credit…Maureen Keating/Associated Press
That year, Bennie Thompson, now the top Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, won a special election to represent a Mississippi district that includes the state capital and much of the Mississippi Delta.
June 25, 2013
The Supreme Court strikes down the core of the act with the Shelby v. Holder decision.
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that nine states, as well as some counties and municipalities elsewhere in the country, no longer had to receive federal approval to change their election laws.
The ruling effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act. The court split along ideological lines, with the conservative majority essentially finding that federal oversight was no longer needed.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
2023-2024
Alabama and Louisiana redraw their congressional maps, as court fights continue over redistricting.
Without federal enforcement, states could redraw their congressional maps in ways that diluted the voting power of Black and other minority residents. When a case challenging a new map in Alabama reached the Supreme Court in 2022, some legal experts expected the conservative majority to strike down what remained of the Voting Rights Act.
But the court rejected Alabama’s map, which included only one majority Black congressional district in a state where Black residents made up about 26 percent of the voting-age population.
That ruling led to a new map not just in Alabama, but in Louisiana, where a similar challenge was unfolding. Under the new maps, each state had two districts where a majority of voters were Black.
And in 2024, Alabama and Louisiana each sent two Black representatives to Congress.
2024
Unlike Alabama, where a federal court oversaw the drawing of the new map, Louisiana lawmakers sought to draw their own.
A new map prompted a challenge from a small group of white voters in Louisiana, who argued that the state legislators had discriminated against them by impermissibly taking race into account when they drafted the new map. The Supreme Court heard arguments that fall in the case, Louisiana v. Callais.
Oct. 15, 2025
The Supreme Court again hears Louisiana v. Callais, focusing on the question of using race in redistricting.
Having delayed a clear ruling in Louisiana v. Callais earlier in 2025, the Supreme Court again heard arguments over the state’s new congressional map.
This time, the court focused on whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional because it used race as a factor in redistricting.
Trump wants us discombobulated and weak. We have to step up the fight.
Hey, Raw America family. Welcome to the Sunday Wrapup. I’m here with my cup of coffee after one of the harder news weeks I can remember. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court rolled back the Voting Rights Act. I’ve spent the morning thinking about what’s worth your panic. The answer is: less than the headlines suggest.
Big thanks to our newest paid subscribers. Your support made this week’s interviews with Congressman Ro Khanna and legal expert Anne Mitchell possible. We don’t have a billionaire owner. We have you.
If you’ve been reading for free, this is the Sunday to take the leap. We’ve got a small, fierce team going up against a media ecosystem MAGA billionaires control. The only way independent press survives this moment is if readers fund it.
The Voting Rights Act Isn’t Dead. A Lawyer Walked Us Through Why.
Wednesday’s Louisiana v. Callais ruling was bad. The Supreme Court voted 6-3 to strike down a Louisiana congressional map that included a second majority-Black district, and Justice Kagan’s dissent called the majority’s reading of Section 2 “all but a dead letter.” Most of the press ran with “gutted.” Civil rights groups called it devastating.
Raw America Editor Carl Gibson sat down with attorney Anne Mitchell this week to ask whether all of that’s actually true. Her answer surprised me. It doesn’t match what the rest of progressive media is telling you.“
I have to take issue with the word ‘gutted,’” Mitchell told Carl right out of the gate. The ruling didn’t strike down Section 2. What it did was shift the legal burden. Before Wednesday, plaintiffs could prove redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act by showing the effect was to disenfranchise voters of a particular race. Now they have to prove intent: that the legislators drawing the map meant to do it.That sounds impossible at first. But Mitchell pointed out something I hadn’t thought about. Lawyers prove intent in criminal court every single day. Defendants don’t typically announce their intentions out loud. Prosecutors prove intent through pretext analysis, through circumstantial evidence, through patterns. Civil rights litigators are now going to have to do the same in redistricting cases.“It’s a setback,” Mitchell said, “but it’s not a death knell.”
She also did something I haven’t seen anyone in the legal commentariat do this week, which is locate Wednesday’s ruling inside the broader strategy of the moment. The Trump administration, she told Carl, “wants you completely discombobulated” — chasing every outrage, screaming about every ruling, exhausted into paralysis by the time the midterms arrive.“
A confused, disturbed populace is a weak populace,” she said. The job of independent press right now is to push back on that exhaustion, not feed it.
She reminded Carl of something the administration would very much prefer you forget. More than 1,500 lawsuits have been filed against this administration since January 2025, and “they’re losing in the courts.”Losing them overwhelmingly. Mostly complying with orders, too — the lawless-administration narrative is, by Mitchell’s count, mostly wrong. The legal architecture of the country is bent. It isn’t broken.Liberal lawyers are going to have to roll up their sleeves and do harder work now. That’s a much closer description of what happened Wednesday than “the Voting Rights Act is dead.”…
A Few Things to Hold On To
The political ground keeps shifting in directions worth noting. Maine Governor Janet Mills dropped out Thursday, clearing the path for Graham Platner against Susan Collins. Progressive Analilia Mejía won New Jersey’s 11th seat by 20 points last month. Democrats have flipped 30 state legislative seats since Trump returned to office; Republicans have flipped zero. The Progressive Caucus rolled out a New Affordability Agenda this week: ten bills, every one polling above 60%. Don’t let one ugly Wednesday convince you the fight is over.
Did you know? The floor of the Chamber was only accessible to elected members of Parliament, however in 2016, standing order 257 (Admission of visitors) was amended to allow infants in a member’s care in the Chamber!
In 2008, the House resolved to permit voting by proxy if a member is nursing an infant at the time of a division. The proxy is given to the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip. This provision is not extended to members unable to attend divisions for other reasons, and does not apply to the third reading of a bill that proposes an alteration to the Constitution.
This Facebook post was followed by a video featuring babies, parents, and those holding others’ babies in parliament.
Although the following article was written over a year ago, it is worth sharing here as it relates to the phenomenon discussed below by Tom Watson in relation to British political behaviour. It has had to be edited because the graphics were unable to be shared. The article following is an up-to-date discussion of this trend.
Australia’s two-party system is in long-term decline: what does it mean for how we view elections?
Independents and minor parties now account for almost one in three primary votes. See how the major party share has changed in your electorate
Australia is known for its duopolies – Coles and Woolworths, Qantas and Virgin, Labor and the Coalition. However, at least one of these may be coming to an end.
In the 1980s, Labor and the Coalition shared more than 90% of the primary vote between them and independent politicians were rare.
In 2007 there were only three seats where the final two candidates weren’t in one of the major parties.
By 2022, there were a whopping 27 seats involving an independent or minor party candidate in the final two.
Not all of these seats are inner-city ‘teal’ challengers, either. The black lines here show the boundaries of what the AEC classifies as “inner metropolitan”. At least ten are outside these boundaries, either outer metropolitan like Ryan and Groom in Queensland, or rural, like Cowper in NSW or Wannon in Victoria.
This rise in the non-major party politicians is part of a long-running trend. Here’s how it looks over time:
This trend is also readily apparent when looking at the decline in the major party vote over time at the national level. The decline is not equal in all areas, with some seats dropping more than others, while other electorates show an increasing vote for the Coalition or Labor.
There has been a decline in the major party vote over time for every electorate since the 2004 election. The vote counts have been recalculated to the most recent electorate boundaries to make the data comparable over time for the same area:
In some seats, such as Kennedy and Clark, the election of a popular independent candidate resulted in the major party vote declining dramatically or staying low. In others, the major vote drops but then increases again, following the appearance and disappearance of minor parties at various elections, such as in some South Australian seats with Nick Xenophon’s party and in some Queensland electorates with the Palmer United party.
The other seats that stand out are Calare and New England – both regional seats where the major party vote has increased against the national trend. In both seats, independent politicians retired and were replaced by members of the Nationals.
So what are the consequences of this shift from a system dominated by two parties to one where voters are increasingly looking for a third option?
Australia may see minority governments more frequently. The move away from major parties has also occurred in other countries with similar systems of government. In the 2024 election in the UK, minor parties had their highest share of the vote since 1920; in Canada, minority governments were historically rare, but the country has now had four since 2004.
And although the major party leaders rail against minority government and characterise it as “chaotic” and “unstable”, Australia’s most recent minority government, led by Julia Gillard after the 2010 election, was efficient in passing legislation and was able to pass landmark bills such as the one establishing the NDIS.
The most immediate consequence of the declining major party vote may be in how we view politics, because our interpretation is based so firmly in the two-party paradigm. The Mackerras pendulum, our classic view of electorates and how many seats might switch given a national swing, shows movement only along the Coalition-Labor axis. Polling companies and the media emphasise the two-party-preferred vote above measures like primary vote or estimated seat share.
Antony Green, the ABC’s chief election analyst, says the increasing number of independent and minor party candidates makes election projections “more complex”. Nevertheless, he expects the 2025 vote to be slightly easier to project than in 2022.
“In a fair number of the seats where there are independents or Greens in the final pairing, this time we have historical figures for them,” he says.
“So last time, we had a Liberal versus an independent in seats like Mackellar, North Sydney, Kooyong, Goldstein, where we had no history of an independent being there before. So we couldn’t take the preference count coming in and compare it with a preference count from last time because it was a different pairing.”
A new candidate in the final two for a seat also complicates election models which rely on swing from the previous year, Green says.
And the pendulum? Green says that again, it’s now more complicated, with so many more seat competitions between Labor and the Greens, Liberals and independents, and other pairings.
“Since 2007 we’ve always had this election calculator we published, where you could put in a swing and we predict how many seats will fall.
“We haven’t bothered this time because you had to put in so many exceptions to two-party [contests].”
Simon Jackman, honorary professor of political science at the University of Sydney, says the two-party-preferred figure – both the one estimated from polling and the one on election night – is still relevant for a lot of seats.
“But the set of possible election outcomes turns on what’s happening in a lot of non-classic contests,” he says.
Jackman agrees the utility of the pendulum has diminished.
“We’re in a mixed setup now. Of the seats I think will or might change hands this election, we’re generally talking about classic ALP v Coalition contests, for which constructs like the pendulum and uniform swing have some utility.
“I also think a lot of state and candidate-specific factors limit the utility of the pendulum/uniform-swing model. One of the big stories of this election could well be the state-specific swings or moderation/amplification thereof by the campaigns.
“On election night there might be as many non-classic contests in the ‘changing hands’ column as classic contests – the pendulum has nothing to tell us about the former.”
It remains to be seen whether the major party vote will decline again on election night – and if it does, by how much.
The Guardian’s polling tracker, which aggregates most published opinion polls, currently has the primary vote for other parties and independents up by 3.1 percentage points compared with the 2022 election, and the Greens up by 1, while Labor and the Coalition are down by 2.5 and 2.1 respectively. (These are estimated for each group individually, so they do not sum together neatly.)
How the parties are doing relative to the last election
Showing the ‘swing’ to and away from each party, being the change in estimated median primary vote compared to their result at the last election. Last updated 3 May 2025-10%-5%2022 election+5%+10%-2.7Coalition-2.8Labor+4.2Other/independent+0.9Greens
Guardian Graphic | Poll averaging model by Dr Luke Mansillo and based on work by Professor Simon Jackman; poll data sourced from pollster websites and media reports. *The margin of error is a ‘credibility interval’, which is a range that we are 95% certain contains the estimated population support for each party
If this bears out on election night, we may see the non-major party vote go above one-third of the total vote for the first time.
In a single week, three separate polls, Resolve, Newspoll, and YouGov, told three separate stories about the state of Australian politics.
And yet, reading some of the commentary that followed, you would be forgiven for thinking Pauline Hanson’s movement had suddenly stalled, collapsed, or surging to new heights, depending on which headline you clicked on first. The dominant framing, as ever, was that something had shifted. Something was moving. Labor had “surged back.” The Coalition was in “stable.” The insurgency was fading, or perhaps accelerating, or perhaps both, simultaneously, in different households, reading different mastheads.
Most of this is the reflexive reporting of survey-to-survey movement as if each wave were a referendum in miniature and it reflects a profound misunderstanding of what is actually happening to the Australian electorate.
We are not in a normal political period. We are in the middle of a structural realignment, and the tools built for normal periods, including the habit of reading each poll as a discrete verdict on the state of political play, are not fit for purpose. If you want to understand what One Nation’s vote is doing, you have to stop staring at the weekly numbers and start looking at the shape of the thing beneath them.
What the surveys are actually measuring
Start with a simple observation that very few columnists seem willing to make: when the electorate is in flux, different sampling methodologies, different weighting schemes, and different question orders produce larger gaps than they do in stable periods. This is not a flaw in the polls. It is a feature of the moment. The country is in transition.
In a settled two-party system, where the overwhelming majority of voters are either rusted-on or weakly attached to one of two brands, polling is a relatively straightforward exercise. You sample, you weight against known preference flows and demographic benchmarks, and you produce a number that will be close to what every other reputable pollster produces, give or take a couple of points. That was Australia from the 1950s through to 2022. That was the environment in which most of our political journalism was professionally formed.
That Australia no longer exists.
In the current environment, a single respondent’s answer depends on a cascade of variables that have only become decisive in the last five or six years. Whether they are prompted with One Nation as a named option. Whether they are asked about the leader or the party. Whether the survey is conducted online or by phone. Whether the sample is drawn from a panel that over-represents politically engaged Australians or one that catches the soft, transactional voters who now decide elections. Whether the fieldwork was done during a news cycle dominated by fuel prices, or migration, or a terror attack, or another Trump post on social media.
In a settled period, all of these methodological choices produce small divergences. In a realignment period, they produce the two-to-five point gaps you are seeing between polls. The polls are not contradicting each other in any meaningful sense. They are each capturing a different cross-section of an electorate that is genuinely, ideologically, psychologically in motion, in a transition from a two party to multi party system.
This is not a novel observation. It is one of the most robust findings in comparative political science.
What the academics have been saying for forty years
Peter Mair, in ‘Ruling the Void’, documented the long decline of party attachment across Western democracies and warned that the erosion of stable partisan identities would produce electorates that were harder to read, harder to poll, and harder to govern. He was right. The Dassonneville and Hooghe work in the European Journal of Political Research, on electoral volatility and dealignment shows that as voter-party linkages weaken, electoral behaviour becomes more volatile and more unpredictable, not as a temporary aberration, but as the new equilibrium. Dalton and Wattenberg’s ‘Parties Without Partisans’, made the same argument for the advanced industrial democracies as a whole.
The measurement literature tells the same story. The Pedersen index, developed in the late 1970s, was the first rigorous attempt to quantify net electoral volatility between elections, the share of the vote that moves from one party to another. In stable Western European democracies, the Pedersen index historically ran somewhere between five and ten. In the period since the Global Financial Crisis, it has exceeded twenty in a number of cases and in the countries that have experienced the most dramatic realignments, it has pushed higher still. Recent European work has disaggregated this further: volatility is concentrated in the “left-behind” regions, in outer-metropolitan and regional electorates where the gap between lived experience and elite discourse is widest. Rodríguez-Pose’s work on the “places that don’t matter” is the best single summary of what is happening across the developed world. It is also a near-perfect description of the electoral geography fuelling One Nation.
When scholars of Western European democracy talk about dealignment and realignment, they are describing two overlapping processes that look, in the short-term, like one phenomenon. Dealignment is the loosening of traditional party attachments, voters becoming harder to pin to a brand, more willing to switch, more responsive to short-term cues. Realignment is the slower process by which new cleavages emerge and new party coalitions form around them. In a realignment period, you see both at once: dealigned voters bouncing around in the short term, while deeper structural shifts are quietly reshaping who ends up where when the music stops.
This is why polls diverge. This is why weekly movements can look dramatic but mean relatively little. This is also why the long-run trend is the only thing worth watching.
What the long run says about One Nation
The long-run trend is now unmistakable, and it is worth stating clearly, because it has been buried under months of spot-coverage.
Roughly 80% of One Nation’s growth since the 2025 federal election has come from the Coalition. The remainder has come, in smaller amounts, from Labor and from the other minor parties of the right. That is the structural story. Everything else is statistical noise around that central fact.
This is the same pattern we have watched unfold in every comparable democracy in the last decade.
In the United Kingdom, Reform UK has drawn a large chunk of its vote directly from the Conservatives, as nearly 80% of 2024 Reform voters had previously voted Conservative in 2019. The combined Labour-Conservative vote share in Britain has collapsed from over 80% in 2017 to the mid-thirties today. The Electoral Reform Society now describes Britain as a genuine multi-party system, with five parties clustered within fifteen points of each other. The party system that produced Thatcher and Blair is no longer the party system that governs Britain.
In Sweden, the 2022 election saw the Sweden Democrats become the second-largest party in parliament, drawing predominantly from the Moderates. In Italy, the old Christian Democratic/Communist duopoly has been replaced entirely. In France, the post-war structure has been shattered. In each of these cases, political scientists have documented the same sequence: a long period of dealignment, a triggering event (or series of events), a sudden acceleration in vote volatility, and then, eventually, the settling of a new structure.
In each of these cases, too, the polling through the transition was noisy. Individual surveys moved dramatically. Commentators regularly pronounced the insurgent party had “peaked.” Each time, the noise was misread as signal. And each time, the structural shift continued regardless.
The Australian specifics
Australia has two features that make its realignment both more predictable and more consequential than the European examples.
The first is preferential voting, which means that the bloc behaviour emerging in primary vote numbers is mechanically translated into two-party-preferred outcomes with minimal leakage. The second is compulsory voting, which means that the disengaged and economically stressed voters who would simply not turn out in the United States or the United Kingdom are obliged to participate and, critically, obliged to express their dissatisfaction through a vote rather than through abstention. One Nation is not just absorbing angry right-wing voters. It is absorbing voters who, in a voluntary system, would not be voting at all.
This is one of the reasons our realignment is expressing itself more sharply and more quickly than the equivalent processes in the US or the UK. It is also one of the reasons the polling is so volatile. The voters now driving the One Nation surge, outer-suburban, culturally conservative, economically stressed, low-information, are the voters pollsters have historically had the most trouble reaching, weighting, and capturing accurately. Their opinions are less fixed. Their turn out behaviour is not in question, but their partisan behaviour is genuinely in flux. When you sample them at different times, with different wording, through different local and global events, you will get different answers.
One Nation will continue to move between the low 20s and mid to high 20s, in successive polls over the coming months. Sometimes it will look like a surge. Sometimes it will look like a retreat. The honest answer is that neither is happening in any meaningful sense. What is happening is that the Coalition’s historic base is being reshaped, the two-party system that dominated Australian politics for the better part of a century is being slowly pulled apart, and a new structure is emerging underneath.
If you want to understand it, put down the weekly polls. Look at the arc.
British Politics
The bins, the bombs and the ballot box
Tom Watson <tomwatsonofficial@substack.com> Unsubscribe
Local elections collide with national anger as voters walk away from the two-party system. Thursday’s elections will no doubt be reported as a referendum on Keir Starmer. That is partly true, as far as it goes. Governments always get the blame. Prime ministers always carry the can. That is one of the less attractive privileges of the office.
But it would be a mistake to stop there. The polls and projections suggest something larger is happening. This is not simply a judgement on Starmer, or even on Labour. It is beginning to look like a judgement on the two-party system, and on the Whitehall way of governing that has sustained it.
The figures are stark enough. Recent polling has Reform in the mid-twenties, Labour and the Conservatives in the high teens, the Greens in the mid-teens and the Liberal Democrats still very much in the field. Psephologists have pointed to heavy losses for both main parties. Some projections have Labour losing nearly 2,000 council seats, the Conservatives also going backwards, and Reform, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats making the gains.If it happens, it will represent a fissure in our two-party system.
The sad truth is that many people will not be voting on Thursday for the party they think will run local services best. They will be voting against. Against Labour. Against the Conservatives. Against Westminster. Against a system that feels remote, slow and incapable of doing the things it promises.
Local elections have always carried national messages. That is not new. What feels different this time is the extent to which the local has been crowded out altogether. Nigel Farage and Zack Polanski have helped turn the campaign into a vote about race, migration, Israel, Iran and a whole range of questions which have little to do with who collects the bins most efficiently, fixes the roads or keeps the libraries open.
That does not mean those issues are unimportant. It does mean that the poor councillor defending a record on social care, housing, libraries or potholes may find himself judged on matters over which he has no control at all. Local democracy is often unfair. This year it may be positively brutal.
I can remember two years of terrible results for Labour during the Gordon Brown years. They were a blow. They chipped away at his authority. They added to the sense of a government losing altitude. But they did not stop the daily flow of crises being dealt with in Number 10. The phones still rang. The papers still came in. The decisions still had to be made. Government carried on.
What feels different now is the shape of the punishment. In the Brown years, the system still made a kind of sense. Labour lost. The Conservatives gained. The pendulum moved. The shock was painful, but the mechanism was familiar.
This time, the vote is scattering. Reform gains here. Greens there. Liberal Democrats somewhere else. Independents in places where local anger has found its own candidate. The two-party system is not simply under pressure. It is nose down, hurtling towards the runway, while everyone in the cockpit insists the instruments are being reviewed.
In Wales, the polling tells the same story in a sharper form. YouGov’s MRP has Reform and Plaid Cymru effectively neck and neck, with Labour a distant third. Other polls point in the same direction.The striking point is not simply Labour’s weakness. It is the wider displacement of the old parties. Labour and the Tories are losing their place in the system. The Conservatives, already weak in much of Wales, risk becoming almost peripheral, while the main contest shifts towards Plaid and Reform.
That is the pattern across Britain. The governing party is being punished, but the official opposition is not the automatic beneficiary. In Wales, as in England, the protest is scattering. Reform takes one kind of discontent. Plaid takes another. Labour falls back. The Conservatives struggle to remain relevant.
That is why Thursday should not be read only as an anti-Starmer election. It is also an anti-Tory election, and a warning about the failure of the old alternation: Labour in, Conservatives out; Conservatives in, Labour out. Voters are not simply changing government. They are changing the terms of two-party politics.That raises a harder question than whether Starmer has had a bad week. It asks whether the old bargain still holds. Britain’s governing model rests on the idea that a party wins power, commands the Commons, controls Whitehall, sets the direction for local authorities and delivers change. But voters increasingly look at housing, the NHS, social care, migration, energy bills, transport, planning and policing, and conclude that the machine does not work as advertised.Whitehall still thinks in departments, consultations, reviews and efficiencies. The public thinks in broken appointments, rising bills, unanswered calls and things that never seem to get fixed. The gap between those two worlds is now a political fact.
Kemi Badenoch’s position is not easy either. I may be the only person who thought she was actually doing well as leader. She had begun to sound sharper and more settled. Then she disastrously called it wrong on the Iran conflict and overplayed her hand by calling Keir Starmer a liar. There are moments when an opposition leader must wound the Prime Minister, but the danger is that in doing so, they look less prime ministerial. I cannot help thinking Kemi is too addicted to social media moments rather than long-term strategic clarity.
Ed Davey, whom I like very much, appears to have been forced into chasing the daily media cycle, from Trump to Mandelson and whatever else happens to be passing across the screen. One assumes his team worry that the one-man media machine of Zack Polanski will steal the oxygen. They may be right. But it is not always wise to chase a populist, particularly for liberals.
And what of the potential winners, Polanski and Farage? Their success would tell us as much about the weakness of the old parties as about the strength of the new ones. Both have understood that attention now moves faster than organisation. The danger is that attention is not the same as trust, and noise is not the same as government.
Polanski is certainly a media sensation. No one can deny that. But short-term sensation is not the same as long-term strength. He has allowed his party to be drawn into the hands of people whose political style will be familiar to anyone who watched the autocratic grip placed on Labour under Corbyn. That may work well on TikTok, but he has already turned himself into the riskiest choice for PM in a generation.
And then there is Nigel Farage. He will claim victory on Thursday whatever the numbers say. It is hard to lose from a standing start, especially when you have spent years explaining that every setback proves the establishment is terrified of you. Whether this projects him towards office is another question. A reported £5 million personal gift from Christopher Harborne, now under scrutiny by the Electoral Commission and the parliamentary standards commissioner, ought to matter in the arguments ahead. These are unusual times, though. Perhaps in the new politics, £5 million is just a rounding error. Who knows, in the present climate?
Meanwhile, the people who deserve most sympathy are barely in the national story at all. There are some very fine civic leaders facing serious challenges this week. They will not all deserve the verdict they receive. Many will have worked hard, served decently and tried to hold together public services under impossible pressure.They are in my thoughts. I have always believed local parties are nothing without their councillors. They are the lifeblood. They are the glue. They keep the organisation alive when the national leadership is popular, and they keep it breathing when it is not.As commentators say this is going to be the worst night in human history for an incumbent government, one thing can safely be said: Labour has at least got its expectations management right!
Somewhere in Tory and Labour HQ, clever young men with lanyards are drafting lines saying they always knew the asteroid was coming and are pleased it has landed broadly within the expected blast radius.
But the more serious point is not the size of the defeat. It is the meaning of the fragmentation. Voters are no longer merely changing sides. They are losing faith in not just the main parties, but the whole system.
Michael Ridpath Operation Berlin Boldwood Books, April 2026.
Thank you, NetGalley and Boldwood Books, for this uncorrected proof for review.
Having recently reread Michael Ridpath’s financial thrillers I found it difficult to change pace with this more elegant approach to murder. Operation Berlin has a certain charm, which grows as the narrative moves toward revealing the guilty, but it is well removed from Ridpath’s early works. So, could I become attached to this departure which Ridpath describes as historical fiction? Reading the Author’s Note, where Ridpath explains his inspiration for Operation Berlin, provides a valuable insight into the novel.
Archie and Esme meet, with the former in a bad mood and Esme desperate for work to support her ambition to become a journalist. Archie is Sir Archibald, researching a German Field Marshall; Esme is a typist from Kalamazoo. Their developing relationship, while examining papers relevant to the research and Archie’s love of antique books in various German towns, with a background of the rise of Nazism and imminent elections and two murders is engaging. This relationship is a particularly clever part of the narrative, as Ridpath uses the personal account to address the wider issues of the aftermath of war, the role of journalism and the political events at the time.
The plot is well executed with enough clues and possibilities to engage the lover of mysteries. There is enough authenticity to interest to the reader of historical fiction. Most of all, Archie and Esme are appealing characters who are ready to advance to other mysteries if Ridpath decides to make their companionship a series. I enjoyed the novel from each of these aspects and will gladly read more of Ridpath’s different work. However, I must admit to a sneaking wish that he would write another financial thriller.
Edited by Laura LaPlaca and Ryan Lintelman, with a Foreword by Mel Brooks Funny Stuff How Comedy Shaped American History Rutgers University Press, May 2026.
Thank you, NetGalley, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
A wealth of information is encapsulated in this absorbing narrative with its accessible prose and an occasional comic moment brought to life, which gives ‘funny stuff’ its place in American history. The foreword which introduces the themes, which are then recounted in detail in the many articles that follow, is descriptive, enlightening, and engaging. In addition, it introduces many of the characters and manifestations of the comic works that follow in the detailed pieces, giving characters, ideas, and events some familiarity. Of course, many of them are recognisable from experience – for me, the Marx Brothers and Seinfeld in particular, and who has not at least heard of I Love Lucy or the Muppets? The book works well in covering a plethora of comedy types some historical, some familiar, and some new. In addition to the expected figures, Joe Biden, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, George H. Bush, and George W. Bush appear. Where does the feminist Helen Gurley Brown fit? Or The Feminist Mystique and Betty Freidan? Social Commentary? And historical events? See Books: Reviews for the complete review.
What humour means to older people – and why some find it hard to keep on laughing
Phd Candidate, Department of Psychology, Aberystwyth University, Heather Heap does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. Partners: Phd Candidate, Department of Psychology, Aberystwyth University
Disclosure statement
Heather Heap does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
For many older people, humour can be a lifeline. It’s not easy to discuss the challenges of ageing – from loneliness and the loss of a loved one to dealing with chronic pain. But laughter can be an invaluable way of opening up about how hard life sometimes feels.
“I struggle to get round at times, but I have to,” a 72-year-old man told me during my research with colleagues into older people’s experiences of humour. “If I didn’t laugh at myself, I’d cry.”
Past research has suggested that cognitive decline can reduce older people’s ability to be funny. But our study offers an alternative explanation for the reduced amount of humour in their lives. It’s not so much about older people losing their sense of humour, as about changes in their opportunities to use and enjoy it.
We interviewed 20 people aged 60 and over about the role of humour in their lives, having already asked them to rate their wellbeing. What emerged was a complex picture: humour can be a key part of life for some older people, but a source of distress and discomfort for others.
Many participants living alone explained they simply had fewer opportunities to share humour. Without partners or regular companions, it diminishes not due to inability but isolation.
“Now I live by myself, it’s a bit more awkward,” said a 75-year-old male interviewee. “But as soon as I’m meeting anybody, that’s when the humour surfaces with other people. Not when I’m by myself.”
Fears of causing offence
Many older people highlighted shifting social attitudes about the humour they wanted to use and find funny. They felt that while younger generations could use profanity and edgy humour freely, their preferred humour was increasingly seen as unacceptable.
Many said they self-censor around unfamiliar people for fear of causing offence, resulting in a decline in their overall use of humour. A 62-year-old male told us:
If it’s somebody you don’t know, you could use [humour] to break the ice – but there’s the social barriers. You don’t know them, so you don’t really want to use too much. You don’t want to use humour which they might not find acceptable.
When pressed on what kind of humour was no longer considered acceptable, our older interviewees were often wary in their replies. One 71-year-old man suggested that ageist humour was no longer possible among elderly people: “I think it’s a subject people are a little bit wary of making jokes about these days … Just as anti-Jewish or anti-Irish humour has gone out of fashion, I think possibly the same thing about elderly people.”
Equally, some interviewees complained about stereotypes that portray older adults as “coffin dodgers” or “old grannies”. Research shows these can negatively affect psychological wellbeing when older people internalise such stereotypes.
Reactions in our study were mixed: some found these jokes offensive and harmful, mainly women. Others, particularly men, argued that jokes should be accepted in good spirit and that negative effects stem from misunderstanding, rather than the joke itself.
Familiarity played a role too: while ageist jokes from friends felt relatable and funny, the same jokes from strangers were more often seen as offensive.
Our interviewees said they enjoyed a wide variety of humour, from political comedies and dry wit to slapstick comedy (many referenced Monty Python). However, many found it easier to pinpoint what they disliked: profanity, and humour where someone becomes the “butt” of the joke.
Comedians like Jimmy Carr and Ricky Gervais were frequently mentioned as examples of humour they didn’t enjoy, with one explaining: “I like laughing at situations, not at people.”
The darker side of humour
Humour serves important social functions, helping people of all ages to navigate difficult conversations, reduce tension and maintain connections. Our study found that older people who said they frequently used humour as a social tool also tended to rate themselves higher in terms of their wellbeing.
In contrast, those declaring lower wellbeing were more likely to admit using humour in a defensive way. As one woman aged 62 put it: “I think I’m aware that I use humour to deflect things. I use humour as a mask.” Relying on humour to deflect emotional needs can in turn restrict the depth of a person’s connections.
Whether it is the freedom to joke without fear of causing offence or the ability to laugh together at the challenges associated with ageing, our interviewees repeatedly stressed that most humour surfaces in the company of others. When you’re on your own, it’s much harder to keep on laughing.
Published: April 23, 2026 7.14pm AEST, Article republished under Creative Commons
Associate Professor (Affiliate), Australian Literature, University of Sydney
Disclosure statement
Brigid Rooney does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
David Malouf was a writer of wisdom, grace and generosity
David George Joseph Malouf AO, one of Australia’s most accomplished, internationally renowned and beloved writers, has died aged 92.
He also wrote numerous short stories, producing four thematically coherent collections. All these works draw from and transmute elements of his own life, his detailed memories of places, people, things and experiences. Yet Malouf always maintained a clear separation between his personal, private life and his public self as a writer.
Malouf made an indelible mark on Australian literature. His many distinguished honours and awards included an Order of Australia, the Neustadt International Prize for Literature (2000), election as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature (2008) and an Australia Council Award for a Lifetime Achievement in Australian Literature (2016).
He was in every sense a man of letters. He was a great reader and profoundly erudite. He was a sociable, assured and generous contributor to literary and public conversation. These same qualities imbue his writerly voice, his regular invocation of a communal “us” or “we”. His intimacy of address marks his poetry and prose, inviting trust and drawing in readers.
A writer’s life
Malouf was born in Brisbane in 1934 to first-generation migrants to Australia, a Lebanese-Melkite Christian father and a European-Jewish mother. The latter had grown up in England, until financial misfortune prompted her family to emigrate to Australia.
His mother’s Anglophilia transmitted itself to the young Malouf. Unable to speak the language (Arabic) of his paternal grandparents, who lived nearby when he was young, Malouf knew of but did not identify with either his Lebanese or Jewish ancestry. He grew up reading the Anglo-European canon and learning several languages, as well as piano and violin.
He saw himself as a writer in English – not as a writer of the migrant experience. Likewise, he did not want his writing to be defined by his sexuality. These aspects of his life are, however, present in his writing, and they mark its character and preoccupations in both subtle and tangible ways.
Having graduated from the University of Queensland, 24-year-old Malouf embarked in 1959 for England, where he taught for the next decade in secondary schools. During this period, he travelled extensively in Europe, worked on his poetry and began early drafts of his first novel, Johnno.
Returning to Australia in 1968, he took up a teaching post in English at the University of Sydney. The next decade was immensely productive, with publication of Johnno and An Imaginary Life and two arresting poetry collections, Bicycle (1970) and Neighbours in a Thicket (1974).
In 1978, Malouf relinquished his university post and went to live for ten months each year in Campagnatico, an isolated village in Italy. There he dedicated himself to writing without distraction, but maintained connections with Australia and his peers.
He returned to Australia in the early 1980s, settling in inner Sydney for the next few decades, close by the university and its library. His last move, in about 2017, was to return close to his home base in Brisbane, to an apartment in Surfers Paradise, near his family and the places of his earliest memories.
Living landscapes
Malouf introduced readers to the subtropical regions of his home state of Queensland, to fertile, watery landscapes imbued with time and memory.
His writing often starts from the small, the inconsequential and the ordinary, and unfolds from there into vibrant particularity. And then it moves outward, opening long perspectives and distant horizons, whether of nation, world or the earth itself. His figures travel towards strangeness and mystery at the edges of the self.
Malouf’s writing is sensitive to living landscapes in both regional and urban settings. His remarkable prose memoir, 12 Edmondstone Street, recalls the now-demolished South Brisbane house that had been the “first place” of his early childhood. It unfolds through successive rooms and tells of its story-laden objects.
The idea of this first house as a storehouse of memory, imagination and writing was central for Malouf. He once described the experience of writing his successive books as like building a house, to which he was adding rooms. Each new room is “part of that house, and not another house”, and yet adds something that reconfigures the whole.
Malouf’s fiction works on multiple levels, engaging with history and collective memory. Johnno, for instance, tells what it was like to grow up in Brisbane during and after the second world war. It is a sensory hymn to a ramshackle town that becomes a city, seen intimately and from afar as it alters beyond recognition. Harland’s Half Acre, Fly Away Peter and The Great World span the generational experiences of Australians involved in the two world wars.
Remembering Babylon and Conversations at Curlow Creek move back to the pre-Federation, colonial era. Their publication coincided with the settler nation’s first tentative reckonings with its brutal colonial history and legacy – a reckoning still far from complete. These novels spurred Malouf’s wider public engagements in the 1990s.
In the wake of writers such as Kenneth Slessor and Patrick White, Malouf forged new pathways for settler Australian literature. Through his writing, he aspired to cultivate interiors – a sense of the mysterious or numinous dimensions of life and things. He sought to reconcile these interior qualities with outer worlds.
This also drove his attempt to imagine an interior history for Australia, to tell the untold stories of inner, collective experience behind or within external events. He believed in the role imagination and storytelling could play in recognising the darkness of settler-colonial history and moving towards reconciliation with Australia’s First Peoples.
In 1998, he presented the Boyer lectures, published as A Spirit of Play: The Making of Australian Consciousness. In these he canvassed the “complex fate”, sensibility and potential of a settler people, “children both of the old world and the new”.
Malouf’s public commentary on civic and national matters was matched by his quiet work on peace and reconciliation behind the scenes. In 1999, with Jackie Huggins, Malouf co-wrote the draft Declaration for Reconciliation, intended for consultation with the Australian people. He advocated the freedom of writers around the world through his long involvement in PEN Sydney, of which he was a life member. He was a lifetime ambassador of the Indigenous Literacy Foundation.
David Malouf at the Indigenous Literacy Project, launched at the Lodge in Canberra. He was a lifetime ambassador of the Indigenous Literacy Foundation. Mark Graham/AAP
A poet from first to last
From first to last, Malouf was a poet. From Four Poets (1962) – a joint endeavour with fellow poets Donald Maynard, Rodney Hall and Malouf’s close friend Judith Green (later Rodriguez) – to Earth Hour (2014) and An Open Book (2018), and many prize-winning collections in between, the luminous quality of Malouf’s poetry belies the complex dimensions it unfurls.
A poetic imagination, as Yvonne Smith says, infuses all Malouf’s writing with music, creating what Ivor Indyk calls its “pulse”. For Vivian Smith, the precise observations in Malouf’s poetry are sensual, “rooted in the tentacular, in the life of the body”.
Malouf is most known around the world, however, for his fiction. His books secured such prizes as the Miles Franklin Literary Award, the Prix Femina Étranger and the inaugural International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award. He was thrice winner of Australia’s oldest literary award, the Australian Literary Society’s (ALS) Gold Medal, a feat so far matched only by Patrick White and Alexis Wright.
But Malouf also possessed a rare ability to work across genres with flair and elegance. He composed libretti for at least four operas, starting with Voss, based on Patrick White’s novel. His play Blood Relations (1987) reworked Shakespeare’s The Tempest.
Beyond national horizons
Though anchored in beloved Australian places, Malouf’s writing seeks coordinates beyond national horizons with world literature, from the classics of antiquity to the modern transatlantic canon. His writing converses with the works of, among others, Marcel Proust, Joseph Conrad, Henry James, Honore de Balzac, James Joyce, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Rainer Maria Rilke, Wallace Stevens and William Faulkner, and with the ancient poetry of Homer, Horace and Ovid. His lifelong love of classical languages is manifest in his writing.
Malouf felt a personal affinity with Ovid, with whom he shared a birthday. His internationally acclaimed second novel, An Imaginary Life, recreated the experience of the ageing Ovid in exile on the remote edge of the Roman empire. Here, through his encounter with his opposite, a wild child, the poet opens himself newly towards experience of the world, and towards his own bodily and mortal being.
Malouf’s last novel, Ransom, circles back to the ancient world. Reworking the last book of Homer’s Iliad, Ransom cultivates the interior history of the epic. While the epic tells of great events in heroic terms, Malouf explores the thoughts and feelings of the aged, grieving King Priam and the furious avenger Achilles. It ultimately returns us to Priam’s companion, an ordinary man and the bearer of the story, the carter Somax, and Beauty, his favourite mule.
Ransom creates, amid hostilities, a little pocket of stilled time. From here, the story expands to the past and the future. New models of being are ventured. The weight of convention, of royalty, of war, is balanced by the myriad “prattling” voices of the living world. The epic finds its counterweight in this novel, which attends to the small, the humble and the inconsequential.
The reality of the small and the inconsequential crystallises once more in Before or After, the very last poem in his last book, An Open Book:
… It is the small, the muted inconsequential, at this point that comes closest to real.
With its evanescent and mysterious refractions, with its threading of connection between ancient and modern worlds, Malouf’s writing gives us a vision of life even at the edge of destruction.
He will be a remembered as a writer of wisdom, grace and generosity, and for the richness of his poetic imagination. He will be remembered for his curiosity and dedication to literature. He’ll be remembered as someone not bowed down, as only lightly touched, by time.
Fly Away Peter is remembered fondly by so many people who are paying tribute to David Malouf. It was part of the Canberra school English syllabus and was a pleasure to teach.
Six years ago, this was our Anzac Day Remembrance. People lit candles, and opposite our apartment a woman played The Last Post on her trumpet. It was lockdown for the Covid epidemic.
American Politics
Occupy Democrats’s post
BREAKING: Trump blocks Bill Maher Kennedy Center comedy honor in SHOCKING act of blatant political retaliation.
Donald Trump’s attack on modern American culture just found a new target — and this time, it’s comedy in the crosshairs.
According to a report in The Atlantic, comedian Bill Maher was set to receive the prestigious Mark Twain Prize for American Humor at the Kennedy Center — one of the highest honors in comedy.
But then? Suddenly, the plug was pulled.
After news of the selection surfaced, the Trump White House reportedly stepped in and made it clear: Maher would NOT be getting the award.
Just like that. And this isn’t happening in a vacuum.
Trump has already taken control of the Kennedy Center by installing loyalists and reshaping its leadership. He’s openly fantasized about handpicking honorees — and now, critics say we’re seeing exactly what that looks like in practice: reward loyalty and punish critics.
And Maher? He’s been a longtime Trump critic — someone Trump has publicly attacked for years, even calling him a “highly overrated lightweight.” Trump even sued the comedian once when Maher joked that he was the product of a tryst between his mother and an orangutan.
So, when Maher was poised to receive one of the country’s top comedy honors, the decision didn’t last long. Because apparently, under Trump’s watch, even cultural awards aren’t safe from political interference.
Ponder the precedent that this sets. A sitting president — or his administration — effectively stepping in to block a comedian from receiving an award, not based on merit, but because of personal grudges.
That’s not normal. That’s not how a free society is supposed to work.
This isn’t just about Bill Maher. It’s about whether art, comedy, and cultural institutions can exist independently — or whether they’ll be reshaped to serve political power.
And right now, We have to do everything in our own power to prevent that from happening.
Virginia Giuffre Set Something In Motion That Can’t Be Stopped
Joyce Vance from Civil Discourse <joycevance@substack.com>
Today marks the one-year anniversary of Virginia Giuffre’s death. One of the bravest Epstein survivors, she refused to let the men who hurt her get away with it and demanded public accountability. Today at a memorial service, her brother said she had turned her “pain into purpose.”
And she did, forcing people—powerful people—to pay attention to survivors.
Prince Andrew is no longer a prince.
The Epstein survivors have shown no indication that they’re ready to walk away now. They forced Congress to pass a law that requires turnover to Congress of the Epstein Files. Trump is fighting a war in Iran, and there has been at least some suggestion that it was an effort to distract the public from those files, and from allegations that surfaced just before the war began that Trump himself had raped a 13-year-old girl. It does not appear that those allegations were ever fully investigated and the truth of that matter isn’t clear. Just as the files include mention of many other rich and powerful men, and their role is not clear: Were they participants? Witnesses? Were they aware of what was going on and failed to report it? Did they participate in a cover up?
Much of the truth is in those files, but the Justice Department’s new leader, Todd Blanche, has said he’s done releasing material. In early April, he told Fox News’ Jesse Watters that the files “And so I think that to the extent that the Epstein files was a part of the past year of this Justice Department, it should not be a part of anything going forward.” About 2.5 million documents are said to remain undisclosed, and the documents that have been released are heavily redacted, frequently obscuring the identity of perpetrators. And there has been reporting to suggest that approximately 30 pages of documents regarding the allegations about Trump and a minor girl have not been released.
Congressman Jamie Raskin believes the distraction won’t work. He said today that the “process of holding people to account had become an ‘irreversible reckoning.’” Virginia Giuffre wrote in her book: “If it helps just one person—I will have achieved my goal.”
Announced just last week, this year’s Time Magazine List of “The 100 Most Influential People of 2026” included Rachel Foster and Lauren Hersh. The two co-founded the group World Without Exploitation, which has helped the survivors develop their strong public voice and build the sisterhood that has enabled their demand for justice. Recognizing their work confirms Representative Raskin’s conclusion. These women are not going anywhere until there is accountability for the people who harmed them.
On Thursday, the Justice Department’s Inspector General Office announced that it would begin an investigation into whether DOJ is in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The IG’s website clarifies its role: “The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is a statutorily created independent entity that detects and deters waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct in the DOJ, and promotes economy and efficiency in the Department’s operations. The Inspector General, who is appointed by the President subject to Senate confirmation, reports to the Attorney General and Congress.” The IG is a quasi-independent actor, positioned somewhere between the executive branch and Congress, which has, in the past, given it the ability to criticize the current administration. Whether or not that is still true remains to be seen.
But slowly, and inexorably, the survivors are demanding justice, and they point to Virginia Giuffre and their desire to honor her as motivation. A single act of sexual assault can radically alter the course of a life. In many cases, the Epstein survivors suffered repeated acts of abuse over an extended period of time, only to be ignored when they went to law enforcement, discounted when Epstein received his sweetheart plea deal in Florida, and treated as though they themselves were at fault. They deserve more than just empathy—they deserve justice.
What has become clear with the release of the files is that very powerful men, and even some women, in this country and in other countries, were involved in or at least complicit in concealing a ring that trafficked young girls internationally. There has to be accountability for the past to secure girls’ and women’s futures. As for us, we owe it to the survivors to refuse to forget, to refuse to be distracted. It is all of our voices, all of our focus, that will help the survivors get to the truth. And all of us deserve that.
We’re in this together,
Joyce
Australian Politics
Federal politics: PM backs Meghan Quinn as ‘stand-out’ first woman to be permanent defence secretary — as it happened
Anthony Albanese has confirmed Meghan Quinn will be the first female secretary of the Department of Defence, calling her a “stand-out candidate”.
British Politics
Article from Labour List 28 April, 2026, by James Tibbut.
Photo: Peter_Fleming/Shutterstock
For much of the last year, Labour’s strategic conversations have been dominated by the threat from Reform UK. Senior figures have watched with growing concern as Nigel Farage’s party has sought to chip away at older, working-class voters in towns and communities that once formed the backbone of Labour’s electoral coalition.
But while the rightward pressure has become impossible to ignore, a quieter anxiety has been emerging inside the party from the opposite direction.
This not only matters because of what it says about the upcoming local elections, but because it also reflects a deeper recognition inside the party that, post the electoral success in Gorton & Denton, the Greens have shown the public they are more than a simple protest vote. Increasingly, they are being seen as a party capable of drawing support from progressive voters who once would have considered Labour their permanent political home.
This also mirrors the warning in the Ipsos analysis provided to LabourList today, which argues that Labour can no longer afford to treat Green advances as isolated local irritations.
In parts of the country, the Greens are beginning to present themselves not simply as an alternative choice on polling day, but as an alternative political identity for disillusioned progressives.
Political parties can often survive losing votes at the margins. What is harder to survive is losing the groups of voters that help define what the party believes itself to be.
My visit to Birmingham last week captured that tension clearly. Beneath the immediate pressures of a difficult local election campaign, from speaking with some Labour activists it was clear there is a growing sense that the Greens are capitalising on attracting voters who are no longer convinced Labour is their political home.
That is why the Green challenge feels different, but equally as concerning for many Labour members as the electoral threat of Reform.
Reform threatens Labour electorally by taking chunks out of a voter base that had already become fragile after Brexit. The Greens threaten Labour both electorally and existentially by appealing to a part of the coalition that has historically given Labour much of its moral and ideological energy, particularly in relation to young progressives who seem to be increasingly attracted to Zack Polanski’s approach to ‘vibe politics’.
One insurgent is eating into Labour’s old heartlands. The other is eating into any idea Labour once had that they were the only place for the left.
Taken separately, each presents a serious strategic problem. Taken together, they raise a much larger and more important question about Labour’s future.
Because if Labour finds itself squeezed by Reform on one side and the Greens on the other, the challenge is no longer just how to build a winning electoral coalition. It becomes how to hold together a coherent political identity when two emerging rivals are drawing support from two very different parts of the Labour tradition.
That may ultimately be the deeper significance of the upcoming May elections.
For Labour members, that should not be a cause for despair, but for honesty. The answer cannot simply be to ‘out-Reform’ Reform or outflank the Greens to the left. Neither can it be to berate and attack voter bases that would have once been Labour. There has to be a balance, which is admittedly, easier sought than achieved, though not impossible by any means.
As a membership, we need to come together to push for a clear new chapter of the Labour story. Something that brings together the good we have already achieved since coming into power in 2024, with the change we set our eyes on for the future. A story that tells the tale of a party that can sound just as credible in former industrial towns without becoming unrecognisable in progressive cities.
Most of all, it means remembering that Labour has always been strongest when it has offered voters a sense of belonging to a wider movement. In the age of politics driven by feeling, we need to spend some time focusing on how we make people feel good again. How we allow those not currently within the Labour Party, but with similar desires to see a nation provide social justice and economic security for all, feel that this is also the place for them.
ABC taps Adam Liaw, Pia Miranda to host cooking series ‘Recipe of the Year’
·April 24, 2026
Adam Liaw and Pia Miranda.
The ABC has announced production is underway on Recipe of the Year, a new cooking competition series hosted by Adam Liaw and Pia Miranda.
Produced by i8 Studio, the series invites home cooks from across Australia to share the dishes that define them, with the competition ultimately crowning Australia’s recipe of the year. Executive producers are Josh Martin, Liaw, Samantha de Alwis and Alenka Henry, with Zoe Norton Lodge serving as ABC executive producer.
The format includes the involvement of the Country Women’s Association, whose judges will appear across the series to offer guidance and encouragement.
Liaw said recipes were a window into both individual and collective identity.
“They each tell a story about the people who write them and who cook them, and when a recipe resonates with a lot of people – when it becomes a hit – it reveals a lot about who we all are,” he said.
“I couldn’t be more excited to be joining the search for Australia’s Recipe of the Year.”
Miranda described the show as a celebration of Australia’s culinary diversity.
“We’re set to discover dishes that truly reflect the richness and diversity of Australia today, while meeting some wonderful people along the way,” she said.
ABC head of entertainment Rachel Millar said the series was a “warm hug of a show celebrating the diverse voices of our delicious culinary landscape”.
“It feels like a hopeful snapshot of Australia today, told through the food on our tables,” she said.
Anjali Enjeti Ballot Bloomsbury Academic, February 2026.
Thank you, NetGalley and Bloomsbury Academic, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
Ballot makes an enlightened and enlightening contribution to the Object Lessons series. It is passionate, without being didactic, politically astute in its descriptions of voting practices and advice on how these have impacted the democratic nature of voting in America, and provides hope in a clouded political environment. This is a book that is so accessible, with the only difficulty in reading it coming to grips with the egregious nature of some political activity associated with voting in America. As well as being a thoughtful account of voting practices, Ballot provides an abundance of practical information about the way in which voting has been undertaken, and this historical approach is as engaging as the more charged political account.
Anjali Enjeti begins her book with two examples of students voting in their classroom, choosing between the candidates in current elections. This provides a brief insight into the role of the education system in extending knowledge and some understanding of the political process. I would have liked this to be built upon with information about students’ studying any additional aspects of the political process, whether such practice has endured, and in which states.
However, there can be no criticism of the detailed information that is made available clearly, with insight and political acumen. The changes in voting practices, from the early vocal voting in public, the use of various types of mechanical processes, paper ballots, and online voting make interesting history – the flaws and advantages are laid out, including those associated with the counting of the ballots and those staff who do this work. This last matter highlights the egregious treatment of some staff who counted ballots in the 2020 election – and their vindication. This is just one example of the intelligent political commentary that sits comfortably beside the information in this book. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.
Tracy Borman The House of Boleyn A NovelGrove Atlantic | Atlantic Monthly Press, August 2026.
Thank you, NetGalley, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
Tracy Borman’s novel is a broader reflection on Anne Boleyn’s attitude to her relationship with Henry V111 than usual. This has its pitfalls, as secondary characters whose vital roles were unrecorded must be partially fictionalised; it also has its advantages in that Borman is able to speculate about characters, often suggesting possibilities that question the way in they have been depicted in other historical fiction and non-fiction. The introduction, with Thomas Boleyn returning to Hever Castle, mourning the loss of his two children is an indication of where this novel might lead. It is intriguing, as not only does it provide Thomas Boleyn with a more positive image, it also questions the way in which fathers related to daughters in the period. Their role as unrelenting searchers for self-advantage through their female relatives is undermined by his self-reflection throughout the novel. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.
British Politics
The AI Layoff Trap: firms are firing their customers
Tom Watson <tomwatsonofficial@substack.com> Unsubscribe
For years we were told that AI would do the dull work, spare us the drudgery and freemanity for higher things like poetry, social care and better coffee. Instead, one of the more plausible outcomes is that firms automate away large numbers of workers, wreck a slice of the consumer demand on which they themselves depend and then stare at the shrinking economy blaming everyone else.That, in essence, is the argument of a striking new paper, The AI Layoff Trap, by Brett Hemenway Falk and Gerry Tsoukalas. It says rational firms, looking clearly at the rocky road ahead, can still put their foot on the accelerator.That is what makes the paper so good. It does not depend on executives being venal, drug-addled, untrustworthy, fanatical or stupid, though one would not want to rule out the current field evidence. It depends on something more durable than madness and ketamine: incentives.The point is simple. When a firm replaces workers with AI, it pockets the saving itself. That is the private benefit. But when those workers lose wages, they also lose spending power. They buy less of everything, from trainers to takeaways to streaming subscriptions. That lost spending does not just hit the firm that sacked them. It spreads across the economy. So each company gets the private benefit of automation while carrying only part of the social cost.That social cost matters because workers are not only workers. They are also customers. If enough firms replace enough people quickly enough, they do not merely cut labour costs. They start to eat their own demand base. The paper’s point is that this can happen even when everyone can see it happening.Put crudely, the AI revolution may be building an economy in which firms proudly replace their customers.
Picture the PowerPoint to Sam Altman. Headcount down. Margins up. Efficiency enhanced. Then, somewhere around slide 38, a minor deterioration in the continued existence of people with wages.The paper goes further. It argues that more competition can make this worse, not better. A monopolist at least swallows more of the damage it causes. In a crowded market, each firm is more tempted to grab the saving and let the demand fall splash around the rest of the sector. That is how you get an automation arms race among people who think of themselves as hard-headed realists.
I’m sending this paper, with a whiff of alarm, to the Chancellor, in the hope it reaches the pointy heads in the Treasury and Peter Kyle. The paper deserves attention well beyond economics departments because it identifies the problem at the point of decision, not merely in the wreckage afterwards. It warns that the market contains no reliable brake.
In the paper’s frictionless case, the logic hardens into a Prisoner’s Dilemma. Every firm automates. Every firm ends up worse off than under collective restraint. No firm can escape by behaving nobly on its own.
I can see Mark Zuckerberg now, in the wood-panelled boardroom of his missile-proof super yacht, squinting into a Zoom with Elon Musk calling in from his space base, both men nodding gravely as they agree to automate the final solvent customer out of the economy. It is a marvellous image for our age, a virtual room full of very clever men congratulating themselves on their strategic brilliance while quietly setting fire to themselves.That is why the paper is politically important. Too much of the AI debate treats the problem as something that happens later. People lose work, then government tidies up. Falk and Tsoukalas say the problem starts earlier. The real issue is not only what happens after displacement. It is the competitive incentive to cause the displacement in the first place.That is awkward for nearly everyone.It is awkward for the AI evangelists who talk as if labour were somebody else’s problem. The laissez faire right still hopes the market will sort itself out with more innovation.For the pro-growth centre-left, this is a nasty complication. Competition, the usual corrective, is part of the problem here. The broader left is in no better shape. Our instinct is often to clear up after the market has done the damage: tax profits, strengthen labour, retrain workers, spread ownership and top up incomes. The paper’s argument is tougher than that. Those measures may soften the blow, but they do not remove the incentive to automate too far, because each firm still pockets the saving and pushes part of the wider demand damage onto everyone else. The left, in other words, cannot rely on a bigger ambulance alone. It also needs brakes.
The paper tests a whole shelf of remedies. Wage adjustment does not solve it. Free entry does not solve it. Upskilling narrows the problem but does not remove it. UBI does not solve it. Capital taxes do not solve it. Worker equity participation does not solve it. Coasian bargaining does not solve it. The authors’ conclusion is that only a “Pigouvian automation tax” can fully correct the distortion.
In plain English it means this: if companies do not naturally pay the full cost of the damage they impose on everyone else, government puts a price on that damage so the private calculation matches the real one. We do it, in principle, with pollution. The factory owner may enjoy the profit from dumping muck into the river, but the public pays for the filth downstream. A Pigouvian tax says, fine, you can do the thing, but you must also pay for the harm you were previously offloading onto the rest of us. Pollution tax.Applied here, the idea is simple enough to explain. If a firm automates a job and pockets the saving, but the lost wages reduce demand across the economy, then some tax should claw back that unpriced damage. Not to ban useful technology, but to stop firms acting as if the only relevant line in the ledger is their own. The human version is simpler: if you insist on firing your customers, do not expect the rest of us to subsidise the experiment.
There is a darker cultural joke in all this. We have spent years sending bright young people to university so they can learn how to write crisply, present neatly, code competently, summarise fast and absorb institutional wisdom. Then one morning a board decides that Anthropic’s Claude can automate every polished quarterly task they used to go to university for, and suddenly the ladder into professional life is hauled up with an email about agility.
This does not make the paper anti-AI. Many firms are building tools that will improve public services, accelerate research and unlock scientific and medical advances that would have seemed miraculous a generation ago. Used well, AI will help us run the state better, discover faster and solve problems that have resisted human effort for years. The warning in the paper is not against innovation. It is against a market logic that can take a transformative technology and drive it towards a destructive outcome.A technology that saves labour by deleting labour income may look brilliant on the spreadsheet and ruinous in society. Capitalism, in a fit of locally rational enthusiasm, may use the machines to wound itself.It is enough to bring Len McCluskey back from retirement just to say, “I told you so.” Trotskyists, after all, have been predicting the fall of capitalism since, well, shortly after Trotsky stopped being available for comment.And that is the really modern touch. We can model the trap, publish the paper, nod gravely at the findings and still march towards the cliff in excellent order, congratulating ourselves on our agility.The question is not whether AI can help humanity do extraordinary things. It plainly can. The question is whether politics can shape the incentives before the market optimises itself into folly.
PS I did take a serious look at this dystopian possibility several years ago!Are you worried about our robot overlords ending civilisation as we know it? Why not share this newsletter with your friends and scare them too.
American Politics
Harvard Yard and Home
Jess Piper from The View from Rural Missouri <jesspiper@substack.com> UnsubscribeInbox
I am just back from four days in Cambridge, and I loved it so much that I feel like I left a piece of myself in that town. It turns out I just left my wallet on the plane, which promptly departed for Boston after I deplaned in Kansas City.
If someone is planning to steal my identity, I hope they can raise my credit score…The Harry Elkins Widener Memorial Library is the largest library at Harvard University.
I was invited to visit Harvard by a friend who is a fellow in the Harvard Advanced Leadership Initiative. Her resume is long and distinguished, as are the resumes of the folks who make up the Initiative. I was delighted to be invited to speak to them on rural organizing and rural politics.
The entire time I was in Cambridge, I was overwhelmed with academia. It exudes from every library and book store and coffee shop. Literacy and intelligence drip from the spring blooms in Harvard Yard. Socratic Circles and debates happen naturally with students gathering on lawns to talk and reflect and discuss. I felt like I was in a movie. It didn’t feel real.I was in my element…Except I wasn’t. I felt like a fraud. An imposter. I have not had access to that level of academia, and it shows.I am jealous of those who have access to such good schools, and I’m not just talking about Harvard. I am talking about an educational system set up from pre-K to guide students through learning experiences that kids from my region usually don’t have access to.Maybe jealous is not the right word. Maybe the word is irate.Why can’t all the kids have all of the education?
Because we’ve starved their schools of the teachers and resources that open doors. A big part of my talk on rural organizing is about rural schools and schools in red states in general. You’ve likely heard me quote these stats, but Missouri ranks dead last in the nation in teacher pay. We are near last in the nation for educational funding.
The lack of funding and investment in public education shows up in tests. Recent NAEP reports show roughly 27% of Missouri 4th graders scored proficient or above in reading.I dislike standardized tests as much as the next person, but there is information gleaned in the process that can be used to improve teaching and learning.
A standardized test does not always accurately measure a student’s work and learning, but tests are part of how we assess students’ growth and education in America. It is a snapshot in time at the abilities of a group of kids in a particular school or state. It is not the be all and end all, but it is a benchmark nonetheless.
So, who is to blame for what is happening in Missouri? And why the drop in student performance over the last few decades? In my opinion, it’s devaluing of teachers and the profession and disinvestment in public schools and education.A cult leader once said, “I love the poorly educated.”It’s the old bait and switch. Defund the system, wait for cracks to emerge, tell folks the system never worked, and then privatize the system.Rinse. Repeat.
A few years back, we had some pretty bad scores for reading and math after COVID, and Missouri GOP lawmakers couldn’t find a microphone fast enough to proclaim Missouri’s “failing” public schools and teachers.Their solution? Vouchers and school choice.My response to these lawmakers: who has been in charge of public education in the state for over two decades? Who defunded the schools? Who cut teacher prep and lowered the bar for teacher certification? Who paid teachers the lowest wage in the country? Who forced schools into four-day school weeks?
The GOP has had a supermajority in the legislature for over two decades. If they want to assign blame, they should look in a mirror. Share
The school voucher scheme is only making it worse.In 2021, Missouri Republicans started a voucher system that diverted public school funds. Missouri taxpayers could receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that paid for private school vouchers. It worked for a year or two, and then there were not enough private donors to fill the coffers of religious schools. GOP lawmakers then passed legislation to pay for private religious school vouchers outright from Missouri’s general funds.
That is against the Missouri Constitution.
Missouri Constitution. IX Section 8.Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions. — Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever;
But a judge just ruled on Tuesday that taxpayer funds can keep floating the $50 million in voucher funds in a lawsuit brought by the Missouri National Education Association.
From the Missouri Independent:In a 57-page ruling, Judge Brian Stumpe wrote that lawmakers could directly appropriate funds to the (voucher) program because state law does not “expressly prohibit” it.Judge Stumpe went on to say, “The General Assembly’s choice to spend money on a scholarship program does not inflict harm on public schools when the legislature has not diverted funds from public schools to cover the scholarship program.”
He is wrong. Legislators did just that — funds are pulled from the general budget and diverted from public schools to cover the voucher scheme.
And Wednesday night, in the middle of the night, Missouri Republicans voted to replace the income tax with an expanded sales tax. A regressive tax.The same Republicans who eliminated the capital gains tax this year, are the ones planning to eliminate the income tax — the income tax supports two-thirds of Missouri’s budget.Rural schools are going to be the hardest hit in all of this mess, and I’m so tired. It’s already a fight to get an education in this state, and now the legislature diverts what little we have for public schools to private religious schools.
You know, while in Cambridge, I looked up the stats for rural students who end up in a place like Harvard…they make up 9% of the students enrolled. Did you know that rural people make up around 40% of Armed Forces recruits?Think about that.We can and should do better for our kids. That starts and ends with education. I shouldn’t have to publish a hundred essays on this topic to get through to my lawmakers, but they always give me something to write about.Missouri invented Kindergarten. Missouri was once a haven for great public schools. Missouri wasn’t always this way. What if we reclaimed that legacy?
Trump’s might-makes-right lawlessness will be his downfall. If we’re not careful, it will be America’s as well. Robert Reich Apr 22
Friends,
Trump’s domestic and foreign policies — ranging from his attempted coup against the United States in January 2021, to his ICE and Border Patrol excesses (including murders in Minnesota), to his incursion into Venezuela and abduction of its president, to his attack on Iran, and his threats against Cuba, Colombia, and Greenland — all undermine the rule of law, domestically and internationally.But that’s not all. They threaten what we mean by civilization.
The moral purpose of civilized society is to prevent the stronger from attacking and exploiting the weaker. Otherwise, we’d be permanently immersed in a brutish war in which only the fittest and most powerful could survive.
Trump believes that might makes right — that the stronger are entitled to attack and exploit the weaker. Violence against those who are or appear weaker is a hallmark of his presidency and his outlook in general.He is profoundly and dangerously wrong.In January, he called the unilateral military intervention that ended in the kidnapping of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro an example of the “iron laws that have always determined global power.”What “iron laws” is he referring to? “Might makes right” is not an iron law. It marks the destruction of the rule of law.When challenged about the Maduro operation, White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller mocked Jake Tapper on CNN for his apparent naïveté about “international niceties” like the United Nations charter. “We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power,” said Miller.
Sorry, Stephen. Strength, force, and power do not “govern” anything. They’re the exact opposite of governing. They’re survival of the fittest — the law of the jungle.
On April 7, Trump told the Iranian regime to surrender to American might or “a whole civilization will die tonight.” That kind of talk doesn’t enlarge American power. It delegitimizes American power.In reality, Trump is destroying any remaining faith that the United States can be trusted to exercise power responsibly. He is also, not incidentally, erasing any distinction between the exercise of American might and Russian conduct in Ukraine and Chinese behavior in the South China Sea or (potentially) over Taiwan.If the United States stays on this course, it will find itself bereft of allies and friends, a lonely superpower in a lawless international system it has helped to create.
The genius of America’s post-1945 foreign policy was to embed America’s power in international institutions and laws, including the UN charter, emphasizing multilateralism, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
America didn’t always live up to these ideals, of course. But all nations, regardless of their size or power, had a stake in them. They not only helped legitimize American power but maintained international stability and avoided another world war.
The same moral underpinning provides the foundation for a good society. To be morally legitimate, any system of laws must be premised on preventing the stronger from attacking and exploiting the weaker. If a system is to be broadly accepted and obeyed, the entire public must believe that it is in their interest to support it.
But this aspiration is easily violated by those who abuse their wealth and power. Maintaining it requires that the powerful have enough integrity to abstain from seeking short-term wins, and that the rest of us hold them accountable if they don’t.
Yet we now inhabit a society grown vastly more unequal. Political and economic power are more concentrated and less constrained than at any time since the first Gilded Age. This invites the powerful to exploit the weaker because the powerful feel omnipotent.
The wealth of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Charles Koch, and a handful of others is almost beyond comprehension. The influence of Big Tech, Big Oil, and the largest aerospace and defense corporations extends over much of America and the globe. AI is likely to centralize wealth and power even more.
Meanwhile, Trump — enabled by cowardly congressional Republicans and a pliant majority on the Supreme Court — has turned the U.S. presidency into the most powerful and unaccountable agent of American government in history, arrayed on the side of the powerful, domestically and internationally.
A direct line connects Trump’s attempted coup in 2020 and January 2021 to his capture of Maduro to his attack on Iran without congressional authority to his blatant corruption. All are lawless. All are premised on the hubris of omnipotence.
You see much the same in Putin’s war on Ukraine. In Xi’s threats against Taiwan. In global depredation and monopolization by Big Tech and Big Oil. In Russian, Chinese, and American oligarchs who have fused public power with their personal wealth.But unfettered might does not make right. It makes for instability, upheaval, depravity, and war.
History shows that laws and norms designed to constrain the powerful also protect them. Without such constraints, their insatiable demands for more power and wealth eventually bring them down — along with their corporations, nations, and empires. And threaten world war.
Trump’s blatant lawlessness is already bringing him down. It will haunt America and the world for years to come.
BREAKING NEWS: Anthony Albanese has just been honored by TIME magazine, named among the 100 most influential figures in the world — a recognition that celebrates his transformative leadership and global impact as Prime Minister.
For decades, Anthony Albanese has redefined what it means to be a modern global leader — blending working-class advocacy, progressive social reform, and a fearless political voice into a mission that continues to reshape Australia’s role on the world stage. From his early years as a champion for public housing to his historic rise as Australia’s 31st Prime Minister, his influence has transcended the worlds of infrastructure, national policy, and international governance.
He is not only one of the most recognized figures in the Indo-Pacific region but also a visionary force who uses his platform to champion climate action, social equity, and multilateral cooperation. His strategies have become benchmarks for regional stability, and his commitment to a “Fair Go” for all remains a defining pillar of his contemporary political legacy.
Australian director Mary Callaghan’s debut film Greetings from Wollongong is one of five by women directors screening in Cinema Reborn 2026. Per Bill Mousoulis’s program note on the Cinema Reborn website “Mary Callaghan (1955-2016) is a somewhat neglected figure in Australian cinema. Born in Wollongong, NSW, she took to filmmaking at a young age, working with Super-8 in high school, before completing Victoria’s Swinburne Film & Television School film course in the mid-1970s. Returning to her hometown of Wollongong in the late ‘70s, she felt compelled to document the social issues she observed in the city, which resulted in her social realist mini-feature film, Greetings from Wollongong, in 1982…”
Callaghan passed away in 2016, in her early sixties.
Carla Kaplan wins Goldsmith Award for Troublemaker
Professor Carla Kaplan, Davis Distinguished Professor of American Literature and professor of English, African-American, and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, won the Goldsmith Award from the Shorenstein Center for her book Troublemaker: The Fierce, Unruly Life of Jessica Mitford.
Founded in 1991, the Goldsmith Awards encourage more insightful and spirited public debate about government, politics and the press. The Goldsmith Book Prize is awarded to both trade and academic books that best fulfill said objective, improving democratic governance through an examination of the intersection between the media, politics and public policy. Read more about the Goldsmith Book Prize here.
Troublemaker, Kaplan’s biography, tells the story of Jessica Mitford’s extraordinary life, a British-aristocrat turned American-communist. In the second half of the twentieth century, Mitford’s journalism exposed abuse in prisons, hospitals, correspondence schools, prosecutors’ offices, and more. It was Mitford’s unapologetic activism, fierce humor, and trailblazing fearlessness that drew Kaplan to studying her life.
Troublemakerwas also a Finalist for both the PEN American and National Book Critics Circle Awards in biography.
Secret London
You can watch a Shakespeare play in a gorgeous hidden garden in London this summer – but the venue changes every night
Shakespeare in the Squares is officially returning to London this sunny season, ready to put their unique summery spin on another Shakespeare classic.
As I’m sure you’re aware, the sun in London doesn’t tend to keep its hat on for long. And so the very moment that the weather decides to cooperate, you can bet your bottom dollar that we Londoners will be making the most of it. If we’re hungry, you’ll find us tucking into a spread of picky bits in the park. If we fancy a drink, we’ll be plonking ourselves down in a sun-soaked beer garden. And if we’re in need of a bit of entertainment? Well, Shakespeare in the Squares have got us covered in that department.
Shakespeare in the Squares
A summer staple in London’s cultural calendar; Shakespeare in the Squares is returning to the capital city soon, ready for another season of al-fresco entertainment. Now in its 10th year, the not-for-profit touring theatre company puts an imaginative spin on a Shakespeare classic each year, and performs it in various gardens and green spaces across London. The venue changes (almost) every night, providing a unique and intimate experience for each and every audience member.
This summer’s play of choice is Love’s Labour’s Lost, and the ‘sparkling comedy of flirtation, foolishness and the irresistible pull of love’ will be playing a total of 35 performances across 32 stunning London locations – many of which are very rarely open to the public.
The company tailors every single performance to seamlessly suit the surroundings, and work closely with garden committees and local organisations to ensure the perfect atmosphere is created for each audience and community. This year’s tour will kick off on June 3 in Leinster Square and take its final bow on July 12 in Fortune Green.
The magically musical production of Love’s Labour’s Lost will be performing inside the leafy likes of Crystal Palace Park, Connaught Square, Kensington Gardens Square and Chiswick House & Gardens. The casting is yet to be announced but the play will be – yet again – directed by Toby Gordon, who is certainly no stranger to a bit of The Bard, having been involved in many of Shakespeare in the Squares’ previous productions,
Find out more and book your tickets to Shakespeare in the Square’s production of Love’s Labour’s Lost here.
Kate Stephenson The Book Lover’s Guide to EdinburghPen & Sword | White Owl, January 2026.
Thank you, NetGalley and Pen & Sword, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
Kate Stephenson’s Guide is not only a notable practical resource, but a pleasure to read. Well designed and clearly explained walks become literary explorations as the Guide dips into the literary sources related to the people it discusses. The introduction provides an historical context for the literary walks which, in the second section, cover the monuments and excerpts from the work of well-known literary figures: Robert Burns, Robert Louis Stevenson, Sir Walter Scott, JK Rowling and Diana Gabaldon. Less well-known figures are also featured in the next section, in less detail but their appearance is nevertheless engaging. So too, is the last section which features festivals, museums, and bookshops. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.
Eileen G’Sell Lipstick Bloomsbury Academic, February 2026.
Thank you, NetGalley and Bloomsbury Academic, for this uncorrected proof for review.
Lipstick is another publication in the fascinating Object Lessons series. Each book focusses on an everyday item, approaching it from a personal and historic view, combining these in a well-researched, substantial but eminently accessible, account. I have enjoyed each of these books I have read and reviewed so far, and regret having come late to the series. Eileen G’Sell’s narrative about lipstick, from personal, feminist, and historical aspects is another engaging read. It is also one of the most enlightening and thoughtful works I have so far encountered in the series.
Undeniably controversial, the debate about feminism and attitudes towards cosmetics is a tremendous read. G’Sell approaches feminist icons fearlessly in arguing her own case for wearing lipstick. At the same time, she acknowledges the way in which such adornment has been used to undermine women’s status. Where research shows that cosmetics have been used for both adornment to attract and adornment to defy, or to designate a particular moral stance G’Sell cogently describes and explains each argument. Often, she personalises the issues with women’s stories. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.
Kathleen Dixon Donnelly Virginia Woolf and the Bloomsbury Group in the Literary 1920s Pen & Sword | Pen & Sword History, January 2026.
Thank you, NetGalley and Pen & Sword, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
There is a copious amount of information about the group around Virginia Woolf, the latter serving as the focus for only some of the text, while other actors appear, take their place at the centre, and move on. The information is dispensed in a linear manner, and while this enhances accessibility, it also contributes to a somewhat static enunciation of the narrative. Pen & Sword texts are usually livelier, and I missed this in Kathleen Dixon Donnelly’s work.
However, the literary and artistic lives of this fascinating group are deftly woven around their personal lives, so that although the sense of entitlement is almost overwhelming, their courage to live beyond the social mores and enduring contribution to literature is undiminished. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.
In my blog, January 21, 2026, I reviewed Tana French’s third novel in her Cal Hooper series. I expressed my disappointment with the novel overall, although there were features I admired. The article belowmakes an interesting read as it explains Tana French’s reasoning behind writing the third novel.
Tana French crafts a masterful conclusion to the Cal Hooper series. This time, Hooper uncovers a dangerous scheme that threatens his entire community. Read on for an exclusive essay from Tana on writing The Keeper.
From the iconic crime writer who “inspires cultic devotion in readers” (The New Yorker) and has been called “incandescent” by Stephen King, comes the third and final book in the million-copy-bestselling Cal Hooper trilogy.
I wasn’t planning to write a third book about Cal Hooper, the Chicago detective who takes early retirement and moves to a remote Irish village looking for peace (and of course not finding it). After The Searcher and The Keeper, I thought I was done. But here Cal is, trying to figure out why a young woman drowned in the river on a cold November night, and risking his relationship with his fiancée when he gets more involved than she wants him to.
One reason why I ended up with a third book was the characters’ relationship with the townland of Ardnakelty. These are books about outsiderhood and insiderhood, and that theme has always fascinated me – probably because I’m a mix of several different cultures and grew up moving around the world, so I’m an outsider everywhere. In The Searcher, Cal is an outsider, navigating generations-old codes and relationships that he can’t begin to understand. The Hunter is about characters who live in the liminal space between outsider and insider, and the complex forms of both danger and power that come with that position. It felt like I needed to complete that arc with a book about what it means to be an insider. In The Keeper, Cal, Lena, and Trey are all coming to terms with the fact that they’re part of Ardnakelty now – with the demands that makes, and what it offers in exchange.
The other reason had to do with these books being, sort of, Westerns. They came out of the realisation that Western settings and tropes have a lot in common with the West of Ireland, and with Irish writing: the harsh land that demands physical and mental toughness, the small towns with their private power structures, the stranger who becomes a catalyst for change, the complicated relationship with authority and law… So these three books are mystery software running on Western hardware. And so many Western series have a book about the death of the West.
That’s a theme that resonates deeply with rural Ireland nowadays. Farmers are finding it harder and harder to make a living. Young people are emigrating to countries where a home of their own isn’t a crazy fantasy. Big corporations buying up land are pricing individual farmers out of the market. School after school is closing because there aren’t enough children. A way of life is under threat, and I felt like it would be dishonest to write about that way of life for two books and then head off somewhere else without ever engaging with that threat. So what Cal uncovers, while he’s trying to find out how a young woman died, is something big enough to endanger the whole of Ardnakelty.
And if I’m honest, there’s a third reason: I wasn’t ready to leave the characters and the place. I wanted to see Cal and Trey and Lena get their relationships with each other and Ardnakelty on a more stable footing, before I left them behind. By the end of The Keeper they’ve found, if not peace, at least some kind of equilibrium in the place that’s become their home.
Busselton Jetty train
Walking halfway along the jetty was fun, but to get to the end was a ‘Lands End’ experience. To do this we took the solar powered train ride – a bumpy and slow progress, past information about the jetty and the train, people fishing, and others, more intrepid than us, walking to the end.
Looking towards the shore – the hotel at which we stayed and at the end of the jetty a distinctive signpost. I am now searching flights to London.
Cindy Lou enjoys her last meal in Busselton
Kyst is another reason to return to this casual, friendly seaside town. This time we both had the soup which is excellent. My prawns with fried parsley, and a sumac and walnut accompaniment were delicious. The beef skewers were also successful.
Art Gallery of New South Wales
Mike Hewson: The Key’s Under the Mat
4 October 2025 – 23 August 2026 Naala Badu building Lower level 4, Nelson Packer Tank
Australia’s most dramatic exhibition space is completely transformed, as artist Mike Hewson brings his unique and boundary-testing brand of social sculpture to the Nelson Packer Tank.
Renowned for award-winning public projects that are at once artworks, play areas, and places to be, Hewson has reimagined the Tank as a combined park, playground, construction site, and commons – an anarchic and generous sculptural neighbourhood where visitors can meet, dwell, play, make, perform, explore and more.
Free to all and made for all ages, this one-of-a-kind project was developed in the artist’s dynamic Sydney workshop and constructed from thousands of salvaged objects and materials. Hewson’s project is an experiment in participation, a spirited act of reclamation and regeneration, a radical rework of the legacies of modern sculpture, and a provocation about what a truly welcoming art museum might look like.
For Hewson, whose sculptural practice was catalysed by the experience of the Christchurch earthquakes, the artist is a host who welcomes guests to use the artwork as their own – ‘the key’s under the mat, make yourself at home’.
Art Gallery of Western Australia
The Sculpture walk is at the top of the art gallery, affording city views beyond the sculptures, which include the work of Barbara Hepworth, Gerhard Marcks and Henry Moore.
Gerhard Marcks The Caller
Julius Caesar Bell Shakespeare Canberra Theatre
It has been a long time since I went to a Bell Shakespeare production – they used to be a staple of our theatre life. John Bell has been long retired, and it was interesting to see a production under the new (for us) Board, and a play directed by Peter Evans, rather than John bell. Bell Shakespeare remains a company of innovation, with such innovation being a seamless part of Shakespeare’s intention and work. Julius Caesar is described by the Executive Director, Jams Evans as:
…set in a time far removed from our own. And yet, like all Shakespeare’s plays, it speaks urgently to the present day. It is a sharp examination of leadership ab politics, but also of the power of words – to inspire, to incite, and to transform our world. Words, whether shouted in a crowd or whispered to a loved one, have incredible potency. This play is a timely reminder to choose them carefully’… Program, Julius Caesar.
American Politics
Why the Cassidy Hutchinson Investigation Should Make Us Very Uncomfortable
Joyce Vance from Civil Discourse <joycevance@substack.com> Inbox
I don’t know Cassidy Hutchinson, the former deputy to Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who flipped and became a star witness during the January 6 Committee hearings and who is now reportedly under investigation. I don’t have an independent basis for knowing whether she was completely truthful when she testified. Certainly, then-Congresswoman Liz Cheney and committee staff thought she was on the up and up, or they wouldn’t have offered her testimony.
But my view is that if prosecutors have a reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed, they should investigate. They may either clear the subject’s name or move on to more serious investigation and even prosecution if the facts and the law warrant it. That’s how the system works. Regardless of who the person is.The problem these days is that my view is based on the old rules, where we could assume the Justice Department operated on time-honored ethical principles. This one doesn’t. So until we hear that there is evidence that substantiates the claim being bandied about, I have concerns about how this investigation is proceeding.
First off, DOJ doesn’t typically announce that it has opened a criminal investigation. Maybe that didn’t happen here. But The New York Times ran a story on Tuesday that it had, “according to four people familiar with the matter.” It’s possible, but unlikely, that all four of those people were Hutchinson’s lawyers. For one thing, it doesn’t benefit her to have her name dragged through the mud, one of the reasons DOJ doesn’t announce it’s investigating an individual. And it seems unlikely that all four sources would be her lawyers. We don’t know for certain that DOJ or someone else in government leaked the investigation, but the circumstances raise the first red flag.
That takes us to the second red flag. This is reportedly an investigation into perjury, a core crime prosecutors in U.S. Attorneys’ offices look into. A perjury case that occurred in the District of Columbia would normally be investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia. That office has prosecuted other cases involving testimony before Congress, like the one against Peter Navarro for obstruction. The now-failed perjury before Congress case against former FBI Director Jim Comey was brought by a U.S. Attorney’s office.
It’s possible that lawyers in Main Justice might be asked to help out if a case is particularly complicated. That would likely involve the Public Integrity Section, which can help U.S. Attorney’s offices handle prosecutions of political figures anywhere in the country. Or at least, it used to.Last June, the White House gutted the Public Integrity Section. The office is down to 5 lawyers, instead of the 30 experienced prosecutors who were there until Washington directed the then-U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York to close the prosecution of New York Mayor Eric Adams, so they could recruit him as an ally for Trump’s mass deportation policy. She declined, triggering resignations and firings in both her office and in the Public Integrity Section. That means an investigation like this should be conducted by the U.S. Attorney in D.C.But that’s not where the Hutchinson investigation sits. Instead, it’s being conducted by the Civil Rights Division. We discussed the current Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Division, Harmeet Dhillon, here. I spent 25 years at DOJ, and I’ve handled a variety of civil rights matters. I’m unfamiliar with any authority that gives the Civil Rights Division the ability to handle a perjury investigation that has nothing to do with a civil rights matter.
Although the Civil Rights Division’s org chart (and its website!) have undergone considerable change in the past year under Trump, the laws it has the authority to enforce haven’t changed. There is both a civil side to the Division that brings lawsuits to enforce laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act and a criminal side that prosecutes civil rights conspiracies, police excessive force, hate crimes, and other civil rights violations.
Nowhere is there authority to investigate a former White House staffer for perjury, based on a referral by a member of Congress.That brings us to a third red flag, and one that makes it imperative to scrutinize the legitimacy of this announced investigation: this Justice Department’s long line of failed Trump revenge prosecutions, from Jim Comey to New York Attorney General Letitia James, to six members of Congress who reminded the military not to follow illegal orders, to Jerome Powell, head of the Fed. There’s also the ongoing grand jury investigation in Miami looking into people, including former CIA Director John Brennan, which reportedly involves testimony Brennan gave before Congress. (It’s hard to figure out how prosecutors in Miami have jurisdiction over that one; perhaps something about Trump’s residence in Mar-a-Lago, and Judge Aileen Cannon is there.)
An investigation into Hutchinson can’t be viewed without considering this context. DOJ has undertaken a revenge agenda for the boss, and Pam Bondi, who reportedly authorized opening this matter while she was fighting to save her job, knew she was under fire for colossal failures to deliver results in that regard. Absent actual evidence against Hutchinson, it’s hard to accept that this matter is legitimate. And the time for that proof would have been when a grand jury indictment was obtained and announced—not during the preliminary stages in an investigation that may or may not pan out.You don’t have to be a former prosecutor for this situation to give you pause. If competent prosecutors have credible reason to suspect misconduct by Hutchinson, then investigation is warranted. But there are a lot of ifs there.
DOJ has a serious job to do. The Civil Rights Division has a serious job to do. Pacifying a petulant president who wants to take revenge against his perceived enemies shouldn’t be a part of it. But here we are. Again. There is no longer a presumption of regularity for this Justice Department—either in court or in the court of public opinion. Skepticism is now the order of business.
Thanks for being here with me at Civil Discourse. Your support makes the newsletter possible!
We’re in this together, Joyce
3 of 36,296
The Week Ahead
Joyce Vance from Civil Discourse <joycevance@substack.nbox
Last Sunday, in “The Week Ahead,” we discussed Hungarian strongman Viktor Orbán’s election problem. He and his Christian nationalist far-right political party, Fidesz, were seriously behind in polling just a week ahead of the election… But today, Orbán lost that election. He was forced to concede defeat because of the staggeringly large margin of victory by which his opponent, Péter Magyar, won. With 99% of the vote counted tonight, the opposition looks like it will take 2/3 of the seats in parliament. The BBC characterized it as “the type of landslide victory that means they will be able to make sweeping changes to the country.”
There is an obvious lesson for us here. Turnout matters; it may be the only thing that matters, both this year and in 2028. It becomes increasingly difficult for Trump and MAGA to contest races that are lost, not just by 11,779 votes (looking at you, 2020 Georgia), but by the kind of substantial margins turnout for the most recent No Kings Day march suggests Americans may be preparing to deliver. It’s hard to dispute an election that is won by 10 points or more, and much easier for courts to dispense with the inevitable challenges Trump’s party will bring nonetheless.So, lesson learned: Whether you bring one or two friends along with you to the polls or work on a major get-out-the-vote effort in your state, for the rest of the time before the midterm elections, the work we do is going to matter. Find the best thing you can do and give it all of your effort. Politicians can’t blame an enormous margin of victory like the one in Hungary on fraud, non-citizen voting, or any of Trump’s other crazy election conspiracy theories. Some margins are too big to deny. Let’s go!..
The loss was especially bad news for JD Vance, who spent time in Hungary last week in an unprecedented move for an American leader, openly campaigning for the Putin-aligned Orbán. The Republican Party, of course, remained silent about that. Hopefully, Vance will campaign across the U.S. ahead of the midterm elections.
Swalwell Out of the Governor’s Race California Congressman Eric Swalwell announced earlier this evening that he is withdrawing from the Governor’s race in that state. In a prepared statement, he wrote: “To my family, staff, friends, and supporters, I am deeply sorry for mistakes in judgment I’ve made in my past.” But he continues to deny allegations of sexual assault. He said he’d continue to fight to clear his name, but “that’s my fight, not a campaign’s.” A former staffer told the San Francisco Chronicle that Swalwell sexually assaulted her. CNN reported that four women “described sexual misconduct” by Swalwell, including one who alleged he had raped her. Democratic strategist Ally Sammarco came forward with allegations that in 2021, when she was first trying to find a place on Capitol Hill, Swalwell responded to a DM asking for his advice and ended up inappropriately sexting her. She said she came forward to support other women because she thought she was the only one before she saw the “recent reports online that some women were about to accuse the longtime congressman of sexual misconduct.” …For far too long, our culture was one that didn’t believe women. Swalwell, who maintains his misconduct is between him and his wife and that he did nothing criminal, is entitled to the same due process as anyone else accused of a crime—the Manhattan DA’s office has reportedly opened an investigation into an alleged assault in New York City. But it matters that these allegations are taken seriously. It’s incredibly difficult for victims to come forward. They may think they are the only ones and won’t be believed. They may be concerned that people will think it was their fault. As E. Jean Carroll testified during her defamation case against Donald Trump, she didn’t report his assault at the time because close friends advised her that her career and ability to make a living would be ruined.But not all of the consequences in a situation like this involve criminal prosecution. The Washington Post reported: “In a video late Friday denying the allegations of sexual assault, Swalwell said he had ‘certainly made mistakes in judgment in my past’ that were ‘between me and my wife.’” Then it continued, “In a social media post, [Congressman Jared] Huffman, a fellow California Democrat, said Swalwell had all but admitted ‘a per se abuse of power’ under House ethics rules, which prohibit House members from having sexual relationships with subordinates.” Huffman is one of a number of Democrats calling for Swalwell’s expulsion from the House.
Swalwell has alleged that the timing of the allegations is political. They will undoubtedly create chaos in the California Governor’s race. The situation also has echoes of Al Franken’s resignation from the Senate, and the fact that Democrats take allegations of sexual misconduct seriously, while Republicans don’t. We’re still waiting on the truth about Trump and the Epstein files.There is also Texas Republican Tony Gonzales. He’s being investigated in the House over allegations he had an affair with a staff member who later set herself on fire and died. A week ago, two staffers came forward with allegations that he sent them sexually explicit texts, including repeatedly asking for sex. While top Democrats withdrew support for Swalwell’s gubernatorial ambitions as allegations against him surfaced from multiple women and members of his own party say they will vote for his expulsion from the House if he doesn’t resign, there wasn’t a similar widespread outcry when the allegations about Gonzales first surfaced. Not believing women, not taking their allegations seriously when they have the courage to come forward, can lead to a society where this behavior is tolerated and women don’t feel safe about reporting it, and aren’t safe in the workplace.
Victims deserve justice. The idea that only one political party cares about them is discouraging, and worse, it can feel like Republicans gain political advantage from ignoring or even dismissing allegations of sexual misconduct, like what they’ve done with Trump.
Having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a staffer can be a violation of ethics rules for members of Congress, even when the sex involved isn’t criminal per se, like assault or rape would be. Members can be called upon to resign or expelled from Congress for violating ethics rules. But because of the power differential between accuser and accused, allegations can be easily sidelined, and historically, have been for years before anything happens, even if it eventually does. It’s important to believe women who come forward with credible allegations of sexual misconduct and investigate those allegations, instead of allowing them to be swept under the rug while more victims are harmed.
If an inquiry into a member of Congress progresses into a criminal investigation, the member, like anyone else accused of a crime, is entitled to due process in the criminal justice system. They are innocent of a crime and cannot be punished until they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But it’s important that allegations are investigated, not shelved, and that means listening to women who come forward. Doing the right thing has to matter more than tribal politics. But it can feel frustratingly like only Democrats see it that way much of the time.
Bondi Isn’t Testifying Pam Bondi won’t be showing up to testify before Congress about Jeffrey Epstein, the silver lining to being fired. The House Oversight Committee released a statement last week, saying it would schedule a new date for her to appear. This should be easy: the subpoena was to Bondi, not to the office of the Attorney General. But if the Committee wants to maintain that it was for the AG, then Todd Blanche is available…Trump has been successful in pushing the Epstein Files off the front burner with his war in Iran. It remains to be seen whether that bipartisan coalition will hold with the issues receiving far less attention…
Trump The President continues to show signs of decline. Last week, Josh Dawsey at the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump “has repeatedly promised his top administration officials pardons before he leaves office.” How, one wonders, does something like that come up? Is it in the context of a “don’t worry, just do this and it will be okay because…” conversation? Dawsey writes that Trump said in a recent meeting, “I’ll pardon everyone who has come within 200 feet of the Oval.” He goes on to report, “That radius appears to be expanding as the president repeats the line. Another person who met with Trump earlier this year said the president quipped about pardoning anyone who had come within 10 feet.”…
He’s ending his day attacking the Pope, whom he refers to as “Leo,” on Truth Social.Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy. He talks about “fear” of the Trump Administration, but doesn’t mention the FEAR that the Catholic Church, and all other Christian Organizations, had during COVID when they were arresting priests, ministers, and everybody else, for holding Church Services, even when going outside, and being ten and even twenty feet apart. I like his brother Louis much better than I like him, because Louis is all MAGA. He gets it, and Leo doesn’t! I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s terrible that America attacked Venezuela, a Country that was sending massive amounts of Drugs into the United States and, even worse, emptying their prisons, including murderers, drug dealers, and killers, into our Country. And I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I’m doing exactly what I was elected, IN A LANDSLIDE, to do, setting Record Low Numbers in Crime, and creating the Greatest Stock Market in History. Leo should be thankful because, as everyone knows, he was a shocking surprise. He wasn’t on any list to be Pope, and was only put there by the Church because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump. If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican. Unfortunately, Leo’s Weak on Crime, Weak on Nuclear Weapons, does not sit well with me, nor does the fact that he meets with Obama Sympathizers like David Axelrod, a LOSER from the Left, who is one of those who wanted churchgoers and clerics to be arrested. Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician. It’s hurting him very badly and, more importantly, it’s hurting the Catholic Church! President DONALD J. TRUMP
But that’s not all. Trump closed out the day by posting two images on Truth Social. One portraying Trump Tower on the Moon (presumably).
And the other depicts Trump as a god-like healer.The president is not well.
On April 12, the day of Hungary’s parliamentary elections, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) posted on social media that it was closely watching the election and stood firmly behind Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
As a major networking event and ideological trendsetter for the radical right in the United States, CPAC has been instrumental in celebrating Orbán’s Hungary as the center of the effort to destroy the liberal democracy of the United States and Europe in order to replace it with what Orbán called “illiberal democracy,” or “Christian democracy.” His system replaced the multiculturalism at the heart of democracy with Christian culture, stopped the immigration that he believes undermines Hungarian culture, and rejected “adaptable family models” in favor of “the Christian family model.”
Today Péter Magyar, the man who will replace Orban after winning the election in a blowout, revealed that Orbán was using government money to finance CPAC. Orbán has clearly been working for the benefit of Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, and just days before the election, news broke that last October, Orbán told Putin, “In any matter where I can be of assistance, I am at your service.”
So it appears that CPAC was funded by a foreign government that was working closely with Vladimir Putin. In a speech today, Magyar told reporters that the outgoing foreign minister, who has been accused of working closely with Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, was shredding confidential documents.
The influence of Orbán on the U.S. right wing marked a change in Republican politics.
Before Trump won the presidency in 2016, the modern-day Republican Party was well on its way to endorsing oligarchy. It had followed the usual U.S. historical pattern to that point. In the 1850s, 1890s, 1920s, and then again in the modern era, wealthy people had come around to the idea that society worked best if a few wealthy men ran everything.
Although those people had been represented by the Democrats in the 1850s and the Republicans in the 1890s, 1920s, and 2000s, they had gotten there in the same way: first a popular movement had demanded that the government protect equality of opportunity and equal justice before the law for those who had previously not had either, and that popular pressure had significantly expanded rights.
Then, in reaction, wealthier Americans began to argue that the expansion of rights threatened to take away their liberty to run their enterprises as they wished. To tamp down the expansion of rights, they appealed to the racism of the poorer white male voters whose votes they needed to maintain control of the government, telling them that legislation to protect equal rights was a plan to turn the government over to Black or Brown Americans, or immigrants from southern Europe or Asia, who would use their voting power to redistribute wealth.
The idea that poor men of color voting meant socialism resonated with white voters, who turned against the government’s protecting equal rights and instead supported a government that favored men of property. As wealth moved upward, popular culture championed economic leaders as true heroes, and lawmakers suppressed voting in order to “redeem” American society from “socialists” who wanted to redistribute wealth. Capital moved upward until a very few people controlled most of it, and then, usually after an economic crash made ordinary Americans turn against the system that favored the wealthy, the cycle began again.
When Trump was elected, the U.S. was at the place where wealth had concentrated among the top 1%, Republican politicians denigrated their opponents as un-American “takers” and celebrated economic leaders as “makers,” and the process of skewing the vote through gerrymandering and voter suppression was well underway. Republican leaders wanted a small government that kept taxes low and left business to do what it wished, but they still valued the rule of law and the rules-based international order.
It’s impossible to run a successful business without a level legal playing field, as businessmen realized after the 1929 Great Crash made it clear that insider trading had meant that winners and losers were determined not by the market but by cronyism. And it’s impossible to do business without freedom of the seas and the stability of international rules.
But when Orbán took office for the second time in 2010, he courted the right wing with promises not to get the government out of their way, as right-wing politicians in the U.S. had done since the 1980s, but to use the government to impose their cultural values on the country at large. He established control over the media, cracking down on those critical of his party and rewarding those who toed the party line. In 2012 his supporters rewrote Hungary’s constitution to strengthen his hand, and extreme gerrymandering gave his party more power while changes to election rules benefited his campaigns.
Increasingly, Orbán used the power of the state to concentrate wealth among his cronies, and he reworked the country’s judicial system and civil service system to stack it with his loyalists. By 2026, Hungary still had elections, but state control of the media and the apparatus of voting made it very difficult for Orbán’s opponents to take power.
That model proved irresistible for right-wing leaders in the U.S. who courted radical white evangelicals and who recognized that their ideology was unpopular enough that the only way to make it the law of the land was to impose it through the power of the state. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis, who took office in 2019, followed Orbán’s model right down to the laws prohibiting discussion of LGBTQ+ issues and DeSantis’s attempt to strip Disney of its governance structure when it refused to adhere to the “Don’t Say Gay” law.
Orbán’s idea that the power of the state must be used to overturn democracy in order to enable a small group of leaders to restore virtue to a nation inspired the far-right figures that took charge of the Republican Party under Trump. As Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts put it: “Modern Hungary is not just a model for conservative statecraft but the model.”
Calling for “institutionalizing Trumpism,” Roberts pulled together dozens of right-wing institutions behind the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 to create a blueprint for a second Trump term that uses the power of the government to impose right-wing religious values on the U.S. In his foreword for a 2024 book by Roberts, then-senator and vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance made it clear he saw himself and Roberts as working together to create “a fundamentally Christian view of culture and economics.”
Since taking power, Trump and Vance have followed Orbán’s model both at home and internationally. Instead of working with our traditional allies, they have attacked Europe and aligned the U.S. with Hungary and Russia.
Establishment Republicans who wanted a smaller government liked Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation, but they did not like the threat of government intervention in their business decisions to force them to adhere to right-wing moral values. They are also not keen on Trump’s rejection of Europe and destruction of the rules-based international order under pressure from Putin. That order facilitates international trade.
In an op-ed in Fox News online today, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the old leader of the establishment Republicans, tried to sideline the MAGA Republicans when he wrote: “Watching this from Kentucky, it is hard to understand how some on the American right thought that staking U.S. influence on the outcome of a parliamentary election in a small, central European country was putting America’s interests first. To the extent that what happens in Hungary matters to America, it is a question of whether its actions on the world stage—not its social policies—align with America’s strategic interests.” By that, he tried to recall the Republican Party to his faction rather than that of the MAGA Republicans by pointing out that Magyar’s government seems more likely to resist America’s adversaries and work with America’s allies than Orbán was.
But the model that Hungarian voters’ dramatic rejection of Orbán offers to the U.S. is a more sweeping rejection of the whole radical right than McConnell suggests. Rather than centering an elite as lawmakers, as right-wing ideology does, it centers the people. Those who know Hungarian politics say that Magyar’s party won because voters recognized that Orbán’s vow to purify Hungarian society turned out to be a cover for extraordinary corruption of party leaders and cronies, while the destruction of the economy hurt everyday people.
Magyar and his party reminded Hungarians of the good in their country and reawakened their national pride. They promised voters a democratic state with the rule of law under a government that worked for the people.
Just as there is a blueprint for destroying democracy, there is also one for rebuilding it. “Let us now and here highly resolve to resume the country’s interrupted march along the path of real progress, of real justice, of real equality for all of our citizens, great and small,” New York governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt said to the delegates at the Democratic National Convention in 1932 as American democracy struggled to resist fascism.
“Out of every crisis, every tribulation, every disaster, mankind rises with some share of greater knowledge, of higher decency, of purer purpose,” FDR said. “Today we shall have come through a period of loose thinking, descending morals, an era of selfishness, among individual men and women and among Nations…. Let us be frank in acknowledgment of the truth that many amongst us have made obeisance to Mammon, that the profits of speculation, the easy road without toil, have lured us from the old barricades. To return to higher standards we must abandon the false prophets and seek new leaders of our own choosing.”
“I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people,” FDR concluded. “Let us all here assembled constitute ourselves prophets of a new order of competence and of courage. This is more than a political campaign; it is a call to arms. Give me your help, not to win votes alone, but to win in this crusade to restore America to its own people.”
Meet the new generation of radical feministsApr 15 READ IN APPGood morning. This is Finn McRedmond, staff writer at the New Statesman and editor of the Saturday Read.
By now, we are used to hearing about the radicalisation of young men – that unfortunate cohort, captured by the manosphere, enchanted by men’s rights activists, veering to the populist right.
But what about the young women? If we want to understand why the political gender gap is widening, we need to look to those moving sharply to the left. To do so, Emily Lawford, the New Statesman’s online editor, has spent months in the femosphere – at The Feminist Library, deep in their TikTok feeds, at university feminist societies and Palestinian solidarity marches.
With exclusive polling from Scarlett Maguire, the director and founder of Merlin Strategy, our cover this week asks: Who are these radical young women? What do they believe? And how will their feelings of disenfranchisement and isolation manifest at the polls?
You can read an extract of Emily’s piece down below:
It was a Wednesday night and seven members of the University of Leeds’ feminist society had invited me to join their book swap. We were in a classroom in the healthcare wing, and there was a pile of books on the table: Margaret Atwood’s The Penelopiad, Audre Lorde’s Zami: A New Spelling of My Name. Someone had brought Heather Morris’s The Tattooist of Auschwitz. We’d debated whether Harry Potter gets more respect than The Hunger Games because the main character is male, the racial politics of Wuthering Heights, the sexual politics of Sally Rooney.
The literary conversation was winding down. I asked the table how they felt about the young men they knew. “I don’t care for them,” said a girl called Ruby imperiously. She had red hair and lots of silver jewellery. “They’re not bad people, but they refuse to call out their friends who make other girls uncomfortable. They’ll laugh at jokes that are sexist, racist, homophobic, they don’t care about political issues… I don’t think they like women a lot.” If a man is attracted to you, she said, he might talk about things like toxic misogyny…
These women weren’t outliers. According to the New Statesman’s polling, young women are twice as likely to not want children as young men. All the Leeds women told me they feared a Reform government pressuring them to have babies. One woman mentioned Suella Braverman’s pledge to scrap the Equality Act and repeal other human rights laws. “It just feels… out of control.”
It all felt impossibly bleak. Most of the women I met were educated, engaging, bright and charismatic. But they weren’t excited about their futures.
Australian Politics
First woman to lead the army, navy chief now new head of Defence Force*
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced the new heads of Defence, Army and Navy with the first woman to hold the role of Chief of Army…
Susan Coyle, the current head of joint capabilities, will become army chief, replacing Simon Stuart following his retirement.
Defence Minister Richard Marles said Coyle’s appointment was “a deeply historic moment, one that should be noted”.
“As Susan said to me, ‘You cannot be what you cannot see’,” Marles said.
“And Susan’s achievement will be deeply significant to women who are serving in the Australian Defence Force today and women who are thinking about serving in the Australian Defence Force in the future.”
Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and newly appointed Chief of Army Lieutenant General Susan Coyle.AAPIMAGE
Coyle, 55, who joined the Army Reserve as a soldier in 1987 before holding a series of senior roles, is the first woman to lead a branch of the Defence Force – army, navy or air force.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Hammond had enjoyed a distinguished career, including 40 years in the navy, including as a submarine commander…
Parker, a former naval officer, noted that Hammond [new Defence Force Chief] of had strong connections within the US military system, putting him in a strong position to drive AUKUS forward.
As for the appointment of Coyle as the nation’s first female service chief, she said the move “had been a long time coming and is well overdue”.
She noted that Coyle had experience in space and cyber capabilities, as well as traditional army platforms, making her well-placed to learn lessons from modern conflict, including in Ukraine…
Eurie Dahn, Snack, Bloomsbury Academic, February 2026.
Thank you, NetGalley and Bloomsbury Academic, for this uncorrected proof for review.
Snack is another title in the Object Lessons publications that can be so much fun, as well as making a serious contribution to information about the wide range of topics they address. Snack is less entertaining than I expected, and although it is arguable that the somewhat serious approach is valuable it also presents challenges. Snacks have always suggested fun, something different from the three-course meal, or even fewer courses, but nevertheless a solid meal eaten at a table with the accoutrements associated with social environment, culture, and purpose. Eurie Dahn focusses on particular American and Korean snacks, embracing debates about the health aspects of snacks, their cultural importance, parental care and children’s responses to snacking, snacks and popular culture and types of snack. See Books: Reviews
Ilana Masad, Stevie K. Siebert Desjarlais Here for All the Reasons Why We Watch The Bachelor Turner Publishing Company, May 2026.
Thank you, NetGalley, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
This is a collection of largely anecdotal approaches to watching The Bachelor, and at times, associated programs such as Bachelor in Paradise. It is not the analytical survey of The Bachelor, answering questions such why it has attracted large audiences, why these have gradually diminished, and how new aspects of the accepted format have been introduced to halt this slide that I expected. Rather, there is an emphasis on personal stories, very often these overriding any analysis of The Bachelor even from the perspective of that audience member. So, my initial reaction was disappointment. However, as the stories mounted, perhaps becoming attuned to the style and content, I found myself appreciating the honesty of these audience members, the multitude of backgrounds and personal likes and dislikes they described as part of their Bachelor experience, and the way in which they wrote with warmth about the groups they formed around watching and discussing the program. See Books: Reviews
Jill Childs, Good Sister, Bad Sister, Boldwood Books, March 2026.
Thank you, NetGalley and Boldwood Books for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
Good Sister, Bad Sister narrative is shared between sisters who were separated at birth. Arabella was adopted by a wealthy family; Helen remained in her mother’s care in very different economic circumstances. When Arabella’s mother dies, she leaves a letter for her daughter in which she discloses that she was adopted. Arabella investigates and finds her birth mother and sister. Arabella begins a relationship with her biological mother, and forges a relationship clandestinely with her sister, Helen. She must navigate these relationships with her marriage to Danny and young child, Lola, the difference in her economic circumstances and that of her biological family and her daughterly feelings about both her adoptive and biological mothers. These feelings are marred by her anger at her biological mother for choosing Helen instead of her, and the unloving relationship she has had with her adoptive family. See Books: Reviews
Cindy Lou enjoys more Perth restaurants
Angels Falls is a Venezuelan restaurant in Shafto Lane, a buzzy laneway between Murray and William Streets. Angels Falls has inside and outside seating, an interesting menu and pleasant staff.
We had the mini mix entree platter which featured two meat and two vegetarian choices in cachpapa (corn and flat for wrapping) and arepa (savoury cornmeal cakelike bread). The vegetarian fillings were black bean and feta, and sweet ripe plantain and cheddar; the meat fillings were pulled pork, and shredded beef. they were served with green aioli sauce. We thoroughly enjoyed them. We then had some chicken, and beef with grilled vegetables. The serves were generous and delicious.
Breakfast at Riverside Cafe, a favourite on the Swan River, was more simple – coffees, vegemite toast and a hot cross bun.
The tapas at H&R were so successful last time, we had then again on our last day in Perth before travelling to Busselton.
Busselton is a lovely seaside town, and we are taking advantage of the sea, food, parks and walks. It also has a cultural centre in progress.
We had our first meal of the day after a long bus ride with a departure time too early for us to even find a coffee, at The Goose. We had a feast which was impossible to finish – flat bread with onion butter and a whipped pumpkin dip, fish and chips and pork chops. And coffees of course.
The Goose
Benesse
Our late breakfast at Benesse was very good, with a vast range of options on the menu, lovely staff and indoor and outdoor seating. It was still cold at 10.00 so we took the option of being inside, rather than as usual, freezing outside with Leah. Fruit toast and a savoury muffin (so hard to find at most coffee shops) and coffee (mine could have been better) made a good start to yet another grey day.
And back to The Goose for a late lunch. The Coffin Bay oysters were not as luxurious as the ones I am served in inland Canberra but were delicious with the warm bread and some kale and chickpeas from the salad. The salad was magnificent, also featuring large chunks of sweet potato, and a delicious sauce.
Kyst
Kyst is a delightful restaurant with a menu that features tapas, as well as more conventional meals. The seating is comfortable, the tables placed well apart, and the music is pleasantly in the background. Lovely staff and efficient service ensure that we’ll go back next time we are in Busselton.
We had the roast chicken meal – complete with roasted carrots and pumpkin, Paris mash, peas and broccolini. Far better than most restaurant Sunday roasts! The zucchini and pea soup, served with crusty garlic bread was delicious, and the kofta on humus was a very good dish.
Millie’s Cafe
Millie’s is a very easy and pleasant place to eat – and they made my coffee perfectly. We enjoyed savoury scones one morning, and fruit toast ( a generous serve of three slices, although rather ordinary), the next.
Walk along the Busselton Jetty
Fortunately, after all the food we have been enjoying we were unable to get seats on the train. The walk was lovely, and although we did not make it to the end, exhilarating because of the breeze (and virtuous feelings). Some swimmers leaping into the ocean were reminiscent of a friend who used to swim from there (not as long ago as the historic photo of course).
Environmentally sound gardens are a feature of Busselton, and this one on a verge is a good example.
Busselton Art Gallery
Art exhibition, walks with views and swings at Heathcote Cultural Centre.
I visited the Heathcote Cultural Centre with a friend (who used to swim at Busselton Jetty) and, as well as the meal we had there (last week’s blog) we walked (views of the Swan River) and went to a new exhibition. We were also interested in the provision made for children’s interest in art. Of enduring interest, child or adult, is swinging in the sunshine!
The exhibition was interesting, but not enthralling.
Western Australian Art gallery
In contrast with the exhibition above, there was some art exhibited here that really invokes discussion.
I Don’t Like It, I Love It
PAOLA PIVI
American Politics
Huffington Post
TO STREAM OR NOT TO STREAM Two Democrats addressed the party’s apparent conflict over how to handle Twitch streamer and far-left-wing political commentator Hasan Piker on Sunday. About a week ago, Politico reported that three potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidates, including Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), wouldn’t appear on Piker’s stream if invited because of his past comments that some view as antisemitic. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said Sunday on “Meet the Press” that Democrats need to engage with streamers like Piker. “The lesson of the last election is we’ve got to be out there,” Khanna said. “We’ve got to engage. It’s a complex, messy, multiracial democracy. I will defend my views, but the people who are saying, ‘Don’t engage,’ will cost us future elections.” [HuffPost]
In Iran, Iraq, and the U.S., women speak out against state repression
Weekly DigestLetter from an Editor | April 4, 2026 Dear Robin, We learned Thursday that internationally acclaimed Iranian human rights attorney and women’s rights advocate (and friend of Ms.) Nasrin Sotoudeh had been arrested by the Iranian regime. Her whereabouts are currently unknown. Sotoudeh, who has been repeatedly imprisoned for her advocacy, has been outspoken in her criticism of the regime, and her daughter suspects such criticism in recent interviews may have led to her arrest.
Sotoudeh spoke to Ms. in January about the situation in Iran, mere weeks before the current U.S. and Israeli war against Iran began. “You can’t bomb a country into democracy,” she said. “War very rarely brings democratic rights to the people. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. When human rights are systematically violated, an intervention should be based on international law, not the decision of one man… If other countries really want to help the Iranian people, they can provide material support for when the internet gets cut off, and with other non-military aid.”
Our hearts are with Sotoudeh and her family, including her husband Reza Khandan, who has been detained in Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison since Dec. 2024 for supporting her work for women’s equality. Ms. and its publisher the Feminist Majority Foundation are joining Kennedy Human Rights, PEN America, Right Livelihood and the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights in calling for her immediate release. As we wrote in a joint statement, her re-arrest is “emblematic of the Iranian regime’s assault on the fundamental rights and freedoms that are enshrined under its own legal system.”
Meanwhile in Baghdad, an American freelance journalist has been kidnapped. Shelly Kittleson, who had built her freelance career reporting from the Middle East for years, is known among colleagues for her determined, on-the-ground reporting and willingness to go where others would not. On Tuesday, she was taken by two unknown men, after learning of threats to her safety from militias.
I’m reminded that time and time again, it is women who speak out in the face of state repression—whether they are doing so as journalists speaking truth to power, lawyers fighting for the rights of the oppressed, or everyday women taking to the streets in defiance of regimes that seek to strip them of their autonomy and human rights.
In this moment I’m thinking of another group of women who spoke up: the many Epstein survivors. We learned Thursday that Trump had fired Pam Bondi from her position as Attorney General, in part after reportedly growing frustrated with her handling of the Epstein files. In hearings, when asked why the DOJ failed to redact identifying information of survivors while redacting the names of powerful men implicated in the abuse, Bondi refused to answer the question. And adding insult to injury, she also refused to apologize to survivors present at the Senate committee hearing for the egregious and potentially intentional oversight.
The courage of all these women is not to be underestimated. Women will continue speaking out—even when they face insults and pushback from the nation’s highest leaders, even when they are at risk of imprisonment and death. For equality,Kathy SpillarExecutive Editor
April 6, 2026 (Monday)
Heather Cox Richardson from Letters from an American <heathercoxrichardson@substack.com> Inbox
“It’s really difficult to cover him in a way that conveys how unhinged he is,” journalist Aaron Rupar of Public Notice told George Grylls of The Times about President Donald J. Trump.
Rupar explained that political journalists are trained to think, “‘OK, what did he say that was newsworthy?’ So you…convey that to your audience. But in reality, when you actually watch his rallies, you see that they’re full of hatred, he’s lying constantly, and a lot of it is incoherent.”
Rupar spends as much as eighty hours a week watching Trump and members of his administration, clipping videos of their noteworthy statements into a few minutes at a time. His work is indispensable for translating Trump’s long, meandering speeches to people who need shorter versions of them. In this quotation, he nails the real problem of this moment in which the president of the United States is threatening “obliteration” if another nation doesn’t do as he demands: the noteworthy story is not what the president says; the story is the president himself and his obvious mental deterioration.
Today was another surreal day in the second Trump administration.At the traditional White House Easter Egg roll this morning, Trump, whose right hand was swollen and covered with makeup after his weekend away from the cameras, stood with First Lady Melania Trump on a White House balcony, accompanied by a human-sized Easter Bunny. The columns of the White House stood festooned in soft red, white, and blue plaid over the crowd of young children and their parents in festive pastel clothes excited for the day’s events. The band played “Hail to the Chief.” After a rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” Trump told the audience that “it’s a day where we celebrate Jesus, it’s a day where we celebrate religion, and it’s an honor to be the president of the United States.”
Then things veered off course. He continued: “Our country is doing so well like it has never done before. You’ll see that very shortly, and things that we’ve done have not been done before. We’ve broken every record on the stock market, we’ve broken every record on our military.”
And then he launched into a speech about Iran and wars and bombing and rescues. The Easter Bunny’s blank eyes seemed first shocked and then desperate. It was a scene out of a surreal movie: the president of the United States describing a war next to a giant rabbit with big, vacant, eyes.
Charlotte Clymer of Charlotte’s Web Thoughts wrote: “Every day, I think: there’s no possible way it can get dumber and more embarrassing. And then Trump does something like this. And yes, this is real. It is all too real.”
While the children were rolling their eggs along the ground with spoons, Trump spoke to reporters, telling them about Iran, “If it were up to me, I’d like to keep the oil. I just don’t think the people of the United States would really understand.” He suggested that attacking Iran’s infrastructure wouldn’t be a war crime because “they killed 45,000 people in the last month. More than that. It could be as much as sixty. They killed protesters. They’re animals, and we have to stop them, and we can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.”
He claimed again that former presidents are telling him they wish they had done what he did in attacking Iran; all four living ex-presidents have denied speaking to him. Sitting with children drawing pictures, he told them they could sell his autograph on eBay for $25,000. He signed their pictures, and while he signed, he told the children that former President Joe Biden was “incapable of signing his name” so he had aides follow him around with an autopen machine.
A later press conference at the White House continued the wild lies and non sequiturs. Trump began the conference by greeting the reporters with “Happy Easter. We had a great Easter. This is one of our better Easters, I think, in a lot of different ways. I can say, militarily, it’s been one of the best.”The celebratory speeches about the war compared a rescued airman to Jesus Christ and gave a great deal of detail about the rescue operation, but they didn’t deliver much information to the journalists packed into the room about negotiations or goals or the president’s ultimatum that Iran must agree to his demands by 8:00 tomorrow night or face “obliteration.”
Trump reiterated: “The entire country could be taken out in one night. And that night might be tomorrow night.” He said that while the regime governing the country has changed—meaning its leadership, because the actual regime is still in power—that his reason for undertaking the war was not regime change, but rather to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.He assured the journalists that he has had a plan all along. “I saw somebody said, ‘Oh, he doesn’t have a plan.’ I have the best plan of all, but I’m not going to tell you what my plan is. You know, they want me to say, Here’s my plan, we’re going to attack at 9:47 in the morning, and then we’re going to do this, and then we’re gonna, and if you don’t do that, they say, I have a plan. These people know what the plan is. Everybody here knows what the plan is…. Every single thing has been thought out by all of us. But I can’t reveal the plan to the media. So, you know, but we’re just thrilled by the success of this operation.”
Trump has said Iranians are upset when the strikes stop, and a reporter challenged him to explain “Why would they want you to blow up their infrastructure, to cut off their power?” He answered: “They would be willing to suffer that in order to have freedom. The Iranians have, and we’ve had numerous intercepts—’Please keep bombing.’ Bombs that are dropping near their homes. ‘Please keep bombing! Do it.’ And these are people that are living where the bombs are exploding, and when we leave and we’re not hitting those areas, they’re saying, “Please come back, come back, come back!’”
After noting he was responsible for the killing of Iranian military officer Qasem Soleimani, he added: “I did one other but this one was not picked up. Osama bin Laden—If you read my book, I said you’ve got to take him out one year before the World Trade Center came down. So I wish you’d read the book. To be a good president, I believe you have to have good instincts, and a lot of this is instinct.”
A special operations team located and killed Osama bin Laden, the founder of al Qaeda and the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the United States, in 2011, when Barack Obama was president. Trump’s frequent claim that his book called for a raid against Osama bin Laden has been just as frequently debunked as a lie.Today was an exhausting day as Americans seem to have little choice but to pay attention to a man who is bizarrely threatening what appear to be war crimes against Iranians while spinning wild tales. The members of both chambers of Congress are away for another week and Republican leaders are showing no sign of calling them back, leaving the American people to face whatever Trump has in mind for tomorrow on our own.
In contrast to Trump’s vision of government according to the whims of a single man, no matter how bonkers those whims might be, New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani—who, as a naturalized citizen, is not eligible for the presidency—is illustrating what it means to have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.Mamdani’s videos about governing New York City inform New Yorkers about what their government does. At the same time, though, they lift up and honor the workers who make the wheels of government turn. During his campaign, Mamdani promised his administration would see to it that potholes got filled, and as the road maintenance workers made the trip to fill the 100,000th pothole of the year, he tagged along. The video humanized the process and dignified work that often doesn’t get attention.Another video today about the 311 call center in New York City that helps residents find resources to help solve everything from where to recycle a mirror to how to get an apartment repaired featured Tangie Williams putting a face to the people in the center as she coached Mamdani himself through a call. Williams told Mamdani that the calls that “tug at my heart” are elderly people who have no family and need both to be heard and to access help, which she provides with evident joy.—
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is doing something no tech titan has ever done: He’s publishing a detailed blueprint for how government should tax, regulate and redistribute the wealth from the very technology he’s racing to build and spread, Axios’ Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei write in a “Behind the Curtain” column.
Why it matters: Altman told us in a half-hour interview that AI superintelligence is so close, so mind-bending, so disruptive that America needs a new social contract — on the scale of the Progressive Era in the early 1900s and the New Deal during the Great Depression.
The big picture: The threats of inaction or slow action are grave, Altman warns — widespread job loss, cyberattacks, social upheaval, machines man can’t control. The two most immediate threats, he said, are cyberattacks and biological attacks:
We’ve told you that top tech, business and government officials fear profound advances in soon-to-be-released AI models could enable a world-shaking cyberattack this year. “I think that’s totally possible,” Altman said. “I suspect in the next year, we will see significant threats we have to mitigate from cyber.”
AI companies know some random idiot, or some rogue nation, could use their models to conjure the next pandemic. “Wonderful things are going to happen there — we’ll see a bunch of diseases get cured,” Altman said. But he also knows terrorist groups could use the models to try to create novel pathogens: “[T]hat’s no longer a theoretical thing, or it’s not going to be for much longer.”
Altman told us OpenAI’s 13-page blueprint, “Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age: Ideas to keep people first,” isn’t a prescription but a starting point: “We want to put these things into the conversation. Some will be good. Some will be bad. But … we do feel a sense of urgency. And we want to see the debate of these issues really start to happen with seriousness.”
Here are Altman’s most provocative ideas: A Public Wealth Fund. OpenAI proposes giving every American citizen a direct stake in AI-driven economic growth through a nationally managed fund, seeded in part by AI companies themselves, that “could invest in diversified, long-term assets that capture growth in both AI companies and the broader set of firms adopting and deploying AI.” This is the most radical idea in the document.
Robot taxes. The document floats “taxes related to automated labor” and shifting the tax base from payroll toward capital gains and corporate income — since AI could hollow out the wage-and-payroll revenue that funds Social Security, Medicaid and SNAP.
A four-day workweek. OpenAI suggests incentivizing companies and unions to run pilots of 32-hour workweeks at full pay, converting AI-driven efficiency to time back for workers — an “efficiency dividend.”
“Right to AI.” The plan frames AI access as being as foundational as literacy, electricity and internet — and says access should be affordable for workers, small businesses, schools, libraries and underserved communities.
Containment playbooks for rogue AI. In the most chilling passage, OpenAI acknowledges scenarios where dangerous AI systems “cannot be easily recalled” because they’re autonomous and capable of replicating themselves. Their answer: coordination that includes government.
Auto-triggering safety net. The blueprint envisions tripwires tied to economic data. When AI displacement metrics hit preset thresholds, temporary increases in public support — unemployment benefits, wage insurance, cash assistance — automatically kick in. When conditions stabilize, the measures phase out.
Between the lines: Let’s stipulate that Altman has every reason to hype the technology to raise more money at higher valuations — and to position himself as a thoughtful architect of a plan to protect us from the AI he’s rushing to market. But his OpenAI models are among the best-funded, best-performing, fastest-selling on Earth.”There’s many companies developing this,” Altman told us. “I’m only one voice inside [this] company — obviously, a big one. But this is an unbelievable honor, cool thing, scary thing altogether to get to be in this moment.”
The document is as much corporate strategy as policy paper. OpenAI is trying to position itself as the responsible actor in the room — the company that warned you and offered solutions — a lane Anthropic first filled.It’s also a play to shape regulation before regulation shapes them.
The bottom line: The man betting everything on superintelligence is telling the world that this thing is coming so fast, and so hard, that capitalism as we know it won’t be enough. Whether you believe the altruism or see the strategy, the admission alone is historic — and worth deep reflection.Watch a video of Mike’s interview with Sam … Read the blueprint. … Share this column.(Disclosure: Axios and OpenAI have a licensing and technology agreement that allows OpenAI to access part of Axios’ story archives while helping fund the launch of Axios into several local cities and providing some AI tools. Axios has editorial independence.)
Clare Mackintosh, The Butler, Podium Entertainment, June 2026.
Thank you, NetGalley, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
The Butler sets a pace that is quite different from Clare Mackintosh’s previous novels, and I had to adapt to the pace and tone. Once having done so, I was impressed with this writer’s ability to craft an engaging narrative in a new (to me) style. The butler, Baxter, has recently had to put himself on the market for short term engagements. This makes him vulnerable to his agent and her demands – he must provide information to her on his current employer, Alec Prescott. A glamourous setting in a mansion, complete with swimming pool, in Cannes provides the background to intrigue, infidelity, and eventual murder. Baxter, warming to his Hercule Poirot role investigates and solves the mystery.
Baxter’s arrival at the villa is preceded with excellent characterisation – he is a figure to whom I immediately warmed – and a jolt to the senses: noisy music, broken glass, dirty dishes, upturned furniture, and a couple dancing on an expensive table. Each character is introduced with their public and personal personas developed to provide the maximum appeal – or its opposite. The young characters’ development in the short time they are at the villa – Jade’s secret and Carter Prescott’s reaction, Red’s arrogant pickpocketing and her vulnerability and even Kaitlyn’s stereotypical attraction to an older man – is contrasted with the jaded presence of the older inhabitants. Interaction between possible competitors is often comic at the same time as cutting. Clues to the murderer are provided with Agatha Christie seeming ambiguity. However, like Christie, Mackintosh is honest in her cues. Likewise, the plotting is smart, the character development works so that challenging characters logically progress to those for whom there is sympathy, and the solution is sound.
I always enjoy Clare Mackintosh’s work, and The Butler is no different. It is an enjoyable read and a successful diversion from earlier works. This novel provides the possibility of exciting teamwork between Baxter and Red, which I hope will be an outcome of their sympathetically wrought relationship in The Butler.
Ralph Jones Microphone Bloomsbury Academic, April 2026.
Thank you, NetGalley and Bloomsbury Academic, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
Microphone is yet another successful contribution to the Object Lessons publications. It takes a historical approach, beginning with the early efforts to record sound, touching on The Jazz Singer as an example of sound being applied to song in films, through successful and unsuccessful attempts to be the first to patent new innovations in the long line of changes, to arrive at today’s expanded use of microphones. Some of the competition between inventors, patent seekers and innovators has already been explored. However, Ralph Jones has developed this part of the discussion with further information, in a readily accessible form – the information becomes a narrative that sets the scene for the excitement of discovering the way in which the microphone was developed, the ways in which it has been used, and making the familiarity of todays’ use part of an historical adventure.
The first chapter headings take us straight into conferences, meetings, and anywhere that a microphone is an important addition to getting an idea across to an audience. Could there be a microphone without ‘Is This Thing On?’ or ‘Testing, Testing’? More intriguing is ‘Hear Some Evil’ and here we move into the realm of eavesdropping, some nefarious, some a safety provision, others a source of entertainment in televised programs. Political events and war are covered; the telephone; the power that emanates from being the person with the microphone and the way in which the microphone has given that power to anyone whose podcast (of which there are so many) is successful.
There are photos, notes, and an index. The last is a rich source, demonstrating the wide-ranging information in this small book of knowledge. Although I admire the publication in general, and have enjoyed some of the individual books immensely, I have found this one of the most engrossing. The historical narrative is fluid, the integration of events and ideas enhances the history rather than interrupting the flow, and the writing is especially captivating.
Amy M. Kleppner Oceans to Cross Amelia Earhart’s Extraordinary Life and Her Fight for Women’s Rights Bloomsbury Academic, March 2026.
Thank you, NetGalley and Bloomsbury Academic for this uncorrected proof for review.
Amy M. Kleppner with Laurie Calkhaven reads the title page, and here the story of a family whose commitment to giving Amelia Earheart a biography which provides not only a warm family thread through the analysis, the adventures, and passions of Amelia Earhart, but a polished work begins. Amy M. Klepper is the last surviving member of Amelia Earhart’s family who knew her. She is the daughter of Muriel, Amelia’s sister, and grew up with an aunt she recalls so vividly as someone who is far more than the mystery of her disappearance. Laurie Calkhaven revised and edited the work. Amy’s son, Bram Kleppner, also contributed with his perceptive insight into the author, adding to the uniqueness with which Amelia Earhart’s story unfolds in this biography.
Amelia Earhart’s work to gain her qualifications and acceptance, and the journeys with which she honoured these endeavours is engaging. The emphasis on Earhart’s commitment to women’s equality and her work in that area, is also well covered. This includes the perceptive examination of her accepting a passenger role on a flight across the Atlantic, demonstrating that women could undertake such flights. This, when she must have dearly preferred to spend her time flying rather than being a passenger, is a tribute to her sincerity in representing a broad range of women’s rights. In this case she was ensuring that women who were never to be aviators, but would want the freedom to travel, were represented. It is examples of Amy Klepper’s deep understanding of her aunt, and ability to adopt a broad feminist perspective, which makes this biography so special.
The work includes previously unpublished photos from the family collection. The selected bibliography, notes for each chapter, and an index fulfill the academic requirements. But this biography is far more. Bram Kleppner’s epilogue which establishes Amy Kleppner’s familiarity, affection and admiration for her aunt underlines the importance of her personal influence on the work. In addition, Amy Kleppner’s own efforts pursuing women’s rights and racial justice, her physical endeavours such as her bicycle ride from Boston to Quebec City and climbing the forty-six peaks of the Adirondacks, link her closely to the mindset of the woman about whom she writes. Her birthday celebrations with challenging feats, like a 100-mile hike in England at eighty and retracing Odysseus’s voyage at ninety-two, further underscore her kinship with Amelia Earhart.
This is an engaging work, full of detail, but most importantly, resonates with understanding and affinity with its subject.
British Politics
Labour List – Emily Thornberry Keir Hardie Lecture in full
Emily Thornberry MP
I am so honoured to have been invited to speak here today and to have the opportunity to reflect on the values of our first leader, Keir Hardie, and to ask what his vision demands of the Labour Party today.
It was a hundred and twenty years ago that our movement chose its first leader: a man called Keir. And in the 1906 General Election, under our Labour name, that young party won 29 seats in Parliament.
Today, another Keir leads our family, and at the last General Election the British people placed their trust in us on a scale that our founder could never have imagined.
We now have over 400 MPs. We have come a long, long way.
People call it a “historic” victory. And they are absolutely right. We stood on a Labour platform, and the British public gifted us a majority on an extraordinary scale. But they expect something in return. And they expect what we said we would give, which was change. That’s what we promised. And that’s what we have to deliver.
So far so good. But it’s not is it?
Here we are today, with that thumping great majority, with that clear mandate to do big things, really shake things up. And yet, we seem to be wrestling with something really quite troubling.
We seem to be wrestling with a crisis of identity, a crisis of confidence.
It’s as if we started to question what it means to be a Labour Party, to be a Labour Government.
And the public are furious with us about that.
Insecurity in government isn’t just poor politics, it’s dangerous. Because when a government doesn’t know what it stands for, it risks squandering the hope and goodwill of the great many people who trusted us to do better. To be better.
We cannot afford to be insecure, to be unsure of ourselves.
We cannot waste this opportunity, this opportunity to enact generational change, to show Britain what a Labour government driven by Labour values really means.
So, we must ask ourselves: Who are we? What are we fighting for?
I think in moments like this, it helps to remember where we’ve come from. In order to know who we are, and where we’re going next.
Because when we understand where we’ve come from, when we understand the principles upon which we’ve built this movement, we can see more clearly what we need to do.
Today, I want to talk in particular about Labour’s place in the world. About our Internationalism.
Everyone always says “oh we’re Labour. We’re such great internationalists”
But what does that mean? What does it really mean?
Well, I think it means believing in something both very simple and yet very radical.
It comes from believing that whoever you are, wherever you come from, you have a place in our socialist movement. And that we are all equal brothers and sisters.
That when you join Labour, you become part of something bigger than yourself.
But it goes much further. We believe that spirit of solidarity goes beyond borders. Keir Hardie saw that working people were working people wherever in the world they came from across the world.
It means recognising that we all have far more in common than we have that divides us.
We might have different eye colour.
We might have different skin colour.
We might call our God a different name.
We might speak a different language.
We might wear strange exotic hats.
But fundamentally, fundamentally at the level that really matters, we are all the same.
That’s our internationalism. That’s what it means. And it comes from our socialist origins to the progressive politics we practise today. There has always been something fundamentally internationalist about the Labour Party.
And history bears that out.
It was a Labour Prime Minister – Clem Attlee – who helped establish the United Nations and declared that the world should never again descend into the horrors of war. And that’s what it means to be Labour.
It was a Labour Foreign Secretary – Ernest Bevin – who helped create NATO, ensuring that Britain and its allies could defend peace in an uncertain world. And do it together. All for one and one for all. And that’s what it means to be Labour.
And it was a Labour minister – Barbara Castle – who, working with the Fabians, helped establish the Office for Overseas Development, because she understood that helping people thousands of miles away isn’t charity. It’s solidarity. And that’s what it means to be Labour.
So alright. We are a party of internationalists.
But how does that history, those values, help guide us through the crossroads we face today?
Well, it reminds us that there are certain things that Labour has always rejected.
We reject the idea that our prosperity should ever be built on the exploitation of others.
We reject what Keir Hardie called the “plunder and butchery” of imperialism.
And we reject the notion that the suffering of a stranger somehow means less than the suffering of a neighbour.
Hardie understood this.
Or more truthfully, he learnt this on his world tour. Where he travelled India and South Africa as the first leader of the Labour Party. And he learnt along the way that Labour was not just about the miner in the Rhondda Valley, or the dock worker in East London, or the millworker in Lanarkshire.
It was a movement for all those fighting for dignity, security and a better life.
He learnt that Labour is a family borne of class but driven by values. Values of solidarity, and empathy.
And I suspect no one in this room would disagree with those instincts. Those Labour instincts remain good ones. And they remain true.
They are beliefs to be proud of and they should remain the moral compass which guides us today. Our light in darkness.
But let’s be honest. It is easy to say these things. It is easy to celebrate these values. But values are meaningless if we do not deliver on them.
So, we believe all these things. What are we prepared to do about it?
Well, in the last two weeks, I think we may have seen those values in action.
Our leader – the younger Keir that is – was confronted with precisely the kind of moment that tests a government. That reveals what exactly a government is prepared to stand up for. It was a true test of the mettle of a leader.
When the pressure came, our Prime Minister made clear that this Labour government should stand up for what is right.
He made clear that Britain should not be drawn into war for war’s sake.
A war with no clear purpose.
A war that is contrary to law.
If people are going to die, either bravely and willingly as combatants, or just because they were in the way, like a little girl’s school, they deserve to know why they have to die.
And Keir has held that line.
And let’s be honest, it’s not easy for Prime Minister to do that. It’s not easy for a Prime Minister when you’ve got the Americans breathing down your neck. They are close friends and allies and we rely on the US for defence and security, although that reliance is mutual.
But just as Harold Wilson refused to send British troops to fight in Vietnam, this Labour government knows that we have principles that we are not prepared to violate. Unlike the Tories, we stuck to our guns and said we have values that define who we are. It is the first time that a British Prime Minister has said no to an American President since the 1960s.
So no Mr President. We say no.
And with every passing day, I think we see just how important that decision actually was. How hard it was, and how pivotal it has been for this second Keir.
Because the pressure did not come only from the United States.
It came from the press.
It came from the Opposition Benches.
It came from the armchair generals beating their chests and roaring us on into war.
We forget it now but just two weeks ago, the drumbeat was relentless: The claim that Britain had to fall in line, that refusing to do so would somehow place us on the “wrong side” of the Americans. And how difficult and dangerous that would be for our country.
I think it took real courage for the Government to resist that kind of pressure.
But once you stand firm and say so, something remarkable happens – the fog clears. And suddenly the path becomes obvious.
Of course we had to stand up for what was right. Of course we can’t be involved in attacking another country, no matter how hateful their regime is. And no one is apologising for Iran, but where is it going to end? What is the plan? And who is going to decide when that plan has been fulfilled, that we have done everything we wanted to do in that war, if we don’t have a clear idea what we’re going to do before we get involved?
The answer had to be no.
Unlike many of our founding fathers and mothers, not many of us in the Labour Party are pacifists these days. But we cannot agree to violence and the loss of life without either the agreement of the international community, or the real need for self-defence. That’s the law. And that’s what’s right.
Of course we had to put principles before pressure.
And looking back you can see this is exactly the kind of courage Keir Hardie displayed when he stood so firmly against the First World War.
When he was ridiculed.
When he was called unpatriotic.
When he was spat at in the street.
But history proved him right.
Hardie was such a relentless advocate for peace that the outbreak of war very much killed him. But I think what he said in the weeks before the First World War tells us a lot about what it means to be an internationalist Labour Party.
He told Parliament: “Our honour is said to be involved in entering into the war. That is always the excuse.”
He went on: “I suppose our honour was involved in the Crimean war, and who today justifies it? Our honour was involved in the Boer War, how many today will justify it?”
Let’s update that. Let’s change Crimea to Iraq. Let’s change Boer War to Libya.
He concluded: “If we are led into this war, we shall look back in wonder and amazement at the flimsy reasons which induced the Government to take part in it.”
More than a century later, those words still ring true.
So, the lesson for us today is simple.
Standing by Labour values may not always be easy in the moment. But when we do it – when we hold our nerve – we discover that is exactly what we should do. This is where Labour belongs. This is who we are. This is what it means to govern according to our principles.
And look how Labour’s internationalism, our belief in treating others with respect, as brothers and sisters, has helped our standing in the world.
Just think back a couple of years. Back to the depths of Brexit.
When Britain was a laughing stock.
When people openly mocked us. They mocked the politicians that were supposed to represent us.
We had David Davis turning up for Brexit negotiations without any notes. I mean really. The arrogance. The entitlement.
We had Boris Johnson making everything into some silly little game, some chance for him to just show off, when real working people paid the price for his incompetence.
We had Dominic Raab deciding he’d sit on a beach in Greece while Kabul fell to the Taliban, rather than get up and do something about it.
The politicians who represented Britain on the world stage let us down, and our credibility vanished. People didn’t know what Britain stood for anymore. And neither did we as a country.
These people said they were patriots, but I think real patriotism doesn’t need to brag. It needs to be comfortable with itself, it needs to believe in itself, it needs to be strong.
And we were so far away from that.
But look at the difference we have made in the last 18 months.
Under Labour, Britain is once again a serious player on the world stage. And we are doing it on our terms. On Labour terms.
We are a force for good.
We back international law because we know it is right.
We back strong partnerships because we know we are better together.
We back fighting for peace because we know it’s a hell of a lot easier to get into a war than it is to get out of one.
I have to say, I found it deeply disturbing to see Kemi Badenoch and her Shadow Attorney General arguing that we should simply ignore international law if we didn’t like it and commit our troops to unlawful action.
That when the Americans asked us to jump our response, they thought, should be: “how high, Mr President?”
She said that our troops were “just hanging around,” when they were bravely defending our partners and bases from incoming fire.
It’s disgraceful.
Sending our young men and women to war is one of the most solemn decisions any government can ever make. And the eagerness of the Tories and Reform to trample over the UN Charter, to ignore the legal protections Britain helped write and to embrace what is essentially the law of the jungle – that should trouble every one of us. They are the alternative.
Under Labour, we will not let our country be seduced by self-serving populists who are prepared to put our country’s security on the line.
Under Labour, we will not be afraid to do what is right, no matter how loud the warmongers shout.
Under Labour, we will never again forget who we are and what we are fighting for.
Getting ourselves into the right place internationally at a time of war, is no small thing.
But we need to show that same strength, the same vision, the same clarity of principle when it comes to our domestic policy.
If we do that, if we stay true to our values and our principles then I know we are going to be alright.
And more than that, we will take the country along with us.
It’s about understanding the nervousness people feel when they believe there is no control of our borders without falling into the trap of being unfair and cruel to vulnerable people who come here seeking safety and a better life.
It’s about being brave when it comes to tackling the crisis in social care. Because we know in our hearts we are never going to fix the NHS without being bold and ambitious and finally, finally ensuring the elderly, disabled, and vulnerable have the care they need to live in dignity and to keep them healthy.
Yes, some of these things look really difficult, but we need to take a deep breath, listen to our hearts, listen to who we are, and take action.
How many people here think we should be standing up for our children and protecting them from the addictive nature of social media? Or protecting people from the vile abuse they suffer online?
How many people here think we should be doing something about the manipulative algorithms feeding us all of this hate, and division, or disinformation? Or the blatant use of bots to promote hatred by hijacking the algorithms and supporting the Right?
Exactly.
We just have to go for it.
We have to be brave, and bold, and go for it.
We know it’s about time we updated our laws to give equal rights to couples who are not married. By not updating the law, we are not protecting marriage, we’re just disadvantaging children, the majority of whose parents are not married in Britain these days. And we’re disadvantaging women who believe being a “common-law wife” gives you some sort of rights. It doesn’t. It doesn’t give you anything.
We know it’s about time we had a proper green revolution so people can actually afford their heating bills.
But we can’t do that unless our homes are insulated properly and unless we build the pylons to get the clean energy to where it is needed. We can’t secure a warm future for people while most of us, 73% of us across the country, and 84% here in Merthyr, still rely on gas. We have to change that. It’s going to take a lot. We have to do it. We are Labour
We cannot continue to be unsure about ourselves. We have to say: people have got to have heating they can afford and we just have to get it done. We are in power. We have a big majority. We are Labour.
I’m not saying Britain is broken. I don’t believe it is. But I am saying we have to sort this out, and we can sort this out.
We can only do it though, with a Labour government that believes in itself, that knows where it comes from, and that is willing to be a bit braver, a bit louder, a bit prouder.
If we are not sufficiently clear and confident, if all we have to offer the country is something which seems a bit timid, a bit boring, a bit managerial, if Labour is no longer a moral crusade, then what are we? Not much.
And we make the populists even more attractive.
Because if we can’t be clear about what we stand for, we are in trouble.
But if we can be clear and if we can be positive and we can be passionate: then we win.
Because we have the truth on our side. We have the arguments that stack up. We have a vision that makes sense. And we have a plan.
The problem with populists, whether it’s Reform or the Greens or Plaid, is that they just say what they think people want to hear.
It’s never about knowing the cost of delivering it. Or how they’re going to do it. Or what the consequences will be. They never think that through.
Of course, we do. Trouble is, sometimes it seems like that’s all we do. And we forget the reason why we’re doing it, what the essence of the plan is and where we want to go.
We’ve spent so much time talking about the cost, about next steps. And yes, of course we must do that because we are a responsible party of power.
But we also need to be able to look people in the eye and say: we know where we’re going, that things are going to be alright. Stick with us, and we can sort things out together.
Because if we don’t, people will just turn to the Farage’s, the Polanski’s, the ap Iorwerth’s. The snake-oil salesmen. Whatever their names are, we see them. They are prepared in their vanity and glibness, to make us all poorer, to make us all more divided.
I think that lately, we could be forgiven for thinking that all our passion, and beliefs, and confidence in our Labour values, had been beaten out of us. But our Labour values are still here. They’re still here in our hearts. They haven’t gone anywhere. We just have to rediscover it.
We have a duty to take advantage of this massive chance the public has given us to transform our country.
To be as brave as Keir Hardie was.
To be as bold as Keir Hardie dreamed.
To be Labour, as Keir Hardie envisaged.
And to show Britain what a strong Labour government, grounded in proud, Labour values, can truly achieve.
Thank you.
Australian Politics
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese: Address to the Nation
1 April 2026
My fellow Australians.
By nature, we’re an optimistic country.
But I understand that right now it’s hard to be positive.
The war in the Middle East has caused the biggest spike in petrol and diesel prices in history.
Australia is not an active participant in this war.
But all Australians are paying higher prices because of it.
I know that you’re seeing this at the servo and at the supermarket.
And I understand farmers and truckies, small businesses and families are doing it tough.
And the reality is, the economic shocks caused by this war will be with us for months.
Tonight, I want to speak directly with you about what the Government is doing to shield Australia in these uncertain times.
And also, what all of us can do to help our country and help each other in the period ahead.
On Monday, National Cabinet adopted the National Fuel Security Plan.
Leaders from both sides of politics, from right around the country, working together to keep Australia moving.
Making sure that we are prepared.
So that if the global situation gets worse and our fuel supplies are seriously disrupted over the long term, we can co-ordinate the next steps together.
Today, we cut the fuel excise in half.
Cutting the tax on every litre of petrol, by 26 cents.
Those savings have started showing up at your petrol station.
For our truckies, we have cut the Heavy Vehicle Road User Charge to zero.
Both these measures will be in place for the next three months.
We are working to bring the price of fuel down.
To make more fuel here and to keep it onshore.
And get more fuel here – using our strong trading relationships with our region to bring more petrol, diesel and fertiliser to Australia.
Now, it’s the Australian way that people want to do their bit – and there are simple ways that you can.
You should go about your business and your life, as normal.
Enjoy your Easter.
If you’re hitting the road, don’t take more fuel than you need – just fill up like you normally would.
Think of others in your community, in the bush and in critical industries.
And over coming weeks, if you can switch to catching the train or bus or tram to work, do so.
That builds our reserves and it saves fuel for people who have no choice but to drive.
Farmers and miners and tradies who need diesel, every single day.
And all those shift workers and nurses, who do so much for our country.
The months ahead may not be easy.
I want to be upfront about that.
No government can promise to eliminate the pressures that this war is causing.
I can promise we will do everything we can to protect Australia from the worst of it.
These are uncertain times.
But I am absolutely certain of this: we will deal with these global challenges, the Australian way.
Working together – and looking after each other.
As we always have.
Thank you and good evening.
American Politics
Anti-Trump rallies pop up in thousands of U.S. cities for ‘No Kings’ protest
Published Sat, Mar 28 20266:28 AM EDT
Demonstrators march near the Lincoln Memorial after crossing the Memorial Bridge during the “No Kings” national day of protest in Washington, D.C., on March 28, 2026. Aaron Schwartz | Afp | Getty Images
Demonstrators decrying U.S. President Donald Trump’s aggressive deportation efforts, war in Iran and other policies took to city streets across the country on Saturday in the third round of the “No Kings” rallies.
More than 3,200 events were planned in all 50 states. The two previous No Kings events attracted millions of participants.
In Minnesota, a flashpoint in Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration, a massive rally was held outside the state capitol building in Saint Paul. Many in the crowd there held aloft posters bearing photos of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, whom federal immigration officers fatally shot in Minneapolis this year.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2024, told the crowd that their resistance to Trump and his policies makes them “the heart and soul” of everything good about the U.S.
“They call us radicals,” Walz said. “You’re damn right we’ve been radicalized — radicalized by compassion, radicalized by decency, radicalized by due process, radicalized by democracy, and radicalized to do all we can to oppose authoritarianism.”
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a Trump critic who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020, was another speaker at the event in Minnesota. Musician Bruce Springsteen also appeared and performed his song “Streets of Minneapolis” — a ballad that blasts Trump’s immigration crackdown and laments the deaths of Good and Pretti.
“We will not allow this country to descend into authoritarianism or oligarchy in America,” said Sanders, an independent. “We, the people, will rule.”
Times Square “No Kings” National Day of Protest in New York on March 28, 2026. Charly Triballeau | Afp | Getty Images
Other large rallies took place in New York, Dallas, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Washington, but two-thirds of the events were happening outside major cities, a nearly 40% jump for smaller communities from the movement’s first mobilization last June, organizers said.
In New York, a crowd that police estimated at tens of thousands stretched more than 10 blocks in midtown Manhattan. Actor Robert De Niro, one of the organizers, said that no president before Trump has posed “such an existential threat to our freedoms and security.”
Holly Bemiss, 54, said she and other New York rally attendees were acting in the same spirit as her ancestors who fought in the American Revolution.
“We fought against having kings, and we fought for freedom,” she said. “We’re just doing it again.”
On the National Mall in Washington, the crowd chanted pro-democracy slogans and held anti-Trump signs. Outside one high-rise assisted-living center in Chevy Chase, Maryland, a group of elderly people in wheelchairs held signs encouraging passing cars to “Resist tyranny,” “Honk if you want democracy,” and “Dump Trump.”
“No Kings” protest against U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration policies, in St. Paul, Minnesota, on March 28, 2026.
Tim Evans | Reuters
Thousands attended a Dallas event that had clashes between No Kings demonstrators and counterprotest groups, including one led by Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of the far-right organization the Proud Boys.
Minor scuffles erupted when counterprotesters blocked streets. Dallas police eventually made several arrests.
Trump’s policies have galvanized the opposition, Dallas protester Chris Brendel said.
“One thing I’ll give Trump credit for is mobilizing the dissenters. … I can’t stand by and be silent anymore simply because of my boys and their friends and the future,” Brendel said.
Trump’s approval rating has fallen to 36%, its lowest point since his return to the White House, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.
A spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee criticized Democratic politicians and candidates for supporting the rallies.
“These Hate America Rallies are where the far-left’s most violent, deranged fantasies get a microphone and House Democrats get their marching orders,” spokesperson Mike Marinella said in a statement.
Marching ahead of midterms
With midterm elections later this year in the U.S., organizers say they have seen a surge in the number of people organizing anti-Trump events and registering to participate in deeply Republican states like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana and Utah.
No Kings Houston Protest, Texas, on March 28, 2026, in Houston.
Marcus Ingram | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images
Competitive suburban areas that have helped decide national elections are seeing “huge” increases in interest, said Leah Greenberg, co-founder of Indivisible, the group that started the No Kings movement last year and led planning of Saturday’s events. She cited examples in Pennsylvania’s Bucks and Delaware counties, East Cobb and Forsyth in Georgia, and Scottsdale and Chandler in Arizona.
A call to action against Iran war
The No Kings movement launched last year on Trump’s birthday, June 14, drew an estimated 4 million to 6 million people across roughly 2,100 sites nationwide. The second mobilization in October involved an estimated 7 million participants in more than 2,700 cities, according to a crowdsourcing analysis published by prominent data journalist G. Elliott Morris.
That October event was largely fueled by a backlash against a government shutdown, an aggressive crackdown by federal immigration authorities, and the deployment of National Guard troops to major cities.
Saturday’s events come amid what organizers said was a call to action against the bombardment of Iran by the U.S. and Israel, a conflict that is now four weeks old.
Morgan Taylor, 45, attended the Washington protest with her 12-year-old son, and said she was enraged by Trump’s military action in Iran, which she called a “stupid war.”
“Nobody’s attacking us,” Taylor said. “We don’t need to be there.”
No Kings, No Clowns
Joyce Vance from Civil Discourse <joycevance@substack.com>
The signs were epic this morning in Freeport, Maine, where I’m hanging out with my kid for the weekend. (Thanks for failing to fund TSA, GOP.) It was 19 degrees at 8 a.m. when the rally, which lined Main St. with hundreds of people, lots of young people and kids among them, kicked off.
There was lots of friendly horn honking, smiles over clever signs, and coffee from Dunkin’. And it made me feel good to be an American.
People understood the assignment.
Some of the signs offered painful clarity.
I went with a friend who made this brilliant sign.
And we saw this guy, who reminded us that saving democracy can actually be fun. Because if we lose our ability to take joy in being with friends and neighbors, our ability to laugh, then what’s the point?
I know many of you are out now or will have a chance to get out later today. Be proud of yourselves and what we are doing. While we celebrate today, we also need to grow the awareness that it can’t just be one day, that we’re at a tipping point that requires all of us to get involved and do the hard work of democracy that is ahead of us. I remain optimistic that we can do it—even Alabama is going full force today.
The question is, what are we going to do tomorrow, and the day after that, and so on until people who value democracy prevail in the midterm elections and we can start to restore our institutions? It’s time to make your plans.
We’re in this together,
Joyce
Sunday thought: Turning Yesterday’s Solidarity into Political Power
Robert Reich <robertreich@substack.com Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
Friends,Yesterday, millions of us once again affirmed the foundation of the common good.Across America, people showed their solidarity — in opposition to Trump’s ill-considered war in Iran, with immigrants being targeted by ICE and Border Patrol agents, with current and former public officials whom Trump is prosecuting, with the students and universities whose freedom to learn and speak continues to be threatened by Trump, in favor of the earth and stopping climate change, and with every American who’s determined to reject dictatorship.
But how do we turn yesterday’s solidarity into political power?Three suggestions. All depend on our working with activists we already know, added to those we met yesterday, and the activism of our local Indivisible chapter and other groups we participate in.
1. Target vulnerable Republican senators and House members. Either get them to switch parties or become independents who caucus with Democrats, or flip their seats.
Republican majorities are razor-thin in both chambers, and some Republicans who represent purple districts and states are struggling to keep their Republican supporters behind them. (They’re also struggling with their own consciences in continuing to support Trump’s authoritarian fascism.)
In the House, according to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and political analysts, the following Republican members are considered particularly vulnerable.
Arizona: David Schweikert (AZ-01), Eli Crane (AZ-02), Juan Ciscomani (AZ-06).California: David Valadao (CA-22), Young Kim (CA-40), Ken Calvert (CA-41), Mike Garcia (CA-27).Colorado: Gabe Evans (CO-08).Florida: Cory Mills (FL-07), Anna Paulina Luna (FL-13), María Elvira Salazar (FL-27).Iowa: Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01), Ashley Hinson (IA-02), Zach Nunn (IA-03).Michigan: Bill Huizenga (MI-04), Tom Barrett (MI-07).Nebraska: Don Bacon (NE-02).New Jersey: Thomas H. Kean Jr. (NJ-07).New York: Mike Lawler (NY-17), Anthony D’Esposito (NY-04), Brandon Williams (NY-22).Pennsylvania: Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01), Ryan Mackenzie (PA-07), Rob Bresnahan Jr. (PA-08), Scott Perry (PA-10).Wisconsin: Bryan Steil (WI-01), Derrick Van Orden (WI-03).
In the Senate, these Republicans are considered vulnerable.Maine: Susan Collins.Texas: John Cornyn.Louisiana: Bill Cassidy.2. Begin organizing and mobilizing now to get out the vote for November’s midterm elections — aiming for Democratic takeovers of both chambers of Congress by wide margins, which will severely limit what Trump can do after January 2027.
The key will be to get out the vote. Make a plan. Use phone trees. Write postcards. Arrange transportation for people who need it.
Since January 2025, Democrats have won special elections in districts Trump won in 2024, and by an average margin of 12 percentage points better than he did. Just this past Tuesday, Democrats outperformed Trump in three special state legislative elections in Florida, even flipping the home district of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago.Meanwhile, Trump’s polls continue to tank. In the new Reuters/Ipsos poll, only 36 percent approve of his performance while 62 percent disapprove, a new record low for Trump. In the latest Quinnipiac poll, 38 percent approve of him; 56 percent disapprove. Even the latest Fox News poll shows Trump approval at only 41 percent; disapproval at 59 percent; and fully 58 percent of Americans opposing U.S. military action in Iran.
All this augers well for the midterms, but there’s no substitute for concrete planning to get out the vote — identifying likely Democratic voters, making sure they’re registered and motivated, and helping them get to the polls (or, assuming it’s still legal, making sure they mail their ballots in, in time).
3. Root out and challenge any Trump Republican attempt to intimidate likely Democratic voters or manipulate the election process.
It’s important that neither Trump nor his state lapdogs diminish the turnout of likely Democratic voters in the weeks leading up to the November midterms — by stationing ICE or Border Patrol agents near polling places, interfering with the counting or certifying of ballots, or altering laws and rules to make it harder to vote.
If you have any reason to be concerned about these tactics, check in with your state and local party officials and election officials. Make sure they’re being as vigilant as they need to be. If they’re concerned and cannot assure you that we will have a free and fair election, urge them to challenge what’s occurring in the federal courts.
Or alert your local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Visit the ACLU’s affiliate map website to locate one of the 54 state-level offices, which often have local chapters underneath them. (You can search by state to find nearby chapters, which handle local advocacy, events, and volunteer engagement.)
**If you were inspired by yesterday’s No Kings Day demonstration, know that millions of others were, too. Let’s build on that inspiration by turning it into concrete political action to take back power from Trump and his treacherous regime.
Dinner with Miss Pym set to sell out at St. Luke’s Church in Sea Cliff
Posted March 27, 2026
Live adaptations of Barbara Pym novels act as a fundraiser for St. Luke’s Episcopal Church. Courtesy Dan DiPietro
Between 90 and 100 community members are expected to pack the parish hall at St. Luke’s Episcopal Church on Saturday for a dramatization of Barbara Pym’s “Crampton Hodnet.” The dinner and performance event will serve as a fundraiser for the church as it looks to begin renovations.
Sea Cliff residents Dan DiPietro and Fred Stroppel have adapted scenes from the Pym novel to be read by the village’s performance troupe that participates in other annual events like the Sea Cliff Civic Association’s Scrooge Stroll and James Joyce Jaunt.
DiPietro and Stroppel began dramatizing Pym novels during the shutdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic. DiPietro is part of the Barbara Pym Society, which meets for conferences in Massachusetts. *When the society was forced to cancel its conferences during the pandemic, DiPietro adapted scenes to be performed and filmed by actors in their own homes in the United States and England. Stroppel edited together their performances and posted the videos on YouTube.
Stroppel said that actors had different ideas of what direction to take with their performances.
“The actual filming, it was just interesting, and it’s funny,” he said, “because nobody really matched up.”
After three videos which garnered thousands of views, they decided to transition to live performances at St. Luke’s. The first was in November of 2024 and the second in January of 2025.
“Crampton Hodnet” was the first novel DiPietro and Stroppel adapted for a video. The comedy is set in North Oxford, England in the 1930s. It follows multiple characters as they become entangled in various romantic situations.
“I think it’s Pym’s funniest novel,” DiPietro said. “Others might agree or not agree.”
DiPietro writes the scenes before Stroppel, who has a background in screenwriting, reviews them. He then makes some changes to allow scenes to work better on stage. DiPietro explained how preparing to perform at St. Luke’s differs from making a YouTube video.
“There still was work involved in moving it from a film version to a live performance,” he said. “We dropped one of the subplots because it would have created too large a cast for the space.” The performers have had several rehearsals, and Friday night will be their dress rehearsal. Stroppel and DiPietro both said that rehearsals have gone well.
“It’s a very relaxed group of people,” Stroppel said. “We know them all. They’re all friends, and so there’s not a lot of stress involved.”
In addition to the performance, attendees will be provided dinner catered by longtime Sea Cliff resident Lisa Harir and desserts from local business Sleepy Jean’s Bake Co. There will also be a music trivia contest based on music connected to the performance. Trivia winners will receive prizes.
At $75 per person, ticket proceeds will go toward renovations at St. Luke’s. Last year’s event was also a fundraiser for the church, with the money going toward operating costs.
Renovations will include installing air conditioning in the parish hall and improving accessibility.
“The basic idea here,” said The Rev. Jesse Lebus, the rector of St. Luke’s, “is that we’re trying to improve hospitality.”
Lebus, who acted in last year’s Pym adaptation, explained that lacking air conditioning makes it very difficult to use the parish hall in the summer because the space gets too hot. One event he noted as getting disrupted by the heat is the senior lunch program run by the Sea Cliff Senior Outreach Network.
He added that while there is not yet a timeline for construction, an architect has been chosen and plans have been proposed.
“Anything we can do to help (St. Luke’s) achieve that goal is worth the effort,” Stoppel said. “So, I’m looking forward to it.”
*The Barbara Pym Society Conferences also meet in Oxford at Barbara Pym’s former college, St Hilda’s.
Jane Austen Course
Live online Join us for a new course on Jane Austen’s Families with Tom Zille, University of Cambridge. Lecture list • Dependants: Sense and Sensibility (1811)• The Family Circle: Pride and Prejudice (1813)• Distant Relations: Mansfield Park (1814)• The Smooth Surface of Family Union: Persuasion (1818)
Saturdays, fortnightly, 11 April to 23 May 2026, 6.00-8.00 British Summer Time.
Cambridge Literary Festival You might also be interested in the annual A Room of One’s Own lecture hosted by our friends at the Cambridge Literary Festival. This year the lecture will be given by novelist, playwright and poet Deborah Levy on Sunday 26 April. A commemorative pamphlet containing the lecture is included in the ticket price. Details on the CLF website.
Best wishes,Trudi Dr Trudi Tate Director, Literature Cambridge
Cindy Lou eats in Perth
H&R has an excellent tapas selection. The choices we made were delicious, generous and ones we would choose again – gambas with a wonderful sauce – the chili did not overpower; albondigas – more authentic than we have found elsewhere; crisp and succulent eggplant; a huge Manchego cheese, pear and rocket salad: grilled sough dough; coffees and a custard tart with cinnamon.
The service was friendly and efficient, the seating comfortable (inside and outside available) and the setting in the heart of the city with shielding foliage.
Heathcote is now the setting for an art gallery, art and craft workshops, and a lovely restaurant. All with views over the Swan River. We had a delicious pasta and coffee meal at Tucci. The pasta primavera was resplendent with seafood and the Pasta with tomatoes and burrata, an excellent choice too. The service was good, the setting beautiful, and the seating comfortable.
Thomas S. Hischak Bringing Song and Dance to the Screen Directors of Golden Age Hollywood Musicals Bloomsbury Academic, October 2025.
Thank you, NetGalley and Bloomsbury Academic for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
The tone, the language, the content: all lead the reader on a remarkable journey through musicals in the Golden Age of cinema, both screen originals and adaptations. Thomas S. Hischak’s Bringing Song and Dance to the Screen Directors of Golden Age Hollywood Musicals is an immensely readable, formidably knowledgeable book. It made me want to expand my experience of the genre which Hischak shows can be fun, smart, engrossing and, at times, flawed. When commenting on the latter, Hischak’s language is wonderfully frank and so slyly witty that the musical that receives such treatment remains appealing despite its honestly revealed flaws. As a reader newly interested in this genre, although familiar with some of the most well-known actors, music, and lyrics, I found this an engaging study, almost a romp, through the stories associated with getting musicals onto the screen. It is a book that is a pleasure to read, as well as an expert contribution to a thoughtful analysis of musicals and their adaption to the screen. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.
Valerie Keogh The New Neighbour Boldwood Books, March 2026.
Thank you, NetGalley and Boldwood Books, for this uncorrected proof for review.
For the first time since I began reading Valerie Keogh’s books, I am disappointed. I see Keogh as one of the foremost writers who have perfected the twist, characters who on first sight are unappealing but because they are complex eventually become those whose stories are worth pursuing, and plotting that is logical but exciting. Unfortunately, on this occasion, I found it hard to feel drawn to the main character, Chloe, and although the twists were logical outcomes of the plot and there are glimpses of Keogh’s usual flair, for me the novel failed to meet her usual standard… [I have added the last paragraph of the review here, to provide a fair assessment of Keogh’s work].
However, shall I let my disappointment with this novel impact on my appreciation for Valerie Keogh’s past work, and the work I hope that she will produce in the future? Certainly not. Keogh is too fine a writer of this genre to cast aside and I look forward her next novel. See the complete review at Books: Reviews.
Perth trip
An interesting exhibition to be held the WA Museum
Rhoda Roberts AO, Indigenous leader in arts, culture and media, dies aged 66
Rhoda Roberts was a creative powerhouse. (ABC News)
A guiding force in Australia’s arts scene and the woman who coined the term “Welcome to Country”, Aunty Rhoda Roberts AO has died at the age of 66.
WARNING: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander viewers are warned that this story includes images of an Indigenous person who has died. The ABC has been given permission to include her name and image.
The Widjabul Wieybal woman of the Bundjalung Nation dedicated much of her life to creating spaces for First Nations creatives to be front and centre in some of Australia’s biggest festivals and events.
Roberts accomplished many firsts, including as the first Aboriginal host on mainstream television, the inaugural head of Indigenous programming at the Sydney Opera House and SBS’s first Elder-in-residence.
Born with innate talent to nurture people, her career ranged from nursing, creative director, acting, festival director, producer and cultural adviser.
At the end of 2025, she was diagnosed with cancer.
Growing up on Country
Raised in Lismore in the Northern Rivers region of NSW on Bundjalung Country, Rhoda was born a twin in the big Roberts family.
Culture remained central to her life; her great-grandfather was the “last fully initiated man of the Bundjalung”. Her family defied government policies of the time to maintain its cultural knowledge, including dance and language.
Born to an Aboriginal father and a non-Indigenous mother, Roberts said her parents married at a time when they needed to get permission from the Protection Board.
“My mother had the view that it didn’t matter what colour a child was, it was all about their kinship and where they fitted and if you gave them the tools of life then life could be hunky dory.”
Roberts’s father Frank Roberts junior was a pastor and an activist, and she recalled her mother, Muriel, as artistic and an avid reader.
In a 1997 interview with Margaret Throsby, Roberts revealed the racism she and her family were subjected to in the Lismore community.
“We had colour bars in coffee shops … you could go in and buy it, but you couldn’t sit at the restaurant.
“The swimming pool was a good example, you could go and swim at the school carnival, but you certainly couldn’t go on weekends.”
Rhoda Roberts was a presenter of SBS’s Vox Populi current affairs program. (Supplied)
Despite the segregation and discrimination, her parents taught her to “defy” the naysayers.
Roberts said a comment her father made after seeing her reaction to a racist joke by another child stuck with her into adulthood.
“He said, ‘The black isn’t going to go away, you can do anything you want in the world.’
“From that day I thought, ‘Oh yeah, I will fight it.”
From nursing to the stage
Rhoda Roberts (back of group) was an actress on stage and on TV. (ABC)
Roberts dreamed of being a writer and journalist, but that path would take a detour.
“I just wanted to play the violin, become a journalist and write books. That was my dream, but of course that wasn’t possible in Lismore in the 70s,” she told ABC’s Conversations.
Instead, she was persuaded to take up nursing. She acquired the necessary caring skills young, having been a hospital volunteer, also known as “candy striper”.
“In those days they didn’t take Aboriginals into the three-year general nurses’ training. They would only take you in to be a nurses aid, and I didn’t want to be a nurses aid,” she said of Lismore hospital.
Her mother convinced a matron in Sydney, who had initially refused to take Roberts on, that she had another offer.
“I had to prove to those people that I could become a general nurse,” Roberts said.
After nursing in London she returned to Australia and decided to give acting a go at Brian Syron’s acting studio, and toured the nation in theatre productions.
Seeing the need for better Indigenous representation in the arts, she co-founded a theatre company called the Aboriginal National Theatre Trust.
Throughout it all her father’s advice to give back to the community stayed with her, and she volunteered at Radio Redfern.
“He always said to my sister and I, ‘The reason you are here, my Bundjalung princesses, is because you are of service to your people,'” she told Mamamia.
Roberts became the first Aboriginal host on mainstream television on SBS’s First in Line with Michael Johnson, and later the first Indigenous presenter on a prime-time current affairs program, Vox Populi.
She hosted Deadly Sounds for 21 years, and wrote, produced and edited documentaries including SBS’s In the Gutter? No Way in 1991.
On the ABC she presented the radio show Awaye! and hosted television programs A Sense of Place and A World of Difference.
Aboriginal culture on the world stage
Roberts’s role in the Sydney Olympics would be pivotal in the trajectory of her career.
In 1997 she became the director of the Festival of the Dreaming in the lead-up to the Olympic Games.
Rhoda Roberts was behind the artistic direction of the Awakening segment at the Sydney Olympics. (AAP: Dean Lewins)
She was also creative director of the Indigenous component of the Games’s opening ceremony called the Awakening.
Despite facing some backlash at the time, she was determined to put “artists up front where they belong”.
“The festival gave us the opportunity to invite non-Indigenous Australians into a very rare insight of Indigenous culture through music, theatre, dance, literature, film and the visual arts in a way that had never ever been seen before,” she told the ABC’s Speaking Out.
“No-one had seen Aboriginal Australia and they saw it in all its diversity, with our brothers and sisters from the Torres Strait. They saw the diversity of who we were and who we are, but they saw the excellence of our dance and our story.”
As artistic director of the Festival of the Dreaming, she saw an opportunity to show how First Nations people “host” people coming into their lands.
The idea was inspired by another of Roberts’s uncles who had offered to “sing that Country” during Nimbin’s Aquarius festival in 1973.
“To me that was the first ‘Welcome’. And he set a precedent that we should be welcoming people onto our Country,” she said.
While it was a protocol that had been observed for generations, formalising the practice in the arts scene and coining the term “Welcome to Country” was revolutionary.
“Everyone kept trying to correct it, ‘Welcome to the Country’ or ‘our Country’, and I said, ‘It’s not ours. We live with it.’ So that’s how it became Welcome to Country,” she told the ABC’s Indigenous Affairs Team in late 2025.
“It makes people feel special. It’s a bit like, if I’m going turn up at your house, I’m going to bring a good bottle of shiraz and a bunch of flowers. It’s good manners.”
The ceremony has transformed into Calling Country — heard every New Year’s Eve on Sydney Harbour, and for which Roberts was artistic director.
Changing the way people celebrated Indigenous talent
Koomurri dancers at a Dance Rites contest at the Sydney Opera House. (Supplied: Joseph Mayers)
In 2012 the Sydney Opera House created a role dedicated to her talent.
As the first head of Indigenous programming, she saw the establishment of First Nations events such as the Dance Rites competition, hosted the podcast Deadly Voices from the House, and oversaw the illumination of Aboriginal artwork on the iconic sails, Badu Gili.
“I have to remind people … that it is the first performing arts centre in this country — and indeed the world — that had a dedicated First Nations head of programming,” she said.
Her cultural and artistic advice has guided festivals across Australia including Vivid Sydney, Sydney’s News Year’s Eve celebrations, Parrtjima in Mparntwe Alice Springs, Shine on Gimuy in Cairns, as well as Boomerang at the Bluesfest in NSW.
“I have people across the country, our senior boss men and women, who culturally trust me with their stories, they trust me with their art,” she said.
“That’s pretty huge and I get to work with that every day.”
Family heartbreak
Just before her 21st birthday, her twin, Lois, was in a car accident that resulted in brain damage.
Although Roberts never thought of becoming a mother, in 1994 she took on the caring responsibilities for Lois’s daughter Emily.
At that time, she was married to the late actor Bill Hunter.
While Roberts was leading the Festival of the Dreaming at 38 years old, Lois went missing.
She said her concerns were dismissed by police at the time, and she recalled being told that her sister had gone “walkabout”.
Six months later Lois was found by a bushwalker in the Whian Whian State Forest. She had been kidnapped and murdered.
The story of Roberts’s devastation was told in the documentary A Sister’s Love, directed by Ivan Sen.
Roberts spoke of the heartbreak her family went through with the tragic loss of her twin sister in 1998 and the lack of justice that followed. She described her period of grieving as “losing a part of herself”.
Roberts told Conversations with Richard Fidler that she felt a sense of survivor’s guilt.
“I am so lucky and fortunate that I have wonderful children, I have wonderful family, I come from the oldest living culture.
“I have all that connection and then I’m able to keep myself on an even keel, I guess, because I can throw everything back into the passion I have for the arts and the work I do.”
Later life
Roberts was a playwright and, despite being diagnosed with a rare type of ovarian cancer, continued to be a presence on stage.
Rhoda Roberts at a Sydney Opera House event in 2025. (Supplied: NITV)
She was determined that “our ‘Rocky’ story” — that of her cousin Frank Roberts, the first Aboriginal man to represent Australia at the Olympics — would take its rightful place in the history books.
She penned her one-woman play My Cousin Frank about how the young man from Cubawee came to compete as a boxer in the 1964 Tokyo Games.
In December, her supporters fundraised and organised a private surprise event at the Sydney Opera House to celebrate her life and contribution to the arts.
An Elder-in-Residence at SBS, she returned to the public broadcaster that gave her the big break in journalism.
Giving back to her community, she was also the cultural lead for the Koori Mail based in Lismore — an Aboriginal-owned newspaper that was her father’s dream.
Her advice has shaped many boards, and she is a multi-award winner for her contributions to the arts. These include the Helpmann Awards’ Sue Nattrass Award, a Deadly Award for Broadcasting, and an Order of Australia in 2016.
A true trailblazer, her influence on how First Nations creatives are recognised and celebrated will have a long legacy.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Roberts’s generosity “enriched Australians’ lives” and “enlarged our nation’s understanding”.
“Rhoda made it easier for others to not just follow in her footsteps, but to continue the journey after her final one. That is power of her legacy and through it, Rhoda will always be with us.”
Minister for Indigenous Australians Malarndirri McCarthy said Roberts was a confidante and mentor to her during her time as a journalist in the 1990s.
“I will treasure our final conversation recently about how First Nations people are now everywhere in the arts and media sectors, in front of and behind cameras and on stage.”
Roberts is survived by her partner Stephen and her children, Jack, Sarah and Emily.
Australian Politics
The poem recited by Peter Malinauskas, the South Australian Premier, in his victory speech was “The Duty of Australians” by Henry Lawson.
Davenport is one of the cleanest examples of what has happened tonight in SA.
This was once Liberal suburbia. Middle class, mortgage belt, family households, separate homes, multiple cars in the driveway. ABS Census data shows 47.4% of occupied dwellings are owned with a mortgage, 77.6% are family households, 92.9% are separate houses, and 67.1% of households have two or more motor vehicles. It is also more educated than the old Liberal base.
And that is exactly why Davenport matters.
Labor has now turned a seat it only cracked in 2022 into safe Labor territory. The educated middle has stayed with Labor, while the protest vote on the Right has peeled away to One Nation. The Liberals have been squeezed so badly they are running fourth. In a seat that once represented suburban Liberal stability, they are now barely relevant.
This is the new fracture in Australian politics. The educated classes are not automatically drifting conservative just because they are middle class. In places like Davenport, they are proving willing to back Labor, while the angrier, anti-system vote is parking elsewhere. The result is a Liberal Party being hollowed out from both ends: losing educated suburban voters to Labor and losing its harder edge to One Nation.
Davenport used to be a Liberal seat. Tonight, it looks like a warning about the future.
American Politics
March 18, 2026
Heather Cox Richardson from Letters from an American <heathercoxrichardson@substack.com> Inbox
I was intending to take tonight off, but there’s big news—I mean, aside from all the other big news—that I want to make sure gets attention.
Back on February 23, Daniel Ruetenik, Pat Milton, and Cara Tabachnick of CBS News reported on a newly uncovered document in the Epstein files showing that beginning in December 2010 under the Obama administration, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) was running an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and fourteen other people for drug trafficking, prostitution, and money laundering. The document showed the investigation, called “Chain Reaction,” was still underway in 2015. But the investigation disappeared, although the document suggested that it was a significant investigation and that the government was on the verge of indictments.
As soon as the story broke, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said: “It appears Epstein was involved in criminal activity that went way beyond pedophilia and sex trafficking, which makes it even more outrageous that [Attorney General] Pam Bondi is sitting on several million unreleased files.”Wyden has been investigating the finances behind Epstein’s criminal sex-trafficking organization: it was his investigation that turned up the information that JPMorgan Chase neglected to report more than $1 billion in suspicious financial transactions linked to Epstein. Wyden has pushed hard for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to produce the records of those suspicious transactions for the Senate Finance Committee, but Bessent refuses.On February 25, two days after the story of the DEA investigation broke, Wyden wrote to Terrance C. Cole, administrator of the DEA, noting that “[t]he fact that Epstein was under investigation by the DOJ’s [organized crime drug enforcement] task force suggests that there was ample evidence indicating that Epstein was engaged in heavy drug trafficking and prostitution as part of cross-border criminal conspiracy. This is incredibly disturbing and raises serious questions as to how this investigation by the DEA was handled.”
He noted that Epstein and the fourteen co-conspirators were never charged for drug trafficking or financial crimes, and wrote: “I am concerned that the DEA and DOJ during the first Trump Administration moved to terminate this investigation in order to protect pedophiles.” He also noted that the heavy redactions in the document appear to go far beyond anything authorized by the Epstein Files Transparency Act and that since the document was not classified, “there is no reason to withhold an unredacted version of this document from the U.S. Congress.”Wyden asked Cole to produce a number of documents by March 13, 2026, including an unredacted copy of the memo in the files, information about what triggered the investigation, what types of drugs Epstein and his fourteen associates were buying or selling, when Operation Chain Reaction concluded and what was its result, why no one was charged, and why the names of the fourteen co-conspirators were redacted.
Today Wyden sent a letter to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal lawyer, saying: “It is my understanding that shortly after I requested an unredacted copy” of the document in the Epstein files, the Department of Justice “stepped in to prevent DEA from complying with my request. According to a confidential tip received by my staff, DEA Administrator Terry Cole was ready to provide an unredacted copy of the memorandum, but you stepped in to prevent him from doing so. My staff inquired with the DEA about the status of the production of this document and the DEA responded by directing questions to your office.”
The letter continued: “Your alleged interference in this matter is highly disturbing, not just because it continues the DOJ’s long-running obstruction of my investigation, but also because of your bizarrely favorable treatment of Ghislaine Maxwell, one of Epstein’s closest criminal associates. I should not have to explain the significance of the fact that Epstein was a target of [this high-level DEA] investigation. It suggests the government had ample evidence indicating he was engaged in large scale drug trafficking and prostitution as part of cross-border criminal conspiracy and that Epstein was likely pumping his victims, including underage girls, with incapacitating drugs to facilitate abuse. I am at a loss to understand why you are blocking further investigation of this matter.”Noting that the document in the files was “clearly marked as ‘unclassified’ at the top of every single page,” Wyden noted: “There is absolutely no reason to withhold an unredacted version of this document from the U.S. Congress.” He added: “In order to assist my investigation into this matter, I demand that you immediately authorize the release of this document.”
Wyden also posted today on social media: “HUGE: Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche—Trump’s former personal lawyer who was also responsible for Ghislaine Maxwell’s transfer to a cushy club fed—has intervened to block the DEA from providing details of a mysterious Epstein investigation to my Finance Committee team…. This is stunning interference. The document I’m after literally says ‘unclassified’ at the top. The investigation it details is closed. Given Blanche’s close personal ties to Donald Trump, this reeks of a continued coverup to protect key names in the Trump administration.”
Wyden’s post echoes the September 13, 2019, letter from then-chair of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff (D-CA) to Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, in which Schiff called out Maguire for illegally withholding a whistleblower complaint.
In that 2019 letter, Schiff warned: “The Committee can only conclude…that the serious misconduct at issue involves the President of the United States and/or other senior White House or Administration officials. This raises grave concerns that your office, together with the Department of Justice and possibly the White House, are engaged in an unlawful effort to protect the President and conceal from the Committee information related to his possible ‘serious or flagrant’ misconduct, abuse of power, or violation of law.”
Schiff was right: the whistleblower had flagged Trump’s July 2019 phone call with newly elected Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky, demanding Zelensky smear Joe Biden’s son Hunter before Trump would release the money Congress had appropriated for Ukraine to fight off the Russian invasion that had begun in 2014. That information led to the story that Trump’s White House was running its own secret operation in Ukraine, apart from the State Department, for Trump’s own benefit. That story led to Trump’s first impeachment by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.Schiff was the lead impeachment manager of the impeachment trial in the Senate, and in his closing argument, he implored Senate Republicans to bring accountability to “a man without character.”
“You will not change him. You cannot constrain him. He is who he is. Truth matters little to him. What’s right matters even less, and decency matters not at all.”“You can’t trust this president to do the right thing. Not for one minute, not for one election, not for the sake of our country,” Schiff said. “You just can’t. He will not change and you know it.” “A man without character or ethical compass will never find his way.”
Axios AM
1 big thing: America’s next class war — AI fluency
Anthropic just dropped the most granular data yet on who’s actually using AI and how — and the findings should rattle anyone thinking the AI gains will be evenly distributed, Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen write in a new “Behind the Curtain” column.
It won’t. In fact, it’s creating a new form of economic inequality: AI fluency. Why it matters: The Anthropic data, out this morning, reveals something subtler and more consequential than the “robots take your job” narrative.
The real divide isn’t between people who use AI and people who don’t. It’s between experienced AI users and newcomers to AI. AI continues to pose a serious risk to any automatable jobs, which Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has warned could wipe out half of entry-level white-collar work.
Two workflow categories doubled in prevalence between November and February: automated sales and outreach, and automated trading.But AIwill also be a growing threat to casual or unsophisticated users who fall behind their more AI-savvy peers, regardless of role or level.”Much of the discussion focuses on how AI is something that happens to you,” Peter McCrory, Anthropic’s head of economics, told us from the company’s headquarters in San Francisco.
“This analysis shows you can develop skills that make you better at getting value out of Claude or whatever large language model you want to use.” Some context: Anthropic’s new report, “Anthropic Economic Index: Learning Curves,” studied over 1 million conversations on the company’s Claude platform last month.
The headline finding: Experienced AI users get better results out of an AI model than newcomers. And the gap isn’t explained by what tasks they’re doing, what country they’re in, or what model they’re using.People who’ve used Claude for six months or more have a 10% higher success rate in their conversations with AI. “The longer you’ve been using it, the stronger this effect,” McCrory says. Adoption of Claude in hypereducated Washington, D.C., is four times the adoption rate you’d expect for a city of its size.
Globally, inequality in usage has persisted since Anthropic’s last report, in January, in the 20 higher-income countries with the most Claude use.
That’s a skills gap hardening into a class gap in real time. But you can escape it by experimenting, getting comfortable, getting deft, getting fluent.Anthropic’s researchers are candid that this could be early-adopter selection bias or survivorship — maybe sophisticated users simply signed up first.
But Anthropic’s finding certainly mirrors our personal experience. Between the lines: People think of AI as a tool, when you should think of it as a never-before-imagined toolbox — it allows you to not just automate a boring task, but stretch your abilities across most things you touch at work. But only once you start to master prompts, and pushback, and persistence when unsatisfying or unilluminating answers come back.Jim started using the models like most — like a search engine. But then they became his best researcher … then idea stress-tester … then builder of prototypes for new businesses. He’s basically at the six-month mark Anthropic describes, and discovering new use cases every week. You have to move up the AI proficiency ladder. Using a large language model as a search engine or copy editor is dumb AI. Even having it draft emails for you is like having a celebrity chef boil your water.
The report divides tasks into “automation” (do this task) and “augmentation” — more polished, sophisticated inputs like using the LLM as a thought partner that spits out ideas and feedback, or writes a business plan, or stress-tests a business plan, or coaches and teaches you.Think how much more valuable AI dexterity will make you to your current organization — or how much more marketable it’ll make you to a future employer. The big picture: This report lands in the middle of the most anxious era Americans have experienced about AI and jobs since OpenAI’s ChatGPT moment after the model’s release in late 2022.An NBC News poll from earlier this month found that 57% of registered voters believe AI’s risks outweigh its benefits.
Only 26% have positive feelings about the technology — a net favorability lower than that of any other topic polled, except the Democratic Party and Iran. (AI was two points less popular than ICE.)AI users are getting better, while AI anxiety surges and the job market deteriorates. It’s a reality that Washington isn’t confronting with consistency and seriousness.Washington is debating AI in the abstract: Should we regulate it, should we race China, should we worry about superintelligence?But the Anthropic report makes the near-term problem concrete: Signs of a two-tier workforce are already emerging. And neither party has a plan for people on the wrong side of it.
What Anthropic found in observing real-world use: Skilled AI users are getting better at collaborating with Claude to do a wide variety of work, not just automate specific activities.The bottom line: The people already using AI for high-value work may pull further ahead, with real implications for who captures the economic benefits of this technology.
1 big thing: America’s next class war — AI fluency
FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS
Our 34th annual conference coincides with the centenary of the founding of The Women’s Library, and provides the perfect opportunity to celebrate this unique resource, as well as 100 years of women’s history. The Women’s Library is the oldest and largest library in Britain devoted to the history of women’s campaigning and activism and encompasses a library, an archive and a museum. Founded in 1926 as the Library of the London Society for Women’s Service, it became the Fawcett Library in 1953 and was renamed The Women’s Library in 2002. It has moved several times, finding permanent residence at the LSE in 2013.
We welcome submissions that fit within the library’s centenary years, 1926-2026. While these may be connected, directly or indirectly, to material that is held in The Women’s Library collections, this is not a prerequisite. Possible topics of interest might include, but are certainly not limited to:· Women and Suffrage, campaigning in public and political life· Women, prostitution and trafficking· Women and work· Women and sport· Women, welfare, social security and the family· Women and refugees· Women’s print media· Black and Asian Women· Women and philanthropy· Feminism and Religion· Women’s Liberation Movement· Women and the Environment· Women and Internationalism· LGBT+ including, for example Gay Liberation Front, Christian Voices Coming Out
We invite submissions of 150 – 200 word abstracts for 15 minute papers which take a critical look at the chosen area of history. Proposals are welcomed from scholars working at all levels, including those without an institutional affiliation, and from those working outside academia, in heritage, for example, or in other historically linked sectors
All submissions must be on the form which is downloadable here and emailed to: whnconference2026@gmail.com by 30 April 2026.
We are offering a limited number of bursaries to support postgraduates, early career scholars, those not affiliated to a university (therefore not eligible for university funding towards academic conferences) and those with extenuating circumstances. Further information on the bursaries available can be found in the newsletter below (Upcoming competitions, scholarships and internships section), and application form is downloadable here.
M.L. Stedman A Far-flung Life Penguin Random House Australia| Penguin eBooks (AU Adult), March 2026.
Thank you, NetGalley, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
I found M. L. Stedman’s The Light Between Oceans a stunning, poignant read. A Far-flung Life is both, and more. The writing is beautiful, the plotting refined, characterisation excellent, and the description of the Australian environment, superb. The MacBride family, Phil and Lorna, and their children Warren, Rosie and Matt gain their livelihood from Meredith Downs, a Western Australian sheep station. As the male MacBrides travel through the bush, their truck full of sheep, and miles from any ocean, their ownership of a boat, housed in a towering shed on the property is the first hint that this is an outback Australian family whose lives may be unusual. However, familiar aspects of life on the land also rule the MacBride’s lives. Warren, as the eldest son will inherit the station when Phil retires and Matt and Rosie must find other futures. Matt’s seems assured – he is excelling at a prestigious boarding school in Perth and feels that he can do anything, including sailing the boat. Rosie, although also at a prestigious boarding school in Perth, does not have the same prospects. Not only is she less academic, but it is also understood that she will marry another station owner and follow in Lorna’s footsteps. The world is not open to her, nor is independence. The unique responses she devises provide both possibilities and vulnerability. This trip, with its evocative depiction of the surrounds, foliage, wildlife, the road, the sky, will change the MacBride’s lives.
Moral dilemmas impact a family suffering grief and markedly changed circumstances. The morality imposed by country life and small compact communities, conflicts between the law and understanding of the shortcomings of the legal system, together with figures in authority choosing one path or the other are explored. Characters whose flaws and courage under immense challenge are also examined. Even seemingly minor characters are so well developed that their aims and concerns become strong threads that help weave the story together into a remarkable narrative that pulses with feeling.
At the same time as being a novel in which the characters evoke interest, sympathy and, at times censure, A Far-flung Life explores historical changes in Western Australia. The first chapters describe life when pastoral properties associated with small country towns dominated, going back into the past that the MacBrides enjoyed, to the events of 1958 when the novel begins, and the immediate aftermath, through the years up to the introduction of mining exploration in the late 1960s to the 1970s and then again in the 1980s. There are reflections on the 1890s goldrushes and the immigration associated with these, the ‘boom and bust’ nature of the economy, a possible connection with Kew Gardens which serves as a reminder of the British heritage of some Australian settlers and the scourge of asbestos mining recalling other waves of immigration.
An immense novel of tragedy, tenderness, courage and memorable characters and events, this also becomes a domestic story where the MacBrides and their wider family overcome setbacks. Quietly they go about their business on the land and with each other, eventually making assured choices and judgements that resonate with the rhythms of the land on which they dwell.
Julia Wagner Hester Street Bloomsbury Academic, October 2025.
Thank you, NetGalley and Bloomsbury Academic, for this uncorrected proof for review.
This inspiring book provides the blueprint for three studies – analysis of a film; analysis of the depiction of a group that is the focus of a work of art; and detailed analysis of the film that is the topic of the book – Hester Street. It is worth considering the broad sweeping value of Julia Wagner’s Hester Street to each of these studies. The first two aspects demonstrate the value of Wagner’s work to creating a measure for analysing any artistic endeavour and depictions of groups within those works. That is, Hester Street might not be the film that you want to analyse but provides excellent tools for evaluating any film. Similarly, studies of groups will benefit from the detailed work undertaken in this text. It is a stellar source for studying much creative work. And that is before approaching the topic of the book, the analysis of Hester Street, the film.
Chapters cover topics such as the way in which visual and spoken language conveyed historical information; how immigration impacted on perspectives in Hester Street; the symbolic values associated with costume and ritual; and the relative freedom Jews experienced in America, using Yiddish widely as well broadening their cultural pursuits through this increased freedom, depicted through descriptions of individual characters. The last chapter, discussing reviews of the film, was a standout in its detail and forbearance. The reviews provide such an insight into the understandings that coloured the way in which the film was assessed. That some reviewers felt quite able to exhibit their antisemitism and sexism provided a look into a world in which such egregious utterances seemed to be acceptable.
There are notes, a bibliography, and photographs. The thorough analysis benefits both general studies and the specific examination of Hester Street, making the book an outstanding resource. Through the last chapter, what is a dedicated analysis of Hester Street became a more broadly focussed look at the environment in which it was shaped. What a gem this book is!
Australian Politics
Thank Paul Keating for creating Superannuation !!
Labor appears set to reform capital gains tax discount after parliamentary inquiry findings*
Report reveals the Howard-era settings are helping fuel intergenerational inequality in Australia’s housing market.
Labor has given one of its strongest signals yet the capital gains tax discount will be reworked in the May budget, with a parliamentary inquiry finding the Howard-era settings are helping fuel intergenerational inequality in Australia’s housing market.
A Greens-led parliamentary inquiry said the 50% discount “skewed the ownership of housing away from owner-occupiers and towards investors”.
“The benefits of the capital gains tax discount are also unequally distributed, with implications for income and wealth inequality and intergenerational inequality,” the report released on Tuesday found.
The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, has signalled a willingness to make changes to the discount, introduced in 1999 for assets held for more than a year.
Along with negative gearing rules, the discount has been blamed for promoting housing as an investment mechanism for wealthier Australians over the rights of would-be first time buyers.
Labor members on the committee linked possible changes to government work already under way ahead of the 12 May budget and last year’s economic reform roundtable, which promised to address intergenerational inequality in the tax system.
Treasury is modelling changes that could see the discount reduced to 33% for housing investors, while retaining the current 50% rate for shares and other investments.
The Greens Treasury spokesperson, Nick McKim, used the report to argue Labor’s majority and the Greens balance of power in the Senate represented an opportunity for the government to pass ambitious tax reform in the current parliament. In the report, he noted when the discount was established, 57% of 30 to 34-year-olds owned property. That figure has since dropped to 50%.
“The [discount] means that if you go to work as a teacher, a bartender or software developer you pay double the amount of tax than someone who received the same amount of money taking advantage of soaring property prices by buying and selling investment properties,” McKim said.
“It means that someone who speculates on housing pays a lower rate of tax than the carpenters, plumbers and electricians who actually build the houses.”
Chalmers said he would be briefed on the report’s findings in coming days, stressing budget decisions would be made by cabinet.
“It will no doubt identify some issues which are familiar to us,” he said.
“But I’ll read it, of course, I will. I’ve said that the government’s policies haven’t changed in this area. Any further steps will be a matter for the cabinet.”
Coalition senators strongly rejected calls for change however.
“If Labor pursues changes to the CGT discount, it will be another simplistic and one-dimensional response that sidesteps the central problem in housing, that not enough homes are being built,” Liberals Andrew Bragg and Dave Sharma said in a statement.
“The real answer to housing affordability is more supply, not another Labor housing gimmick.”
Independent senator David Pocock used the report to suggest Labor had “overlearned” the lessons of its 2016 and 2019 election defeats, when changes to CGT and negative gearing were rejected by voters.
Pocock recommended removing the discount for properties bought after 1 July this year, with a new 25% discount introduced for new homes. He called for negative gearing arrangements to be limited to a single investment property.
Research released last week by the Australian Council of Social Services found the five highest earning electorates nationally capture 22% of all CGT discount expenditure, against just 1.6% for the bottom 10 electorates.
A tax white paper released by the Sydney independent Allegra Spender this month argued for reducing the CGT discount to 30% as part of wider reform package that would allow major cuts to income taxes.
*See March 4, 2025, blog where Bob McMullan’s article on capital gains tax How Australia should fix capital gains tax appears. The article was also published in Pearls and Irritations.
American Politics
This is an old story, but the analysis is worth repeating here. In the meantime, the case against Mark Kelly has been blocked.
The Pentagon’s move to demote Senator Mark Kelly for accurately saying that troops should refuse illegal orders is a pernicious form of political bullying.
One indicator of a polity’s health is whether a citizen can be punished merely for telling the truth about the law. The signs for American democracy are not good.
This morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that he has begun the process to demote Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain and NASA astronaut, and reduce his pension pay. The operative facts here, naturally, are not Kelly’s past service but his current rank and service: a Democrat serving in the U.S. Senate and a political adversary of President Donald Trump.
“Six weeks ago, Senator Mark Kelly—and five other members of Congress—released a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline,” Hegseth wrote on X this morning. He cited two articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; Kelly, unlike the other five, holds retired military status, which makes him subject to sanctions from the Defense Department.
What Hegseth did not cite was what Kelly and his colleagues actually said in the video, and for good reason. Doing so would expose the absurdity of the charge and the abuse of power involved in the attempt to demote him. “Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders,” Kelly said. No one in the Trump administration has disputed that this is true. A more agile or even-keeled administration would have smoothly dismissed the video as irrelevant: This is true, but of course we would never issue an illegal order. (As Kelly and his lawyers have noted, Hegseth has cited the same law about disobeying illegal orders in the past.) Instead, Trump and his aides threw a fit, dubbing the Democrats the “Seditious Six.”
One possible reason for the frantic response became apparent quickly. Not only have U.S. forces been conducting likely unlawful strikes on boats in the Caribbean; late last year, several newssources reported new details about the first attack, in which the initial strike had not killed all those aboard the boat, so a second strike was ordered. The Pentagon’s own Law of War Manual for service members states that “orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.” This revelation made the video from Kelly and company not just hypothetical but directly relevant. It also put Hegseth on the defensive, even among Republican members of Congress, and he quickly shifted blame to Admiral Mitch Bradley, who commanded the operation.
In contrast to the language in the Law of War Manual, the UCMJ articles upon which Hegseth rests his decision to discipline Kelly are vague, involving “conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman” and “all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces.” As my colleague Tom Nichols has noted, these provisions might apply to Hegseth’s own admitted behavior while in uniform. Punishing Kelly is extremely pernicious political retaliation. It also ought to be embarrassing to Hegseth, though he seems as impervious to shame as his boss.
The censure is appealable in the next 30 days, and Kelly vowed to fight it. (If it goes through, it could cost him roughly $1,000 a month in pay, per Politico.) “My rank and retirement are things that I earned through my service and sacrifice for this country. I got shot at. I missed holidays and birthdays. I commanded a space shuttle mission while my wife,” former Representative Gabby Giffords, “recovered from a gunshot wound to the head—all while proudly wearing the American flag on my shoulder,” he said in a statement on X. “If Pete Hegseth, the most unqualified Secretary of Defense in our country’s history, thinks he can intimidate me with a censure or threats to demote me or prosecute me, he still doesn’t get it.”
Kelly is one of several critics of Trump to be targeted by the administration in the past year. The administration has repeatedly sought to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey; launched investigations into a major Democratic fundraising platform and prominent politicians including Senator Adam Schiff; and used administration policy to bully states that don’t fully cooperate with Trump—most recently vetoing a bipartisan bill on a Colorado water project, apparently as punishment for the state’s refusal to free a former local official who backed up Trump’s false claims of voter fraud.
Despite Kelly’s defiance, his attempted demotion sends a message, even if it ultimately doesn’t come to pass. Kelly has the resources and political support to fight for his views, and he’ll get plenty of prominent backers. But if a notable figure like Kelly can be punished, how can any ordinary soldier or sailor who is currently serving hope to refuse an illegal order without facing serious personal consequences?
Members of the armed forces, and retirees like Kelly, are particularly susceptible to Hegseth’s abuse of power, because they can be punished by the Defense Department internally. But the chilling effect does not end with those who are serving or have served, or with the particular question of illegal orders. The administration has told the other five Democrats that it is investigating them as well. The core belief underlying all of this is as plain as it is dangerous: Criticizing Donald Trump and defending the rule of law is sedition.
Judge blocks Pentagon from downgrading Sen. Mark Kelly’s military rank, pay*
By Jacob Rosen,Sarah N. Lynch Updated on: February 12, 2026 / 8:08 PM EST / CBS News
A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Pentagon from downgrading the military retirement rank and pay of Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, finding that the government had “trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms.”…
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon’s order prohibits the Defense Department and the Trump administration from taking any adverse action against Kelly to reduce his retirement rank and pay.
“This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees,” Leon wrote. “After all, as Bob Dylan famously said, ‘You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.'”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote on social media that the ruling would be “immediately appealed.”
Leon’s ruling comes a month after Kelly sued Hegseth, arguing that he was the target of “extreme rhetoric and punitive retribution” by the Trump administration.
Kelly asked Leon to set aside Hegseth’s recent moves to demote him and cut his military pension, and to block the enforcement of any punishment against him.
Leon’s decision came two days after federal prosecutors in U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office failed to secure an indictment against Kelly and the other Democratic lawmakers who appeared in the video. Prosecutors had hoped to charge them with violating a federal law that makes it a crime to counsel or cause “insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or reversal of duty” by military members, sources previously told CBS News…
The Defense Department said in December it was escalating its review into a command investigation. Hegseth then announced that the Pentagon had “initiated retirement grade determination proceedings” that could result in a “reduction in his retired grade” and “a corresponding reduction in retired pay.” Hegseth also said he issued a formal letter to censure Kelly, citing his “reckless misconduct.”
In a statement, Kelly said Leon’s order “made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said. But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That’s why I couldn’t let it stand.”
“I also know that this might not be over yet, because this President and this administration do not know how to admit when they’re wrong,” Kelly continued. “One thing is for sure: however hard the Trump administration may fight to punish me and silence others, I will fight ten times harder. This is too important.”
CBS News has reached out to the Defense Department for comment. The Justice Department declined to comment.
At a recent court hearing, Leon grilled the Justice Department and expressed strong reservations about the Pentagon’s efforts. Active-duty military officers typically face limitations on their right to free speech to promote discipline and obedience, but the military is now seeking to extend those limits to retired service members like Kelly.
“That’s never been done,” Leon told Justice Department attorney John Bailey during the Feb. 3 hearing, adding that the government did not have a single case to support the argument.
“You’re asking me to do something that the Supreme Court has never done,” Leon said. “That’s a bit of a stretch, is it not?”
In his ruling on Thursday, Leon reiterated those concerns again.
“Secretary Hegseth relies on the well-established doctrine that military servicemembers enjoy less vigorous First Amendment protections given the fundamental obligation for obedience and discipline in the armed forces,” Leon wrote.
“Unfortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military. This Court will not be the first to do so!”
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Arizona) held nothing back when discussing President Donald Trump‘s recent war efforts with Iran…
“I’m thinking, you could pick a random group of people off the street tonight here in Washington, D.C. — just a random group — and they could probably do a better job than our government is doing right now with this,” Kelly said while discussing the events with MS NOW’s Jen Psaki.
“They don’t have a goal, there’s no strategic plan, there’s no timeline, and what this is likely to lead to is, again, a long war with a lot of dead Americans and no rationale for how this is helping the American people,” the senator continued.
“We have a president that I have serious concerns about whether he understands his role here,” the Arizona senator said.
Kelly has been a staunch critic of Trump’s Operation Epic Fury, especially since it was confirmed that six American soldiers were killed during Iranian counterstrikes.
The Arizona senator is a former U.S. Navy pilot and a current member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Heather Cox Richardson from Letters from an American <heathercoxrichardson@substack.com>March 17, 2026
Yesterday, President Donald J. Trump continued to demand that other countries help the U.S. reopen the Strait of Hormuz for tanker traffic, but one by one, they declined. It is a dangerous business, and since Trump launched the war without consulting anyone, they don’t seem inclined to help him out of the mess he created. For his part, Trump has told reporters that “numerous countries” have told him “they’re on their way” to help enable ships to transit the strait, but he has also threatened to leave the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) over allies’ unwillingness to help clear the strait.
Trump has never articulated a clear reason for the war, but Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli officials have opened another front in Lebanon, saying they intend to destroy the terror infrastructure there as they did in Gaza. So far, Israel’s recent operations in Lebanon have killed more than 850 people and displaced at least 800,000.Thomas Grove, Milàn Czerny, and Benoit Faucon of the Wall Street Journal reported today that Russia has expanded its efforts to keep Iran in the fight against the U.S. and Israel, offering more intelligence sharing and military cooperation. Russia is providing drone components and satellite imagery that enables Iran to strike U.S. troops and radar systems. The reporters say that “Russia is trying to keep its closest Middle Eastern partner in the fight against U.S. and Israeli military might and prolong a war that is benefiting Russia militarily and economically.”
Meanwhile, Iran has been moving its own ships through the strait and appears to be willing to allow passage through for countries that are willing to negotiate with it. If that practice becomes widespread, prices on oil will ease, making it harder for Iran to keep up pressure on the U.S. and Israel.Oil is now selling at more than $100 a barrel, up from about $70 a barrel before the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran that began on February 28, and gas prices have risen by at least $0.70 a gallon since then. As David Goldman of CNN reports, Iran’s ability to stop most traffic through the Strait of Hormuz threatens not just about 20% of the world’s oil supply as well as natural gas. About 20% of the world’s fertilizer also passes through the strait, which will affect crops for this year’s growing season. It will also limit helium—necessary for the cooling process when making silicon chips and cooling medical equipment—and aluminum.
Anna Kramer of NOTUS reported today that last fall the Trump administration cut all the State Department staffers from the Bureau of Energy Resources who were in charge of maintaining diplomatic contacts with foreign energy bureaus and Middle East gas and oil companies. Those laid off included the only expert in tracking sanctioned oil tankers, and the person in charge of coordinating with the international agency that manages releases of oil reserves around the world to address crises.
“There was never any handover or transition. There was no formal handover of contacts or anything like that. We were all just let go,” one former State Department energy official told Kramer. Those trying to work on energy issues with the U.S. government after their departure could not find any contacts.Nine former members of the bureau told Kramer it seems clear the administration did not prepare for a global oil crisis. Trump’s claim that “nobody expected” Iran to hit other countries in the Middle East supports their statement because, as they told Kramer, previous administrations planned for exactly that scenario.
Judd Legum of Popular Information explained today that the administration decommissioned the last of its four minesweeper ships in September. Based in Bahrain, the vessels were equipped to find and destroy both moored and bottom mines. They were supposed to be replaced with new systems that use unmanned vehicles, but those have so far been unreliable, and the systems apparently have not been deployed. Legum points out that starting a military operation without anti-mining ships in the region to protect traffic through the Strait of Hormuz illustrates how poorly officials planned.
According to Aaron Rupar of Public Notice, Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) observed that Trump “has more plans for the ballroom he’s trying to build at the East Wing than anything he’s gonna do next in the Middle East.”The fact that Trump’s allies in the White House are backing away from the war, talking to journalists like Politico’s Megan Messerly for a piece published today, suggests they see this conflict as a political disaster. Sources told Messerly they hoped the strikes would be quick, removing Iran’s leader much as Trump’s Venezuela strikes did in January. They said they thought Trump’s vagueness on objectives would let him declare victory whenever he wanted to.Now, though, the sources told Messerly, they think Trump “no longer controls how, or when, the war ends.” One told her: “We clearly just kicked [Iran’s] ass in the field, but, to a large extent, they hold the cards now. They decide how long we’re involved—and they decide if we put boots on the ground. And it doesn’t seem to me that there’s a way around that, if we want to save face.” Another warned that officials in the White House “need to worry about an unraveling.”
The sense that Trump has dragged the U.S. into a war in the Middle East is splitting MAGA leadership. Isolationists who supported Trump’s claims of being “America First” and ending long foreign wars are turning on those supporting Trump’s Iranian incursion, and their attacks on social media have become deeply personal. They seem to be trying to hive their supporters off from Trump to coalesce around an even more extreme white nationalism that highlights antisemitism.Today Joe Kent, a staunch Trump ally, resigned as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, saying that he supported “the values and the foreign policies” Trump had campaigned on but that he “cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”
Although Kent is correct that U.S. intelligence assessed that Iran posed no imminent threat to the U.S., both the White House and House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) pushed back aggressively on Kent’s statements, trying to justify their Iran entanglement.Johnson said, “We all understood that there was clearly an imminent threat that Iran was very close to the enrichment of nuclear capability and they were building missiles at a pace no one in the region could keep up with.” Trump seemed to try to blame former president Barack Obama for the crisis, telling reporters today that “if I didn’t terminate Obama’s horrible deal that he made…, you would have had a nuclear war four years ago. You would have had…nuclear holocaust, and you would have had it again if we didn’t bomb the site.”
Trump told reporters he thought Kent was a “nice guy” but “very weak on security,” and that he didn’t know Kent well.Yesterday Trump told reporters that a former president told him, “I wish I did what you did” in attacking Iran. He added, “I don’t want to get into ‘who,’ I don’t want to get him into trouble,” although he said it wasn’t former president George W. Bush and also implied it was a Democrat. Chris Cameron of the New York Times reported that those close to all former Democratic presidents—Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joseph R. Biden—deny that they said any such thing or that they have had any contact with Trump lately.
This morning, Trump posted on social media: “Because of the fact that we have had such Military Success, we no longer ‘need,’ or desire, the NATO Countries’ assistance—WE NEVER DID! Likewise, Japan, Australia, or South Korea. In fact, speaking as President of the United States of America, by far the Most Powerful Country Anywhere in the World, WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!”
Meanwhile, Trump appears to be attempting to remove the leadership of Cuba. Frances Robles, Edward Wong, and Annie Correal of the New York Times reported yesterday that U.S. officials want to force Cuban president Miguel Díaz-Canel from power but will leave the next steps up to the Cuban people. The reporters note such a move might enable Trump to declare a victory. The U.S. has cut off the oil that feeds Cuba’s energy grid, forcing it to collapse.Yesterday, Trump told reporters: “I do believe I’ll be the honor of, having the honor of taking Cuba. That’d be good,” he said. “That’s a big honor. Taking Cuba, in some form, yeah, taking Cuba. I mean, whether I free it, take it. I think I could do anything I want with it, if you want to know the truth. They’re a very, uh, weakened nation right now.”
Trump’s team has blamed the media for what he insists are unfair reports about the Iran conflict. He has also gone after the Supreme Court, complaining on Sunday about its ruling that his tariffs were unconstitutional, but also complaining that the justices permitted Biden to be inaugurated, continuing to insist—in the face of all evidence to the contrary—that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. He insisted that “[t]his completely inept and embarrassing Court” is “hurting our Country, and will continue to do so. All I can do, as President, is call them out for their bad behavior!” Trump called the court “little more than a weaponized and unjust Political Organization.”
Trump’s pressure on the court over his claims of political weaponization and the 2020 presidential election seems designed to enlist their support for his claims that the 2026 election was rigged if voters choose Democratic majorities in the House and/or the Senate. Trump told House members in January that if the Republicans don’t retain control of the House, he will be impeached.Trump and his loyalists insist that Congress must pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act to prevent Democrats from stealing the 2026 election, with Trump posting on social media today: “The Save America Act is one of the most IMPORTANT & CONSEQUENTIAL pieces of legislation in the history of Congress, and America itself. NO MORE RIGGED ELECTIONS! Voter I.D., Proof of Citizenship, No Rigged Mail-In Voting….”
The Republicans won the House, the Senate, and the presidency in 2024, making it hard to argue that Republicans cannot win without new voting rules, but as G. Elliot Morris of Strength in Numbers noted today, since then Trump has lost the working-class white voters and Latino voters who put him in office. Republicans could woo them back but instead are trying to push voters off the rolls by demanding proof of citizenship to vote.It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections—such voting is vanishingly rare— and states, which run elections, already require ID. According to the Brennan Center for Justice and the University of Maryland’s Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, Trump’s demand that voters provide proof of citizenship—a passport or a birth certificate and matching REAL ID—when registering to vote and again at the polls would cut as many as 21 million voters off the rolls.To push the measure through the Senate, Republicans will have to kill the filibuster that requires 60 votes to move a bill forward from debate. Trump is demanding Senate majority leader John Thune (R-SD) make that change to Senate rules, but Thune and less-MAGA Republicans don’t want to. Republicans say they want to debate the measure so that Democrats will be forced to defend their objection to it, but already the fight seems to be shaping up as between Republicans eager to pass a voter suppression bill to support Trump, and those willing to protect voters as well as their own voices in the Senate.Tonight the Senate voted to take up the measure.—
A few days in Perth meant eating out. The best meal was at my sister-in-law’s where we ate too much but enjoyed ourselves. I was pleased to be able to eat the food that I often only see in photographs on Facebook placed by her admiring (and very fortunate) children.
Eating out in Joondalup brought us the familiar toast and vegemite/peanut paste which was comforting.
We also came upon a market one evening, which was a change from restaurants. Eating outside in Perth is pleasant – on this occasion it was not too hot, and of course it was quite different from enforced (Leah) outside eating in Canberra in the cold. The chicken sate skewers and salad were flavoursome and generous. The curry was also a good choice, but not as delicious as the curries served the previous day.
And then there is Dome! Fortunately, this chain is not in Canberra, so the honeycomb chocolate latte is a one off. It was $1 cheaper than the fruit drink beside it, but that is its only virtue. It tasted wonderful. I did not eat all the chips with my fish tacos. The tomato and halloumi bruschetta was very good.
The Booker Prize Foundation – Eight Booker Prize-nominated books that celebrate ‘spinster lit’
From Victorian Britain to contemporary Ukraine, these books feature unmarried women who, in their own unique ways, push back against the social rules and sexism that constrain them
Written by Emily Facoory
Publication date and time:Published February 12, 2026
Unmarried women – so-called ‘spinsters’ – have often been represented unkindly in books, portrayed as undesirable and lonely. Finding a husband and having children – if the tacit rules of 20th century life were to be believed – were the rites of passage for any self-regarding woman. Those who followed a different path were considered by the more traditional members of society to have been ‘left on the shelf’.
Looking back through a modern lens, however, it’s clear that readers have reclaimed the word as a sub-genre of its own; ‘spinster lit’ can be seen as an attempt to challenge misconceptions about the lives of unmarried, often middle-aged women, especially in the mid-to-late 20th century.
Online blogs and forums suggest that Booker-nominated author Barbara Pym has been crowned the ‘queen of spinster lit’, as her novels often include unmarried female characters who have rich and vibrant lives. Camilla Nelson, writing in the Conversation, described Pym’s spinsters as ‘consistently fulfilled and satisfying’, while Ginny Hogan, writing in Electric Literature, said, ‘I see in her characters spinsters of the type I aspire to be: incisive, busy, and fine with or without a partner. Pym was ahead of her time in pointing out how inglorious coupledom was. So ahead, in fact, that we haven’t yet caught up to her.’
Although many of us still find ourselves under pressure to find a partner and start a family, it has become socially acceptable to stay single for longer. According to statistics from Our World in Data, ‘Of the women born in 1940 in the UK, more than 90% were married by age 30… Meanwhile, among those born in 1990, only about 29% of women were married by age 30.’
As the annual fervour around Valentine’s Day builds once more, we thought it was time to celebrate some of the spinsters who play starring roles in Booker-nominated novels. These are unattached women who push up against social and romantic mores, and are ultimately striving to find a way to live on their own terms, whether that’s in England in the 1850s, the Netherlands in the late 1940s, or contemporary Ukraine on the verge of war.
Longlisted for the Booker Prize in 2025, Endling revolves around three Ukrainian women caught up in the marriage industry, earning money from men seeking Ukrainian wives.
Unbothered by love and relationships, Yeva is a scientist travelling across the country, desperately trying to save multiple rare species of snails. She meets two sisters, Nastia and Sol, who have been inspired by their activist mother to expose the marriage industry’s exploitative nature. Containing bizarre kidnapping plots and subverting the damsel in distress stereotype, Endling follows the three determined women as they journey through a nation on the verge of war.
According to Akhila Ramnarayan, writing in Frontline, ‘You cannot help but marvel at Reva’s stunningly original premise, her rapidly paced, oh-so-dexterous prose, and her ability to animate a truly unforgettable constellation of misfits. The three female protagonists are distinctly etched, their initial reservations about one another melting into prickly, tender loyalty, even trust, as the novel progresses.’
Amanda Reynolds The Screenwriter Boldwood Books, January 2024
Thank you, NetGalley, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
This title attracted me and, although unattracted to Reynold’s Close to Me in its televised form, suggests that potentially I have found a new source of entertaining psychological thrillers. The Screenwriter has the added attraction of including social commentary together with the staples of this genre, mystery, devious characters and some intriguing plotting. In this novel, scrutiny of the Hollywood world as the MeToo movement has become part of its public discourse, is woven into the plotting and characterisation.
A prologue introduces Blythe Hopper who, upon looking out of her tower in her home in Hampstead, sees a spire of smoke arising from her garden. Headache forgotten along with the insults she has had to endure from a young journalist and mixed reminisces about her marriage, she hastens downstairs, runs through the kitchen where signs of a fight are apparent, is unable to locate keys to the locked back door, finds instead a gun and …
A month later Marnie Wilde arrives to be Blythe’s ghost writer. She is desperate for the work, for personal as well as financial reasons. Both explain her preparedness to suffer the disagreeable behaviour of Blythe and her business manager, Ludo Villander, the unsavoury accommodation to which she is banished from the well-appointed house, the poor-quality food prepared in a dirty kitchen and numerous rules to which she must adhere. However, lest one feels too sorry for Marnie she is also a less than sympathetic character, with her slovenly appearance, propensity to self-sabotage, and her endless consumption of alcohol. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.
Oliver Lewis The Orwell Tour Travels through the life and work of George Orwell Icon Books, Sep 2023.
Thank you, NetGalley, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
Travel to places such as Wigan, Catalonia, Paris, Motihari and Marrakesh referencing Orwell’s novels and insights into the author and his writing – what more could a reader want? That George Orwell was born in Northern India and died in Sutton Courtenay is intriguing in itself – and what happened in between is a story adroitly woven by Oliver Lewis in The Orwell Tour Travels through the life and work of George Orwell.
I enjoyed the pleasure that Lewis so clearly finds in writing about Orwell, associated locations, and indeed in his own approach to the subject. The enthusiasm Lewis feels permeates the book and I felt drawn into a life and places about which I knew something, but little in comparison with Lewis. Unlike Oliver Lewis, I have not read most of Orwell’s work, as I recall from many years back only the two most well-known, Animal Farm and 1984, and Homage to Catalonia and The Road to Wigan Pier. I also came newly to the many places Lewis visits. This does not matter, he unfailingly provides a picture that draws upon the written work, Orwell’s character and the countries from which Orwell took his inspiration. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.
International Women’s Day
Archives at the Art Gallery of NSW
Los Angeles Review of Books
Reading (and Shopping) with Angela McRobbie
A reflection on the Birmingham School cultural studies scholar’s vision of girlhood.
THE PREEMINENT SOCIOLOGIST and cultural theorist Stuart Hall once wrote that, “as an area of serious historical work, the study of popular culture is like the study of labour history and its institutions. To declare an interest in it is to correct a major imbalance, to mark a significant oversight.” I was awakened to Hall’s ideas—the way that racial, class, and gender relations are present at every level of culture—as an undergraduate student in a British art school in the mid- to late noughties. It was Professor Angela McRobbie, one of Hall’s discerning acolytes, who gathered up his ideas and shaped them into something tangible for me as a young woman. I was first introduced to McRobbie when she took to the lectern at Goldsmiths College—which was her academic home then, and mine as an undergraduate student. Nearly two decades have passed, but her perfectly straight white hair, cut into a severe bob, her agile reading glasses propped low on the ridge of her nose, and her Glaswegian hilt are impressed upon my memory. These largely superficial details are important; McRobbie would be the one to teach me this. Her demeanor was angular but not severe, and she had a cool seriousness about her, one that she powerfully applied to “unserious” subject matter: teenage girls’ magazines, British drum and bass, vintage clothes, and shopping. After the lecture, we were split into seminar groups; I spent a blissful hour with one of McRobbie’s PhD students dissecting a Beyoncé video. Textual analysis was not new to me, but its application to my own girlish and fluctuating life experience—what McRobbie called “girls’ culture”—was revelatory.
I had arrived at Goldsmiths a few years before, despondent and apathetic. Like most middle-class kids of my generation, it felt like the only real options presented to me were university or something definitively vocational. Without an aptitude for science or maths but with a vague facility for words, I applied for courses across the humanities. In 2000, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s New Labour became determined to get 50 percent of young people into degree courses, transforming the university from a place of academic rigor and defined outcomes into what McRobbie calls “a mass social and cultural experience,” predicated on a new kind of cultural economy and knowledge but often lacking any clear direction, of which I was an exemplar. By the time I arrived at university, Blair was already losing favor, and unlike the Cool Britannia of the 1990s, the subsequent decade appeared wishy-washy, culturally ill-defined, endlessly unsure of itself. This is also how I felt personally: I was neither a winklepicker-wearing indie rock devotee, a Home Counties boho “rah” (public school–educated and probably horsey), or a middle-class “scally” from the fine art course. I watched as the R & B of the nineties and early noughties faded into something saccharine and poppy, and as the goths and indie kids hybridized into the unpointed, directionless aesthetic of “indie sleaze.”
It turned out there was a way to make sense of all this. The disaffection and fleetingness of youth was the stuff of cultural studies as I would come to understand it. As a discipline, cultural studies occupied a liminal space between sociology and English literature and was defined by research subjects “not considered legitimate” enough for either, as McRobbie puts it. McRobbie found her professional and critical start as a discerning acolyte of Hall, the Jamaican-born British founder of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, known to most as the Birmingham School. By McRobbie’s definition, the Birmingham School was not just a mode of thought or a body of research but also a moment in time, in the mid- to late seventies, when pop culture entered academia and became a legitimate subject of study. Hall authored or edited a number of seminal texts (most notably 1976’s Resistance Through Rituals:Youth Subcultures in Post-War Britain, co-edited with Tony Jefferson, and 1978’s Policing the Crisis:Mugging, the State, and Law and Order, co-authored with Jefferson, Chas Critcher, John Clarke, and Brian Roberts) on the intersection of race and class, and was, perhaps reductively, crowned the “godfather of multiculturalism.” As McRobbie, who was studying under Hall at the time, puts it, he positioned “race [as] the ‘modality’ through which class was lived.”Thoughclass was central to Hall’s thinking, he considered it “both as lived experience and as an abstract category within Marxist thought,” according to McRobbie, “a category formed through the struggle for domination.”
While Hall’s brilliance was in bringing race into conversation with class, McRobbie brought class into conversation with gender, which, like race, complied with forms of domination. Since those early days with Hall, McRobbie has spent her academic career evolving the field of cultural studies by refracting it through her own experiences as both a feminist and a native of Glasgow, Scotland—“a staunchly working-class city,” she writes, though she grew up middle-class.Like her, I grew up middle-class, surrounded by music and magazines that were quietly predicated on constraining—through the production of images and ideals—the very social groups to which they were marketed. The social groups McRobbie was most interested in were girls and young working-class women, subjects she explored in her early research on Jackie,a British girls’ magazinethat ran between 1964 and 1993. For McRobbie, Jackie peddled an “ideology which deals with the construction of teenage ‘femininity’”—precisely the kind she sought to deconstruct. She does so by centralizing the teenage experience in her research, legitimizing it as an area of study, and then reimaging the time-space of teenage life as liminal and potentially radical. Operating between school years and working years, parental jurisdiction and the autonomy of adulthood, teenagers elude institutional control—which is perhaps why cultural studies has returned to them so often—as they loiter at the edges of playing fields or lounge in bedrooms. The peripheral space they occupy is particularly appealing to teenage girls, McRobbie writes, who as children and adults are confined to “safe” domestic spaces associated with femininity.
McRobbie’s early research into Jackie orbits a central theme and sets a precedent for her later work: “the seeming invisibility of girls and, alongside this, the permutations of representation when they became visible,” which largely focus on romance, love, and domesticity. I was one of many girls—generations of them—to whom, and for whom, and about whom McRobbie was speaking in her wide-ranging essays on secondhand shopping and bedroom culture. Although I have not returned to McRobbie’s work often, she is there every time I pull on the thread of some interrogatory idea. It was McRobbie who introduced me to the “cultural capital” of Pierre Bourdieu, the semiology of Roland Barthes, and the gender theory of Judith Butler. A desire to turn my material surroundings—clothes and surfaces, ecology, cultural phenomena—into a vehicle for exploring broader conceptual questions was born from McRobbie’s ideas, both in the classroom and in books like The Uses of Cultural Studies (2005). This was feminism that I could grip on to, with tangible near real-time examples.
McRobbie’s latest book,Feminism, Young Women and Cultural Studies: Birmingham Essays from 1975 Onwards (2024), was prompted by her departure from her full-time teaching position and research post at Goldsmiths in 2020. It traces McRobbie’s thinking about young women and class from the beginning of her career as a scholar and critic to the present moment. It is a book of two halves, beginning with four recent essays by McRobbie looking back at her earlier writing. The new essays provide a contemporary context for her early work on the “seemingly innocent and highly popular” world of girls’ magazines, the “capitalization” of subcultures, the “scripted” sexuality presented to girls by popular music, and the “social hierarchy” of vintage clothing, once deemed derogatorily as castoffs. The second half of the book is composed of the earlier essays, which begin in 1975, when McRobbie was “a post-graduate student and a young mother” living in the working-class neighborhood of Selly Oak in Birmingham, and span two decades, ending with “Rethinking ‘Moral Panic’ for Multi-Mediated Social Worlds,” written with Sarah L. Thornton in 1995. She notes that she chose these seven essays because she found that they “still resonated” with her students all these years later. The pieces also amount to a set of persistent themes that continue to occupy McRobbie, loosely aligning with her time at the Birmingham School.
Like most academics, McRobbie has a tendency toward formula, but the book’s tidy division of old and new material turns out to be a useful frame for those intervening years and fits pleasingly with my own chronology. The period from the tail end of second-wave feminism through the mid-noughties when I was at university to the present is a time McRobbie urges us to fill with our own lived experience: permitting us to reflect on those viscous years of teenage rebellion, as well as the veneer of young womanhood. This, I think, is the driver behind much of McRobbie’s research: how, she asks, do we get young women to actively consume and challenge culture? “Our own subjectivity can often add to the force of research,” she writes. “Why should we not be able to admit how we absorb ideas and apply them”—she continues in “The Politics of Feminist Research: Between Talk, Text and Action” (1981)—be it at the pub with friends, or in bed with lovers? In this polemic essay, she writes that “to maintain a continual flow of ideas, a cross-fertilisation of analysis and an ongoing exchange of descriptions, experiences and feelings, we need words.” See Further Commentary and Articles arising from Books* and continued longer articles as noted in the blog. for the complete article.
Rose Higham-Stainton is a writer whose work explores gender and art-making and is published by Los Angeles Review of Books, Apollo, TANK, Flash Art, Texte zur Kunst, The White Review, Art Monthly, Bricks from the Kiln, and Worms Magazine,among others. She has written several chapbooks, and her debut book, Limn the Distance, came out with JOAN Publishing in 2023.
LARB publishes daily without a paywall as part of our mission to make rigorous, incisive, and engaging writing on every aspect of literature, culture, and the arts freely accessible to the public. Help us continue this work with your tax-deductible donation today! Donate
More Than A Magazine, A Movement
America’s Founding Feminists: Rewriting America’s Origin Story
On the eve of America’s 250th anniversary, Ms. reclaims the revolution by centering the women and gender-nonconforming people whose words, labor and resistance built—and keep rebuilding—democracy.
Nettrice Gaskins, Founding Feminists. (2026)
Two hundred and fifty years ago, a new nation came into being. Amid the hard-fought war for independence against the British Crown, certain leading men residing in its 13 colonies came together to sign off on a document proclaiming, “All men are created equal.”
The document would be called the Declaration of Independence—authored by Thomas Jefferson and signed by 56 men now recognized as the nation’s founding fathers, immortalized in John Trumbull’s painting that hangs in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol.
They had exchanged ideas about liberty, justice, at the height of this Age of Reason; they even thought to add a statement to abolish slavery. However, they eventually decided against it, given the lucrative profits that came from the chattel institution as slaveholding individuals. And the comfort of their domestic abodes, which fell under the purview of their wives and servants, rarely induced a sense of reciprocity and full equality for the ones enabling their material surroundings.
A statue of George Washington in front of the painting Declaration of Independence by John Trumbull in the U.S. Capitol rotunda. (Matt McClain / The Washington Post via Getty Images)
One of the signees—John Adams (who would later serve as the nation’s vice president before succeeding George Washington, the first president of the United States)—had received admonition from his wife Abigail Adams to “remember the ladies” in their declarations for freedom and equality; however, one woman at least ensured that her name would be included on the document: Mary Katherine Goddard from Baltimore, the first woman postmaster in the colonies, printed the official documents and added her name at the bottom in typeset.
Interestingly, Goddard is rarely remembered (if at all) as founding mother in her own right—in contrast to, say, Betsy Ross, whose more feminine, domestic role in sewing the first flag of the new nation secured her position in national memory. However, Goddard’s bold addition of her name to the Declaration of Independence is a prime example of how women throughout history persist and insist on their inclusion. In families. In communities. Even in nation building. Sometimes she held a pen to write her inclusion into existence, even if she remained anonymous or hid under a man’s name (a gender transition of sorts).
… There is no nation without women at its core, ready to advance beyond the strictures and limits of gender and its attending intersections, even if they had to redefine their roles and strive beyond societal expectations
When she did use her own name—“written by herself”—as the enslaved poet Phillis Wheatley did, some dared to question her skill and prowess to call herself, let alone nations and worlds, into being. Despite the restrictions of slavery, Wheatley found freedom first through the pen before her eventual manumission.
And when the enslaved woman could not write—indeed, deprived of this literacy by law, so potent was the knowledge it could produce—she still left a record of her existence. In the Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel Beloved by wordsmith master and Nobel laureate Toni Morrison, the former slave Sethe lamented, “I made the ink”—those indigo marks set to paper that made legible the means of her raced and gendered oppression.
Reaching through history to rescue the obscure women discounted as political subjects, Morrison did with fiction what other feminist historians like Gerda Lerner, Deborah Gray White, Paula Gunn Allen, Darlene Clark Hine, Paula J. Giddings, Kate Clifford Larson, Catherine Clinton, Annette Gordon-Reed, Stephanie M. H. Camp, Martha S. Jones, Keisha N. Blain and Edda Fields-Black, among others, had done with facts and evidence. They told the simple truth that there is no nation without women at its core, ready to advance beyond the strictures and limits of gender and its attending intersections, even if they had to redefine their roles and strive beyond societal expectations.
Such an anniversary—set during a time of immense backlash against the progress made in advancing gender equality, racial justice, and various inclusions across gender diversity, sexual orientation, the differently abled and aged, religious, national and ethnic groups—invites a reckoning with this democratic project that began as a work in progress. We have yet to complete it (even after 250 years) in the quest for a “more perfect union.”
We especially have an opportunity through this series to address these issues from a feminist framework, examining the past to better understand our present and to plan more inclusive visions for our collective future.
So, we ask: What did freedom and equality mean for those in the past—especially when co-existing alongside chattel slavery, Indigenous dispossession, women’s subordination and class hierarchies. And what will it mean 250 years from now, or even 50 years from now?
Because the Declaration of Independence left a record stating the potential of equality—regardless of the status of the author and signees as enslavers with unfettered access to both wives and bondspeople in their possessions—it set for the nation a vision of what it could be.
This is the vision that made room for the eventual abolition of slavery and women’s voting rights, even if civil rights leaders like the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. chastised the nation for delivering a “promissory note” that African Americans could not deposit when widespread discrimination on the basis of race rendered the Declaration of Independence null and void.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—which grants freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of the right to assemble—gave way to additional amendments, as the growing nation moved towards the promise of equality, with the passage of the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, the 14th granting birthright citizenship and equal protection under the law, the 19th granting women the right to vote, and the yet-to-be ratified Equal Rights Amendment, penned by suffragist Alice Paul, that would establish gender equality across all spheres.
This existing foundation also made it possible to expand other rights into law: from the Americans with Disabilities Act, to marriage equality across sexual orientations, the latter recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
That these rights could still be chipped away—based on the election or appointment of individuals invested less in democracy and more in demagoguery—demonstrate that freedom and equality cannot be taken for granted. We must work toward their promise as “we the people” (or “we the women,” according to Nora O’Donnell) are still very much a work in progress.
In her seminal work, Our Declaration, Danielle Allen declares, “The Declaration of Independence matters because it helps us see that we cannot have freedom without equality.”
We are still, 250 years later, striving for these twin goals. This series helps us to look back at the journey and determine the best direction to take us toward the fulfillment of these goals.
Why “Founding Feminists”?
With its focus on women’s history, the series could easily have been titled America’s “Founding Mothers.” Except some women are not invested in motherhood—at least not the biological kind. History shows that such women have existed across the different eras.
In this series, historian Jen Manion writes of individuals like Jemima Wilkinson who—the same year that the nation came into being—changed their gender identity to take on a genderless persona with a new name: the Public Universal Friend. Revolutions don’t just spawn new nations but new ways of embracing individual freedoms.
Do such historical figures qualify as “feminists” instead of “mothers”?
The word “feminist” did not even exist until the 19th century—as was first used in French to describe someone of a feminine appearance or who exhibited feminine behavior. The word has evolved overtime to describe a person advocating for gender equality—whether this takes on a liberal edge, such as advancing social and political reforms, or the more radical efforts to dismantle systems of power altogether in the weakening and eventual elimination of patriarchy.
Therefore, the term “founding feminist” risks being anachronistic, given our return to the women—those born or transitioned as such—living at a time before the word formulated its political meaning.
Indeed, in the series, Oneida Wolf Clan member Michelle Schenandoah argues that the Haudenosaunee, who based their societal structure around matrilineage and subsequently spawned the democracy we now celebrate today, predates feminism since their gender-based egalitarianism is the standard, not the outlaw status that surrounds feminism within patriarchal societies.
Yet how could we not define those Haudenosaunee as “founding feminists,” given the blueprints they provided to those who found their way on the soil of Turtle Island? Paula Gunn Allen reminds us, “Hardly anyone in America speculates that the constitutional system of government might be as much a product of American Indian ideas and practices as of colonial American and Anglo-European revolutionary fervor.”
In the same essay, Allen recounts the great rebellion of Haudenosaunee women who organized a women’s strike (or sex strike) in 1600 when men started asserting their authority, then gained back their veto powers over wars and conflicts (a North American version of Lysistrata the ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes wrote about and that exists in different versions in more contemporary times—think of the efforts of the Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace, spearheaded by Nobel Peace Laureate Leymah Gbowee, which brought an end to Liberia’s Civil War in 2003).
The first recognized women’s protest on the North American continent occurred in the same vicinity of Seneca Falls, N.Y., which launched the first women’s rights convention in 1848. That the great liberator Harriet Tubman would settle her life in freedom less than 30 miles away in Auburn, N.Y., suggests that such feminist lineage is more than coincidental.
These time loops connect us through the past, present and future. If only we remember.
Feminist Formations in a Time of Revolution
As Allen suggests, these early Indigenous influences provide “the same vision repeated over and over by radical thinkers of Europe and America, from Francois Villon to John Locke, from William Shakespeare to Thomas Jefferson, from Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels…”
The Age of Reason, or Enlightenment, which imagined social contracts, natural rights and equality beyond divine monarchical rule, flourished in the wake of European contact with the Americas. Will we remember the “founding feminists” who planted these democratic seeds?
Some of our founding feminists also wrote letters, like Abigail Adams, or manifestos—as occurred across the Atlantic with French abolitionist feminist Olympe de Gouges and her Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen (1791) and English abolitionist feminist Mary Wollstonecraft with A Vindication of the Rights of Women during this Age of Reason and Revolutions. They wrote specifically at the height of the French Revolution, triggered after France’s support of the American Revolution, which left the country financially bankrupt.
Other founding feminists presided over religious ceremonies, like the Vodou mambo—sometimes identified as Cecile Fatiman—who helped to ignite the enslaved uprising on the island of San Domingue, which became known as the Haitian Revolution (or the War for Haitian Independence). That this uprising took place in 1791 while European women simultaneously issued feminist statements suggests a transatlantic relational bond that must be interrogated for their cross-racial feminist potential, which extends to other women breaking their chains—such as Solitude, the Guadeloupean rebel (recently commemorated in Paris with a monument in 2022) who resisted slavery’s return on the Caribbean island in 1802 after Napoleon issued its reinstatement post-Revolution.
In the Founding Feminists series, historian Vanessa M. Holden notes how founding feminists also left their mark through freedom-seeking actions, such as those Black women who escaped slavery during the Revolutionary War period, from Elizabeth Freeman who successfully sued for her freedom, to enslaved Black women running to the British lines on the promise of freedom, to Ona Judge who boldly fled from her enslavement by George and Martha Washington.
In our myth-making national narratives, few will remember Judge’s history alongside President George Washington.
Washington and Lafayette at Mount Vernon, 1784 (The Home of Washington after the War), 1859. Artist Thomas Pritchard Rossiter. (Heritage Images via Getty Images and Metropolitan Museum of Art)
In their 1859 painting of Washington at his home in Mount Vernon, which hangs at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Thomas Pritchard Rossiter and Louis Remy Mignot establish the raced and gendered hierarchies: Washington and Lafayette standing at the divide between the private sphere of home and the public sphere of the exterior yard, while the white women and girl child are seated within the domestic realm, the Black woman in a literal lowered position on the ground, alongside the pet dog, while she tends to the white boy child—the latter in the yard and prepared to explore the public sphere, in comparison to his sister on the verandah consigned to her eventual domestic status.
The painting appeared at a time of great political divide between pro-slavery and anti-slavery advocates, two years before the start of the Civil War. The painting creates by contrast the domestic tranquility of women—both free and enslaved—knowing their “rightful place.”
Even then, the painters could not imagine the existence of an Ona Judge, who when the moment came, chose freedom for herself by running away with the help of the free Black community in Philadelphia, as Holden documents. It is this imagination—once called an “imperial queen” by Phillis Wheatley (Peters), as Dana Ellen Murphy reminds us in her essay for the series—that artist Nettrice Gaskins galvanizes with some generative AI technological enhancements to conjure the series frontispiece artwork, Founding Feminists.
(Nettrice Gaskins)
Having captured a similar portrait rendering Harriet Tubman among the stars for her 200th birthday in our previous series for The Harriet Tubman Bicentennial Project, Gaskins reconfigures Trumbull’s painting to reimagine those originally excluded now having a literal seat at the table.
A Phillis-like writer sits at the center while an Indigenous woman and a Betsy Ross-like woman sewing the US flag take a seat at either end. The vision imagines a multiracial collective of women—including an Asian woman whose complicated inclusion in the U.S., from the spectacle of Afong Moy, to the exclusion of Chinese women in the Page Act of 1875, to Patsy Mink breaking barriers as the first woman of color elected to Congress who also authored Title IX, perpetually questions the meanings of national belonging.
These imagined women—less the “imperial queens” of Phillis Wheatley’s imagination and more the “democratic divas” of our contemporary digital dreams—assemble in a bold vision of what has already existed and what must continue as we build on the foundations they have already laid.
The series, launching at the start of Women’s History Month, unfolds over two months, and features 12 articles.
We begin with Schenandoah’s “Haudenosaunee Governance: Matrilineal Legacies and Democracy from Turtle Island,” which recognizes the Indigenous roots of U.S. democracy and argues that it is incomplete precisely because of its “foundational omission” of the values outlined among the matrilineal Clan nations, notably “women, children, all genders and peoples, the natural world, and the generations yet to come.”
Following is Allyson M. Poska’s article on the legacy of Spanish-speaking women, who settled on the continent more than half a century before the establishment of English settlements, a history that contradicts the targeted deportations of Latinas currently taking place and that reminds us this is “their country too,” as was already heightened with Bad Bunny’s halftime show earlier this year, and before him, Lin-Manuel Miranda’s literal recasting of the founding fathers through the multiracial hip-hop generation in his Broadway musical Hamilton.
Charles Upchurch’s “Claiming the Revolution: Sexual Politics and 1776” provides the wider historical context for the development of the Revolutionary period and how it generated new ideas about gender and sexuality, while Murphy ruminates on the poetic legacy and “imagination” of Phillis Wheatley (Peters), who became the first African American of any gender to publish a book of poetry.
Jacqueline Beatty explores how women of the period petitioned for their rights, using the language of traditional femininity, and argues for its radical potential—rather than its retrenchment.
Manion, as previously mentioned, examines “queer possibilities” during the era, when those born as women found opportunities to change genders and engage in same-sex relationships at a time when social upheavals allowed for social change.
Holden examines these themes of freedom through the history of Black women changing their status from enslaved to free.
Jessina Emmert looks specifically at the legacy of Sally Hemings—the enslaved mother of six of Thomas Jefferson’s children—and argues for her status as the nation’s Founding Mother because of the “reproductive governance” she exercised to ensure the freedom of her children, if not for herself, thereby putting into practice the goals of freedom about which her enslaver emphatically wrote.
Manisha Sinha, author of the award-wining The Slave’s Cause, details “The Abolitionist Origins of American Feminism,” while Anne Anlin Cheng explores “The Curious Case of Afong Moy,” a pop-culture figure believed to be the first Chinese woman to enter the United States. A conversation with feminist disability studies scholar Rosemarie Garland-Thomson examines the significance of making the category of “disability” visible in these histories, and Nimisha Barton, a historian on the subject of diversity, equity and inclusion, closes out the series with a reminder that our own contemporary period of regression is an echo of the past in “Educating Women: A History of Elevation—and Backlash.”
In all, the series articles illuminate and interrogate the meanings of inclusion across the intersections of gender, race, class, sexuality, nationality, and disability among other social factors. They reveal untold stories and re-examine the more well-known ones. They center those who otherwise were excluded from the original documents founding this nation. In this way, they help us to commemorate the feminist foundations on which a more inclusive feminist democratic future can emerge.
Other features include a timeline, public syllabus and interactive haiku. The public haiku is included to invite readers to imagine what our future will be, beginning with the opening line “Fifty years from now…” Does U.S. democracy have another 250 years, or have we reached a point of no return as “strongman” politics with fascistic tendencies advance globally? How might we recapture a different vision as we move forward during this semiquincentennial?
A political cartoon from 1897 once depicted a “Future Inauguration,” articulating the fears of the supposed logical outcome of the women’s suffrage movement: one in which women have assumed positions of power while men are busy taking care of the children. (The horror!)
A political cartoon, “An Inauguration of the Future,” shows the effects of the women’s suffrage movement, which include a female president, female soldiers and military commanders, and a man carrying a crying baby, 1897. (Stock Montage / Getty Images)
As dated as this vision seems, such fears recirculated when the nation came close to electing a woman for president of the United States—first with Hilary Rodham Clinton who won the popular vote back in 2016, then with Kamala Harris who won 75 million votes in 2024 but came up short, both losing to a man who ran on openly sexist and racist campaigns. These fears, therefore, hardly seem outdated, as we are currently where we are because the nation failed to imagine and trust women’s leadership.
We certainly have made ardent strides in the past 250 years, but where we go from here is anyone’s guess. Let us hope that we remember and recall the founding feminists who left us a guide as we plan our next moves for this ongoing and unfolding democracy.
8 Female Gothic Writers Who Inspired Modern Horror
From Mary Shelley to Louisa May Alcott, these women writers helped shape the horror genre.
A little over two centuries before Guillermo del Toro’s 2025 film adaptation of Frankenstein starring Jacob Elordi and Mia Goth came to the big screen, Mary Shelley set her mind to writing a ghost story.
What emerged was Frankenstein, an iconic contribution to horror literature that has inspired countless adaptations and spinoffs and has, safe to say, left a permanent mark on the horror genre. Shelley is far from the only woman whose work has shaped modern horror, though. Countless women across time have allowed their imaginations to spin dark and terrifying stories, and these are just a few of the most influential to do just that.
Radcliffe was an English novelist best known for being one of the pioneers of the Gothic genre, which is generally defined as literature suffused with a feeling of dread, mystique, and terror.
Radcliffe anonymously published her first two novels, The Castles of Athlin and Dunbayne (1789) and A Sicilian Romance (1790). Her third novel, The Romance of the Forest (1791), shot her to fame, but her novel The Mysteries of Udolpho (1794) made her a literary icon in England.
This novel follows a character named Emily St. Aubert as she undergoes a great number of cruelties. Most of the story takes place in the grim and macabre castle of Udolpho, and haunted, mysterious castles and crumbling, labyrinthine architecture would become hallmarks of the Gothic genre in the decades to come.
Radcliffe was known for her Romantic sensibilities and her artistic, poetic approach to writing dark and disturbing stories. Her work influenced everyone from Lord Byron and Mary Shelley to Jane Austen, and helped shape Romanticism and horror on the whole. Today, her books are widely beloved for their strong female heroines and their pervasive, atmospheric sense of decay and misery, expressed through images like ruined castles that clearly reflect characters’ distress.
In her essay entitled “On the Supernatural in Poetry,” Radcliffe explained her approach to writing by defining the differences between horror and terror. “Terror and horror are so far opposite, that the first expands the soul, and awakens the faculties to a high degree of life; the other contracts, freezes, and nearly annihilates them,” she wrote. Her books certainly fall into the realm of terror, and helped to inspire countless psychological, artful Gothic fiction and film projects.
Mary Shelley
Portrait of ‘Frankenstein’ author Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley | Culture Club/GettyImages
In 1816, an 18-year-old Mary Shelley accompanied her future husband, Percy Shelley, to Lake Geneva to visit Lord Byron. In order to entertain themselves amid an unusually dreary, cold, and stormy summer, Byron challenged his guests to write ghost stories.
Soon after, Shelley began to write Frankenstein,which was meant to be a short story. Fortunately, it blossomed into a novel that still stands as a centerpiece of horror literature and is also often called the world’s first science fiction novel. The book tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who assembles a monster, only to greatly regret his creation later. Frankenstein has generated countless adaptations and also helped shape future genres like sci-fi horror and body horror, and it has even had an impact on actual medical science.
Shirley Jackson
Shirley Jackson’s unsettling Gothic masterpieces include the macabreThe Haunting of Hill House, the stunningly violent short story “The Lottery,”and the chilling We Have Always Lived in the Castle. While Jackson didn’t receive extensive critical acclaim in her lifetime, her work has gone on to leave an indelible impact on horror and popular culture.
“The Lottery,” a short story published in The New Yorker in 1948 about a group of townspeople who participate in a sacrificial rite, went on to influence similar narratives from The Hunger Games to The Wicker Man. Jackson’s novels also added scope and depth to the haunted house archetype, a particularly common staple in modern horror, as she utilized ruined, crumbling manors as metaphors for the declining psyches and oppressive lives of her typically female protagonists.
Charlotte Perkins Gilman
Black-and-white portrait of author Charlotte Perkins Gilman | Heritage Images/GettyImages
Charlotte Perkins Gilman was a feminist and leading contributor to the women’s rights movement in the United States in the late 1800s. She was also a writer best known for her short story “The Yellow Wallpaper,” which depicted a wealthy housewife’s mental unraveling.
The story became a Gothic classic upon its publication, and is filled with classic Gothic themes, from a gigantic and isolating home to a sense of claustrophobia and impending doom. It has also retroactively been read as an indictment of Victorian patriarchy and a society that shut women away to “rest” when they were displaying signs of unhappiness. The story helped pioneer psychological horror and the use of unreliable narrators, and also served as a powerful early example of a horror story embedded with social critiques.
Daphne du Maurier
Daphne Du Maurier | TV Times/GettyImages
Daphne du Maurier’s 1938 classic Rebecca tells the story of a woman haunted by the specter of her new husband’s first wife, Rebecca. It takes place in a typical Gothic setting—the sprawling and atmospheric manor Manderley—and tells a story of jealousy, lies, and mental decline. Rebecca was an early and seminal entry in the “domestic horror” pantheon perfected by Shirley Jackson, and it embodied a modern, non-supernatural kind of horror where ghosts only exist in memory but still manage to wreak havoc on the living. It helped shape the modern suspense genre as well, showing how the simplest domestic moments can be filled with ominousness in the hands of the right writer.
Other celebrated works by Du Maurier include the novels Jamaica Inn and Frenchman’s Creek and the short story “The Birds,” which inspired Alfred Hitchcock’s film of the same name. She was also a playwright who detested being called a “romantic” writer, instead preferring her work to be looped firmly into the realm of Gothic and psychological literature.
Emily Brontë
Black-and-white sketch of Emily Brontë | Culture Club/GettyImages
While Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heightsmight typically be branded as a romance novel, the story is actually quite filled with elements of Gothic horror. From the windswept moors and dreary manor that gives the novel its name to the tortured, haunted character of Heathcliff, the novel is every bit as much of a horror story as it is a romance.
Brontë is believed to have drawn inspiration from the crumbling, ghost story-shrouded manor homes she explored while growing up on the English moors, and the atmosphere of dreariness and dread that pervades Wuthering Heights helped shape modern tales of disturbed romance and obsession. The novel also helped earn stories with elements of Gothic horror their place in the literary canon.
American Novelist Louisa May Alcott at a Desk | Bettmann/GettyImages
Louisa May Alcott
Louisa May Alcott may be best known for her decidedly un-horrific Little Women, but she also wrote a number of Gothic short stories and novels under the pseudonym A. M. Barnard, some of which include Lost in a Pyramid, Behind a Mask, and the short story “The Abbott’s Ghost.”
Alcott mostly wrote these stories to support her family early in her career, and like many female writers of the time, she used a male pen name. Her stories depict unruly, often unlikable women, and helped provide an early blueprint for future morally gray, complex, rebellious, and even villainous women in horror, such as those featured by Gillian Flynn and in films like Robert Eggers’s The Witch. “Lost in a Pyramid” is also one of the first known Gothic takes on the classic mummy’s curse story in American literature.
Anne Rice
Anne Rice | Gene Shaw/GettyImages
Anne Rice’s Interview with the Vampirechanged horror forever, adding a sophisticated twist to vampire stories by giving monstrous characters scope and psychological depth. The novel is considered a cornerstone of modern Gothic fiction, and it has influenced the entire pantheon of modern vampire stories, from Twilight to True Blood and beyond, by creating the archetype of the glamorous, philosophical vampire.
Rice’s 37 books also explored everything from witchcraft to werewolves, and she put her signature spin on all of them and ultimately helped cement the modern horror trend of telling monster stories through a nuanced and distinctly human lens.
Female writers and readers have been challenging the patriarchy for more than 200 years
Roberta Garret
Published: March 5, 2026
Disclosure statement
Roberta Garrett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Emerald Fennell’s film adaptation of Wuthering Heights has been pulling in the crowds recently, which is quite a feat in troubled times for cinema. Published in 1847, Emily Brontë’s tale of psycho-sexual power dynamics is just one of many enduring female-authored 19th century novels exploring female sexuality and desire for autonomy. These characters existed within a system that allowed women few education or career opportunities.
The ever-popular work of canonical British female writers such as Jane Austen, the (other) Brontë sisters and George Eliot were very different in style and tone. But they also draw attention to various forms of gender inequality.
Their novels focused on issues such as inheritance and property laws, the pressure on young women to marry for financial security, the sexual double standard and the lack of career prospects for women. In doing so, they gave voice to the frustrations of an expanding female readership in the 19th century.
The work of these and lesser-known female authors was crucial in shaping and fuelling public debates on what was referred to in the mid-Victorian period as “the woman question” (women’s right to vote). It later became the first-wave feminist movement in the late 19th and early 20th century.
The emergence of two inventive new literary forms in the early 20th century were key. One was modernism and the other the new printed paperback; both were intertwined with the expansion of women’s concerns and desires in the social and cultural sphere.
Modernism saw the burgeoning of experimental female writers such as Virginia Woolf and Jean Rhys in the 1920s. Then came popular genres such as mass market romance and what is now described as “cosy” crime fiction in the 1930s. Women writers and readers were creating spaces in high art and mass culture that centred female experience and domestic and personal life from the beginning of the 20th century.
The second wave
Given the importance of novels and reading to the history of feminist struggle, it is not surprising that second-wave feminism drew heavily on women’s literary heritage. This saw the publication of landmark academic studies of women’s writing such as Elaine Showalter’s A Literature of Their Own (1977), and Sandra Gilbert and Susan Guber’s The Madwoman in the Attic (1979). And with them came the proliferation of university courses on women’s writing.
The 1960s and 1970s also witnessed the birth of polemical feminist bestsellers. This included Germaine Greer’s The Female Eunuch (1970) and “consciousness raising” popular novels, such as The Woman’s Room (1977) by Marilyn French.
In the 1970s and 1980s, a more diverse group of feminist writers came on the scene. Writers like Margaret Atwood, Angela Carter, Alice Walker, Audre Lorde, Toni Morrison, Octavia Butler and Rita Mae Brown, continued to shape and expand the political and cultural scope and influence of women’s writing into queer, black and postmodernist forms.
Bookgroups, BookTok and the feminist novel
In our own era, while men are reading fewer and fewer novels, female writers and readers are keeping the world of fiction alive. Aside from being the major purchasers of fiction, women are far more likely to enhance and socialise their literary interests. Local book groups and online review and recommendation communities such as Booktok are popular spaces for exploring new literature.
They are also the driving force in the creation and consumption of successful new literary cycles. For example, one of the publishing success stories of the last ten years in English language fiction was the female-centred psychological thriller/domestic noir crime novel. This included the likes of Gone Girl (2014), The Girl on the Train (2016), Big Little Lies (2017) and The Housemaid.
As feminist literary critics have pointed out, not only are these novels predominantly written and narrated by women. Through widespread circulation and screen adaptations, they have also continued to bring to light key gender and power issues such as coercive control, domestic violence and the murder of women. At the lighter end of the spectrum, the recent explosion of “romantasy” fiction (a romance-fantasy hybrid) focuses on female desire and pleasure.
The boundary between literary and genre fiction is becoming increasingly blurred. But contemporary female writers such as Rachel Cusk, Bernadine Evaristo, Anna Burns and Eimear McBride continue to produce innovations in style and form. And younger female writers of “rage” and “sad girl” novels like Ottessa Moshfegh, Oyinkan Braithwaite, Rachel Yoder, Raven Leilani and Aria Aber are not afraid to explore edgy and unsettling accounts of women’s experience.
In life-writing, creative non-fiction and autofiction, women’s stories have also proliferated. Post #MeToo bestsellers such as Acts of Desperation (2022) by Meghan Nolan, and Three Women (2020) by Lisa Taddeo, tearing down comfortable myths of equality and exposing the persisting inequalities in women’s personal relationships.
For more than two centuries, women’s writing has not only reflected the constraints of patriarchy but actively challenged and reshaped them. As long as women continue to write, read and reimagine the world through fiction, novel reading will remain a vital site of feminist resistance and possibility.
This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org; if you click on one of the links and go on to buy something, The Conversation UK may earn a commission.
Australian Politics
Progress for women doesn’t happen by chance. It happens by choice.
And the incredible women in our Labor government are helping drive that progress every day. That’s why I’m proud to lead Australia’s first government with the majority of women.
Cheaper child care. Extending paid parental leave with super applied on top. 33 endo and pelvic pain clinics. Making contraception and menopause medicines cheaper.
And this week, closing the gender pay gap to a new record low.
There’s more to do – and we’ll keep working every day to deliver progress for women.
Art at the Roslyn Packer Theatre, Sydney
All the reviews are positive, as are the comments from the audience members recorded on Facebook. This was a fantastic show- marvellous actors, a great script, a good set…and a stunning painting.
After seeing the role of a painting in the play, and such a painting, with the discussion it inspired, it seemed appropriate to record this piece of art … first in my photographs of some of the exhibitions at the gallery.
The Art Galley of New South Wales
Difficult women are in the news lately, and there has been a lively debate on Facebook on the subject. I was pleased to see this photo in the exhibition, and am making clear where I stand …I hope that I can be recognised in that tiny figure in the Trouble Maker frame!
Myth of the Western man (White man’s burden)1992 Artist Gordon Bennett Australia 1955 – 03 Jun 2014
1788 Colony established. Flag raised.*
1796 First legally sanctioned massacre of Aboriginal people – Hawkesbury River area – troops sent from Parramatta.
1799 – First murder trial of five whites for the murder of two Aboriginal boys – found guilty but released – pardoned three years later.
1802 – Pemulwuy killed and decapitated, his head sent to England.
1803 – First colony established in Tasmania
1804 – First massacre of Aboriginal people in Tasmania, at Risdon Cove.
1813 – Blaxland, Wentworth and Lawson cross the Blue Mountains into Wiradjuri land.
1824 – Massacres of Wiradjuri people.
1838 – Myall Creek massacre in northern New South Wales. First white man hung – against public opinion and in a retrial after acquitted in first trial – for the murder of Aboriginal people. This creates a climate of secrecy around further murders.
1857 – Yeeman people (near Roma, Queensland) massacred.
1861 – Largest massacre of whites by Aboriginal people in reprisal for hundreds of Aboriginal deaths, at Cullin-la-Ringo Station, Queensland by the Kairi people.
1869 – Tasmania, William Lanney – touted as the last Aboriginal male – died. His grave is looted and skeleton stolen.
1876 – Tasmania, Truganini – touted as the last Aboriginal female – died. Her skeleton is put on display (against her last wishes) in the Tasmanian Museum.
1928 – Coniston massacre in the Northern Territory, near Yuendumu. Those responsible vindicated in an official (cover up) inquiry ending 7 February 1929.
1971 – Yirrkala, Gove Peninsula, land rights thrown out of court.
1972 – Aboriginal Tent Embassy set up in Canberra. Gough Whitlam elected and Blue Poles by Jackson Pollack purchased for Australia (public outraged).
1976 – Truganini’s bones cremated and her ashes dispersed in the wind.
1992 – Mabo case is won – Terra Nullius overturned.* These dates appear on the painting and are not clear in my photograph. They are worth recording here, with information from the Art Gallery of NSW site.
Thank you, NetGalley, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
Scott Ryan has a distinct writing style that carries this serious, perceptive and analytical approach to a decade of film with a firm grasp of the need to engage with his audience. At the same time he ensures that he maintains the obligation he has imposed on himself to utter raw truths. His fidelity to exposing the failings that largely mar the aftermath of 1990s film underlies the way in which he approaches his prime aim. The responsibility he feels for the task he has set himself – bringing the sheer wonder of 1990s film to a large audience – is demonstrated by the choices he makes, the language he uses, the additional material and his tenacity in acquiring relevant interviews.
Ryan chooses the films that fit his criteria – but then, oh joy, he adds a supplementary list that could have equally been chosen. He also adds ten films from the immediately previous decade, and the one after that demonstrating that some films that meet his criteria do fall outside the strict period he gave himself for the bulk of the book. The films are supplemented by some excellent interviews – a tribute to his thoroughness in getting the best for to meet the challenge he set for himself; notes for each chapter; a comprehensive index; and informative acknowledgements. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.
Victoria Purman The Radio Hour Harlequin Australia, HQ & Mira, 2024.
Thank you, NetGalley, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
The Radio Hour is an absolute delight. Victoria Purman’s skill in writing historical fiction is just one of them. The way in which she weaves historical information throughout a plot that depicts Australian Broadcasting Commission radio in the 1950s, while also delving into the past, is thoroughly engaging. Purnam’s skill is formidable – so rarely is historical fiction written with such excellent attention to the adage ‘show, don’t tell’ that this book really stands out. ‘Show don’t tell’ is usually used in relation to writing film scripts, so for the writer of a novel to be able to slip the facts into the narrative so seamlessly is special. Together with a meticulous historical narrative which deals with serious issues there are charming (and not so charming) characters, a simple but effective story line and humour.
Each chapter is introduced with a precis of the events that will take place. This device is reminiscent of the way in which the radio serial that is to become the focus of the plot is introduced. It will follow the familiar Blue Hills to which audiences all over Australia listened as it was played in its 1.00 and evening timeslots on each weekday. In chapter 1 Miss Martha Berry, who has been filling in for a secretary who is on holiday, is advised that she will be working for a new radio producer. Quentin Quinn is to be the writer and producer of As the Sun Sets. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.
M J Trow History vs Hollywood How the Past is Filmed Pen & Sword, Pen & Sword History, March 2024.
M J Trow has written a book full of interest to anyone who enjoys films with an historical bent. Perhaps they will be disappointed to learn from History vs Hollywood How the past is Filmed that so much in these ‘historical’ films is erroneous, from major problems of fact, flawed depictions of costume and event details and poor representation by actors who bear little resemblance to those they are supposed to portray. However, is this book offering much more? Perhaps, of course, what is offered is enough. However, I would have liked more analysis, some other experts noted if Halliwell has been supplanted as the film buff’s ‘go to’ reference, and less freewheeling chapter content.
There are constant references to ‘Halliwell’ author of Film goers Companion (1965) and Halliwell’s film Guide (1977). However, there is no information other than his name, about this critic who so often meets with Trow’s ire. Although Trow’s opinion is often supported by reference to the films and subject of critique, there are no citations other than the title of the films and names of the actors. Halliwell’s reference works have been referred to as requiring that ‘one should look up for a moment to admire the quite astonishing combination of industry and authority in one man which has brought them into existence.’ (Wikipedia) Alternative views are also cited, with Halliwell being seen as both an expert and having a limited perspective. With this reputation further analysis of why Trow usually disagrees with his assessments would be revealing. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.
Pamela Denoon Lecture 2026: Gender, Peace and Security Panel
Thursday 26 March, 6 for 6:30pm start
The Gender, Peace and Security agenda provides a useful pathway for navigating uncertain times and its effective implementation will help ensure stable international relations, peace and security. Our expert panel will help unpack issues at this turning point in human history. Caroline Millar has extensive international security expertise, including as the former Australian Ambassador to the European Union, NATO, Belgium and Luxembourg. Elise Stephenson is the Deputy Director at the Global Institute for Women’s leadership at the ANU. Bina D’Costa is a Professor at the Department of International Relations, Coral Bell School of Asia-Pacific Affairs at the ANU. Asha Clementi is one of the principals of the Persephone Network, founder of Girls Run the World and 2022 ACT Young Women of the Year. Light refreshments provided. Register here Presented by the National Foundation for Australian Women and the ANU Gender Institute.
First Nations Women Leaders in Public Policy Lecture 2026 Thursday 12 March, 6-7:45pm
This event explores the leadership of First Nations women in shaping public policy within and beyond government, highlighting lived experience and leadership in practice.
Justice Louise Taylor is a Kamilaroi woman and the first Aboriginal woman in Australia to be appointed to a superior court. Catherine Liddle is an Arrernte/Luritja woman from Central Australia and a leading advocate in upholding the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, influencing and driving positive change. Dr Lisa Conway is a Yorta Yorta woman who has worked in the Australian Public Service for around 20 years. Register here
Cindy Lou enjoys food and torrents of rain in Sydney
Pellegrino
Our first meal in Sydney was accompanied by a walk to the close by Pellegrino, an Italian restaurant of good repute. As we had not booked, and the restaurant was full inside, we decided to chance the possibility of rain – and were happy to sit outside. The good reputation was borne out by the pleasant service, accomplished by a waiter who ventured through the rain to ensure our comfort and enjoyment of the food. We ended up in an island of water, eating delicious hot focaccia and the accompanying truffle, parmesan butter, followed by very good pastas. The Pomodoro sauce was pronounced excellent, and my ravioli were filled to the brim with prawns. The brown butter sage sauce was plentiful and flavoursome. Good coffees completed a very good meal, followed by a walk through the torrents which was only accomplished by removing our shoes – a rather bohemian beginning to my birthday weekend away.
Toast and vegemite for breakfast at our usual coffee place close by – Eight OunceCafé
Cindy Lou enjoys a gloomy day at Delicado and a sunny morning at Toast
Delicado is a wonderful venue, with outdoor seating protected from the elements – no floods around our feet, although the day was gloomy and it rained just after we finished lunch. The menu is extensive, and the service friendly. We had 7 tapas dishes – one too many, but each was a pleasant contribution to a great lunch with friends. Some items were particularly delicious. The whitebait was a standout, the patatas gravas large and flavoursome, the croquettes and arancini accompanied by pleasant dips and salad. The haloumi was a generous and filling dish, nicely resented and very good indeed. Black and green olives were numerous. The albondigas was in a tasty enough sauce but the meatballs could have been smaller.
Toast is an excellent breakfast/brunch/lunch venue with indoor and outdoor seating. It was sunny, so no flooded footpath as was the case on Friday night. The menu is excellent with so many choices there, and in the glass display case inside. The service is friendly and very efficient. We chose two dishes and shared them. Unfortunately, the presentation is mine after sharing, instead of the elegant dishes served originally. The sharing worked well – it was a delicious late breakfast.
MOD at the Gallery of New South Wales is an attractive venue in the new building beside the one with which we are all so familiar. The menu is Asian inspired, and there are some catches for anyone allergic to seafood. This was dealt with deftly on this occasion so that the sate sauce with the chicken skewers was served by the side. A good idea, but the chicken skewers really need the usual treatment. However, they were succulent, and the sauce from the egg plant dish was a good accompaniment. This dish is the star of the menu. The prawn dumplings were flavoursome, but difficult to manipulate with the chopsticks – I just ended up looking inelegant. We also had the pickled vegetables, and the wonderfully addictive edamame beans. The rice was nicely cooked and a good accompaniment to the delicious sauces. Unfortunately, the service was quite erratic, and although we were happy to spend time over the meal, it did take a rather long time for the second course to arrive. An ordered drink did not arrive until ordered again. I shall return as I love the food but…
While in Sydney I do more than eat. Next week my visit to the gallery and attending the marvellous Art at the Roslyn Packer Theatre will be featured.
The 50 per cent capital gains tax discount departs from the original purpose of taxing real gains, entrenches inequality and unfairly advantages wealth over work.
When Paul Keating introduced Capital Gains Tax in 1985, he achieved one of the great tax equity and integrity reforms in Australia’s history.
He introduced the tax based on the principle that only real capital gains, that is gains after taking account of inflation, should be liable to taxation.
That principle was right then; it remains right today.
Unfortunately, the implementation of the indexation of the original cost to account for inflation became complex and unwieldy. Accountants understood it, but taxpayers didn’t.
The case for simplification was strong.
Peter Costello articulated the case for simplification well in 1999, but his implementation of the simplification was absurd.
By introducing a one-off 50 per cent discount after the capital item has been held for twelve months, he created a significant distortion and reduced the equity of the original Keating reform.
How does it make sense to pay 100 per cent tax on an item if you sell it in the twelfth month after purchase but only 50 per cent in the thirteenth month?
And for many years the seller will gain an unreasonable and unjustifiable advantage over wage and salary earners who pay tax on all their income.
The Grattan Institute has calculated, based on government data, that the CGT discount mainly benefits the already wealthy. The wealthiest 20 per cent of Australians receive nearly 90 per cent of the CGT discount.
The Institute, in a Senate Committee submission, also argues that the discount is a big reason why older Australians pay a lower tax rate on their income than younger Australians still working.
This is an important matter of intergenerational equity without looking at the implications of the CGT discount on housing.
What should Costello have done?
The best option would have been to introduce a sliding scale of discount based on the RBA’s target for inflation.
This could be 2.5 to 3 per cent per annum, or of you want to put a little allowance to take into account the occasional overshooting of the target band it could be as high as 5 per cent.
This would have meant taxpayers paying tax on the current rate of 100 per cent of their capital gain in the first year, 95 per cent in year two etc. It would still have been possible to have stopped the discount at 50 per cent in the tenth year and thereafter or to have gone on to 25 per cent after 15 years.
However, it is too late to revert to that option. It would mean increasing the discount for some with no discernible benefit.
But there are feasible ways forward.
We could go back to indexation, but nobody wants to see unnecessary complexity introduced into the tax system.
A possible variant of the better initial proposition would be to scale the discount down from 50 per cent to 25 per cent over five years and maintaining it at 25 per cent thereafter, however long the asset is held.
I have no idea what reform, if any, the Treasurer is considering to CGT. It will take political courage to take on the vested interests who benefit from the current excessive discount.
You can assume that the wealthy beneficiaries will not give up their benefit easily. And they will once again seek to conscript the poor in their defence. “Mum and dad” investors will be front and centre of the arguments, hiding the fact that the principal beneficiaries, the wealthiest investors will be hiding behind them.
Early indications are that the Liberals will support maintaining the current excessive discount. I assume their donors may insist upon it.
Logic and equity both point in the same direction: a discount based on real gains not an artificial excessive discount which distorts investment decisions and robs hard working and younger taxpayers.
That can be the basis for a compelling argument, but it will not be an easy political contest to win.
The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.
Bob McMullan
Bob McMullan was State Secretary of the Australian Labor Party and National Secretary as well as a Senator, MP and Cabinet Minister.
Social Cohesion and Shared Humanity
The Blue Star Institute held its annual Canberra dinner recently and Bob McMullan made the keynote address. The Bluestar Institute was formerly known as Bluestar Intercultural Centre and was founded in 2009 by local Hizmet Movement volunteers with the goal of promoting dialogue between different religious, ethnic and cultural communities. The dinner was an example of the success of the movement with representation from a broad range of religious, ethnic and cultural communities. It was a wonderful evening, and I am looking forward to joining this large group of people committed to social cohesion on future occasions.
I had a day off. It was a mistake.I got to see and hear every response to the election result in Gorton and Denton. All the briefings and demands and score settling and tears and joy and agony and despondency. It was like watching a party conduct its own autopsy while the body was still twitching on the TV studio sofa.
But by far the worst piece of analysis, delivered to a broadcaster by a “high placed Labour source”, was this: we lost because Labour’s immigration policy was too punitive.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Sam Coates of Sky News went on air and told the nation, words to that effect, that young Muslim men deserted Labour because Labour’s new immigration policy on earned citizenship had alienated them. Somewhere in a regional party office a pointy head with a lanyard looked up from his spreadsheet and said, “Yes. That’s it. That’s why we lost Manchester.” And everyone else was either too sleep-deprived or too frightened to tell the truth, which is that this is a glib excuse that would not get you a pass in GCSE politics. Sam Coates will defend himself by saying he was only repeating what a senior Labour source was telling him, and that is fair enough. But other than his disastrous review of Neil Diamond at Glastonbury in 2008, he normally has better antennae for accuracy. Sometimes the job is not just to relay the briefing but to smell it first.
If young Muslim men left Labour to vote Green yesterday it had nothing to do with Labour’s immigration policy and everything to do with Gaza. This is not complicated. The Green Party did not win Gorton and Denton because of the quality of their policy platform or the depth of their thinking on immigration reform. They won it because they had the cynicism to wrap themselves in a flag of conscience on the one issue that mattered most to a community in pain, and Labour handed them the match. Let us not dress this up. The Greens ran a single-issue campaign on Gaza with the discipline of a military operation and the moral certainty of people who will never have to govern. It worked. That does not make it admirable. It makes it effective, which in politics is a different thing entirely.
The other strain of post-match delirium is the claim that we would have won the by-election if only Andy Burnham had been the candidate.No, we would not. Andy dodged disaster yesterday. The gap was too big. Look at it.Hannah Spencer took Gorton and Denton with 40.7 per cent of the vote. Reform’s Matt Goodwin came second on 28.7 per cent. Labour’s Angeliki Stogia, a very good candidate, trailed in on 25.4 per cent. The combined Conservative and Labour vote was 27.3 per cent. For the first time in modern parliamentary history neither Labour nor the Conservatives finished in the top two. The Tories got 1.9 per cent.A few people have unkindly blamed former MP Andrew Gwynne for this result. Whatever Andrew did in his WhatsApp groups, he can be very confident he is not the reason Labour lost yesterday, and I hope he knows that.I also hear anecdotally from campaigners that while most Conservative supporters defected to Reform, a chunk went Green, not out of love for net zero but out of fear of a Reform MP and a wobble in the local housing market. Nothing says modern Conservatism like voting Green to keep the drama in Clacton.
The Conservatives have reached that special stage of political decline where novelty candidates sit on the same rung as them. When your candidate is trading vote share with Sir Oink a Lot you are not a serious party any more. You are a cautionary tale for what can happen to Labour if we do not get our act together fast.
Not even the reincarnation of Clement Attlee, with a full social media team and a TikTok strategy slicker than Hannah Spencer’s, could have won yesterday. Lucy Powell, our magnificent deputy leader, threw the kitchen sink at this by election. Seasoned hands will know she headed a vote collapse and I mean she stopped us sliding to a humiliating sub five thousand votes. The team worked every voter they could find. She led well, and the result was comfortably better than Labour’s national standing. It was still nowhere near enough.
The luckiest man in the UK today is Andy Burnham. I suspect he knows it. I hope he knows it, because he is a good man and he gave this campaign his all. Had Keir Starmer and the eight other members of Labour’s National Executive had the good grace to let him stand, we would now be watching the mayor of Greater Manchester give a concession speech in a leisure centre at four in the morning. The narrative would not be “Labour blocked its best candidate”. It would be “Labour’s best candidate got hammered”. That is a different headline and a considerably worse one.
Those who have spent the past year hoping that Andy’s return to Parliament would solve everything are now in some difficulty, because I cannot see a single seat that Labour could hold at a by election in the foreseeable future. A turnaround in the polls would change that, but turnarounds take time.
The first bad take was immigration. The second was that Andy Burnham would have won it. The third is that the lesson is Labour must be more Green, which is to say more left. Several union general secretaries and hard-left public intellectuals have been vociferous about this today and Richard Burgon has been especially loud. I hate criticising Richard because I love the man, mainly because of his consistent and unwavering devotion to that most specialist niche of music creation, that most rarefied and exquisite pinnacle of artistic expression, that is the genre of heavy metal. For this he carries my deepest respect. But honestly, he needs to squidge the doughnuts out of his ears and get real.
This “shift left” vibe will not do us much good. It takes a one off by-election and forces it into an ideological story, as if voters were choosing a manifesto rather than registering anger, identity and tactical intent. This contest was driven by at least three dynamics at once: Gaza as a high salience issue for a chunk of voters, the usual anti incumbent drift that hits parties in government, and tactical behaviour aimed at blocking Reform. If you blend those into one verdict, you misread the result.
It also mistakes the Green vote for a simple leftward preference. In by elections, Minor parties often assemble a temporary coalition of protest voters, identity voters and signal senders, which can look like a governing majority until polling day is over. Then it dissolves the moment the country starts asking a different question, who runs the place.
If Labour wants a usable lesson, it is not to cosplay as a party of permanent protest. It is to rebuild a credible moral economy and a visible programme for living standards. That probably starts with a root and branch review of arm’s length regulation, so the state stops outsourcing accountability to quangos with no grip and no bite. Then appoint a minister for standards of living, with the authority to coordinate enforcement across departments and regulators, and with a simple job description: take on the bad actors, the selfish minority, who do not play by the rules, and make the economy work for the little guys and gals again. This should very directly have small business and freelancers at the heart of it.
Many of today’s commentators also forget to put some basics into their daft analysis Parties of government have a very bad strike rate at holding seats when they are in power. This is not news. This is not even analysis. It is a fact so old it should have its own blue plaque on the wall of Professor John Curtice’s study.
Here I am going to blow my own trombone and show you a chart. I was involved in several of the wins in the Blair and Brown years. The party had a habit of making me campaign manager for the ones they expected to lose, on the theory that if someone had to stand in front of the cameras and explain a defeat it might as well be me. Several of those seats held. The assumption was often wrong. I was often stubborn. The two things may be connected.
Big Health warning with this chart. I have used AI to generate these numbers, so they may not be 100 per cent accurate. I will check against the actual figures next week and amend if necessary.
Finally, Cheer up Labour friends. We are not halfway through this parliament and there is a long way to go. And at a general election, honestly it is only a hunch, but based on fifty years of living through them, I think most people will not want Zac Polanski to be our Prime Minister.
Don’t get mad at me for saying this. It is just my hunch.
Labour loses to its left
LabourList <accounts@labourlist.org> Friday 27 February 2026
A gory night for LabourSo, let’s start with the good news – Reform UK does not have a new MP. Matt Goodwin suffered a bad loss.
At the start of this campaign it was very much felt that Reform could easily take this seat. Perhaps we’re now seeing that the ‘teal wave’, which had been seemingly unstoppable for so long, may have in fact crested. However, that’s about all the electoral good news for Labour today (though we do have our usual round up of how Labour is delivering in government). Coming third in a seat that we’d previously held by over 13,000 votes is going to raise inevitable questions for Labour’s leadership and strategy. In particular, their relentless focus on Labour to Reform switchers – which has opened up space to Labour’s left which the Green Party capitalised on to devastating effect last night to win their fifth MP and first in the north of England.
Some realism will be needed when asking these questions. First of all, midterm by-elections do tend to produce results that are unfavourable to the sitting government – especially one that is unpopular. Secondly, it will be reasonable to argue that there has not yet been time for the things Labour has done right to bear fruit. None of which is to argue that last night’s result was inevitable.
The most obvious question this morning is would Labour have done better if Andy Burnham had been the candidate? That is to take nothing away from Labour’s Angeliki Stogia who fought a very positive, very energetic campaign. But the Greater Manchester Mayor’s popularity, especially when contrasted with the UK Labour Government overall, is significant. Could running this popular figurehead have made Labour the more obvious ‘stop Reform’ choice? Obviously nobody can prove a counterfactual, but some reports from the doorstep show that people were saying that they would have voted for Burnham but could not vote for Labour more broadly. Even this inevitably leads to even tougher questions.
If Burnham had won, that would have created an expensive and difficult by-election for that Greater Manchester mayoralty. Is the calculation, therefore, that it was better to risk this mid-term by-election loss in order to prevent putting that mayoralty at risk of being run by populists of the left or the right? That is the case that Keir Starmer will have to make. He made it known that he led from the front in blocking Andy Burnham’s candidacy. Therefore, he will need to make the argument that this was the right thing to do for the party overall in a long-term strategic approach even if it might have been the wrong tactic in Gorton and Denton.
Let’s be blunt – the circumstances of this by-election could not have been worse for Labour. Not only had the whole campaign started with a high profile internal row over Burnham’s candidacy but throughout the short campaign one news story has dominated – that of the relationship of Peter Mandelson with Jeffrey Epstein and Mandelson’s influence with senior figures in Keir Starmer’s government. This row has already resulted in the loss of a number of staff from Number 10 including Starmer’s right hand man Morgan McSweeney. Many of these were also figures who were largely involved in trying to bring the Party to particularly focus on those Labour to Reform switchers at the expense of leaving our left flank exposed. With them leaving, that may already be changing, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t lessons still to be learned.
When I was speaking to our reporter James Tibbitts before the result came in last night, he said that one thing that had clearly struck him was the internal unity that had been displayed in Gorton and Denton. People working from across the factions of the party to get behind the candidate and to pull positively in the same direction. Now, obviously, this result is not what any of those people wanted. But that energy, that working together rather than fighting each other may well be a key part of turning around Labour’s fortunes going forward. If we simply make this a chance to attack the leadership and revive internal fights, we might lose something very precious and very fragile that Labour members started to rebuild on those doorsteps.
However, if we also mistake the need for unity for a need for blind loyalty, we will fail to have the difficult conversations about where, how and why Labour is getting things wrong. Both unquestioning loyalty and factional infighting are blind alleys.
Instead, Labour must continue to work in the spirit of unity but to do so with honesty and transparency and encourage a discussion between all of the parts of the party; a discussion where all feel as valued and energised as they did on those doorsteps yesterday. All find a way to feel part of what is being built enabling them to pull in the same direction and to work to make this Labour government a success in policy, political, electoral and cultural terms. There’s still time to do that, but the clock is ticking. LabourList will continue to provide a platform for all those wishing to discuss all things Labour in that spirit of honesty, togetherness and transparency.
For today, we want to thank the thousands of activists who hit the doorsteps in Gorton and Denton. We want to thank Angeliki Stogia for running an incredible and positive campaign and we want to thank you, our readers, for ensuring that LabourList is the space that Labour needs to ensure that we can be a robust, forward-looking, positive and energised party.We saw defeat last night and it hurts. But underneath that we may also have seen positive signs of things to come. Let’s build on that.
American Politics
Heather Cox Richardson from Letters from an American <heathercoxrichardson@substack.com> Tuesday 3 March 2026
The Economist’s Middle East correspondent Gregg Carlstrom noted that Trump appears to be workshopping the causes for his attacks on Iran and his goals for the war by talking to journalists.
As Meidas Touch summarized Carlstrom’s argument, he said: “[Trump] doesn’t sound convinced by any of it. He’s throwing spaghetti at the wall. Ultimately I suspect he just wants to say he ‘solved’ a problem that has vexed every American president since Jimmy Carter. But there’s no clear idea what that looks like and no plan for how to get there. And there are plenty of possible scenarios in which Trump declares victory and leaves the region with an absolute mess.”
Matt Gertz of Media Matters noted today that Trump, who watches the Fox News Channel consistently, appears to have shaped his attack on Iran in response to encouragement from FNC hosts. Gertz recalled that for decades, the FNC hosts Trump trusts the most have called for military strikes on Iran.
Last June, FNC personalities Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Brian Kilmeade urged Trump to bomb Iran and then lavished praise on him when he did. Hannity said the bombing would “go down in history as one of the great military victories.”
In the past weeks, Gertz wrote, the same figures have been urging Trump to attack. But their goal appeared to be the bombing itself. They expected an easy victory, without defining what that might look like. According to Kilmeade, the U.S. would “lose credibility forever” if it didn’t hit Iran. On Friday morning, Kilmeade said: “I hope the president chooses to go at it. We have been looking at these headlines for 47 years, and we have an opportunity to end it. And this president likes to make history.”
On Friday night, Levin told Hannity: “This president knows right from wrong. He knows good from evil. He knows that this regime is a death cult. And he knows that there’s only really two countries that are prepared and willing to put an end to this. We don’t need to put up with their crap. It’s time to put it to an end.”
On Saturday, after Trump had started the bombing, Levin said: “Donald Trump did what nobody else could do for half a century. How do you like that? And you know why he did it? Because he loves his country.”Trump’s strikes on Iran could have had something to do with the increasing heat over the Epstein files or his fury that the Supreme Court struck down his tariff walls, which were central not only to his economic program but also to his pressure on foreign governments and companies to do his bidding. Possibly he was responding to pressure from Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, or both.
Whatever their immediate trigger, the strikes fall in line with the ideology of cowboy individualism that began to take over the Republican Party in the 1980s and which, under Trump, has turned into brutal displays of dominance. The old idea of a cowboy from rural America who cuts through the government bureaucracy that threatens his livelihood by coddling racial minorities and women has curdled into the notion that a leader can do whatever it takes, including violence, to force opponents to submit to his will.
In foreign affairs, that means smashing the international alliances built after World War II. One of the crowning achievements of that international order is the United Nations, constructed to maintain international peace and security by creating organizations that could provide a forum for diplomacy and stop countries from attacking each other. The U.S. currently owes the U.N. nearly $4 billion in unpaid dues as Trump seeks to replace the organization with his own “Board of Peace” that he alone controls. This month, the U.S. holds the presidency of the U.N. Security Council, enabling it to set the agenda. Today, Trump sent First Lady Melania Trump to chair the meeting, the first time a presidential spouse has done so.Another of the crowning achievements of the post–World War II international order is the Geneva Conventions, which define the legal treatment of noncombatants in war. In his confirmation hearings, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth refused to tell Senator Angus King (I-ME), who pressed him on the issue, that he would uphold the Geneva Conventions.
In the ideology that honors violent domination, Trump’s bombing Iran without regard for the Constitution or international law, when no president before him had done so, proves his strength. Hegseth illustrated that idea this morning when he said: “For forty-seven long years, the expansionist and Islamist regime in Tehran has waged a savage, one-sided war against America.” Hegseth, who was a Fox News Channel weekend host before becoming secretary of defense, tried to turn the administration’s military operation into a heroic stand in a silent war that had lasted for two generations.
Claiming the U.S. attacks on Iran that started this conflagration were defensive, rather than offensive, Hegseth claimed: “We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump we are finishing it…. It took the 47th president, a fighter who always puts America first, to finally draw the line after 47 years of Iranian belligerence. He reminded the world, as he has time and time again…[i]f you kill Americans, if you threaten Americans anywhere on Earth, we will hunt you down, without apology and without hesitation, and we will kill you.”
Hegseth celebrated Israel and its strikes alongside the U.S., while he condemned “so many of our traditional allies who wring their hands and clutch their pearls, hemming and hawing about the use of force. America, regardless of what so-called international institutions say, is unleashing the most lethal and precise air power campaign in history…. No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy-building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win, and we don’t waste time or lives.”In this ideology, the dominance itself is the point: there is no other endgame.But this ideology was always based on a myth that played well on television. Three days into the attack on Iran, there is increasing scrutiny of the assertions from government officials. According to Dustin Volz, Alexander Ward, and Lara Seligman of the Wall Street Journal, lawmakers and experts say those assertions are “incomplete, unsubstantiated, or flat-out wrong.”
And as the conflagration spreads, taking the lives of now six of our military personnel, the administration is now discovering that the American people would like to know why we are engaged in what appears to be a war of choice, and why this approach to the world is better than the one that kept us safe for 80 years.
Today the State Department told U.S. citizens to leave Gulf states immediately because of “serious safety risks,” “using available commercial transportation.” But many of the airports in the region are closed, some because they have been hit in the fighting. Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) posted on social media: “Dear [Secretary of State Marco Rubio]: You told Americans to depart now via commercial means when you know many airports/airspace are closed. YOU MUST IMMEDIATELY SCHEDULE U.S. GOVERNMENT EVACUATION FLIGHTS FOR THE STRANDED AMERICANS IN DANGER. Maybe you should have thought of a frickin’ plan first.”
Retired Major General Randy Manner, who is currently stranded in the United Arab Emirates, told CNN: “It seems to me that the purpose and mission have been shifting over the past few days and the past few weeks. Initially, it was to ensure that they could not continue to develop nuclear weapons. Now it’s about regime change, and then there’s so many things that are being piled onto the mission list, it almost seems like someone googled it before the brief, to throw everything…in the kitchen sink into it. So it’s a little bit disconcerting.
“And, in fact, one of the small things that does matter to tens of thousands of people here, as well as to their families: It’s a little bit disheartening and a little bit envious to hear that the BBC has announced that the U.K. government is actually arranging transport for the British citizens to be able to extract them, whereas here, for us as Americans, we feel abandoned. The State Departments have talked to two embassy personnel, two different embassies. They are in survival mode, quite frankly, because as we know, the administration reduced their budgets by almost one half over the past year. So this is a difficult situation for people who are not used to being in a combat situation. And that, of course, is, quite frankly, probably 99% of the travelers that are here.”
Former paratrooper and Army Ranger Representative Jason Crow (D-CO) also had something to say about the reality of war. “I learned, years ago, that when elites like Donald Trump bang the war drums and pound their chests in Washington, D.C., and talk about sending troops into the ground or into combat, he’s not talking about his kids. He’s not talking about all of his minions’ kids. He is talking about kids like me and the people that I grew up [with] in working-class areas, rural places around the country that have to pick up rifles, jump in the tanks or helicopters, and…do the tough work. Well, America is over it. America is over the three trillion dollars we’ve spent. The quagmires of failed nation building. The sending of our sons and daughters and brothers and sisters to enrich oil executives. America is over endless adventurism using our military. Because they want their infrastructure rebuilt. They want quality affordable healthcare. They want to be able to afford groceries. They want to be able to afford a home. They want to be able to send their kids to school.”—
SECRETARY CLINTON’S OPENING STATEMENT TO THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 26, 2026
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee… as a former Senator, I have respect for legislative oversight and I expect its exercise, as do the American people, to be principled and fearless in pursuit of truth and accountability.
As we all know, however, too often Congressional investigations are partisan political theater, which is an abdication of duty and an insult to the American people.
The Committee justified its subpoena to me based on its assumption that I have information regarding the investigations into the criminal activities of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Let me be as clear as I can. I do not.
As I stated in my sworn declaration on January 13, I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes or offices. I have nothing to add to that.
Like every decent person, I have been horrified by what we have learned about their crimes. It’s unfathomable that Mr. Epstein initially got a slap on the wrist in 2008, which allowed him to continue his predatory practices for another decade.
Mr. Chairman, your investigation is supposed to be assessing the federal government’s handling of the investigations and prosecutions of Epstein and his crimes. You subpoenaed eight law enforcement officials, all of whom ran the Department of Justice or directed the FBI when Epstein’s crimes were investigated and prosecuted. Of those eight, only one appeared before the Committee. Five of the six former attorneys general were allowed to submit brief statements stating they had no information to provide.
You have held zero public hearings, refused to allow the media to attend them, including today, despite espousing the need for transparency on dozens of occasions.
You have made little effort to call the people who show up most prominently in the Epstein files. And when you did, not a single Republican Member showed up for Les Wexner’s
This institutional failure is designed to protect one political party and one public official, rather than to seek truth and justice for the victims and survivors, as well as the public who also want to get to the bottom of this matter. My heart breaks for the survivors. And I am furious on their behalf.
I have spent my life advocating for women and girls. I have worked hard to stop the terrible abuses so many women and girls face here and around the world, including human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual slavery. For too long, these have been largely invisible crimes or not treated as crimes at all. But the survivors are real and they are entitled to better.
In Southeast Asia, I met girls as young as twelve years old who were forced into prostitution and raped repeatedly. Some were dying of AIDS. In Eastern Europe, I met mothers who told me how they lost daughters to trafficking and did not know where to turn. In settings around the world, I met survivors trying to rebuild their lives and help rescue others – with little support from people in power, who too often turned a blind eye and a cold shoulder.
If you are new to this issue, let me tell you: Jeffrey Epstein was a heinous individual, but he’s far from alone. This is not a one-off tabloid sensation or a political scandal.
It’s a global scourge with an unimaginable human toll.
My work combatting sex trafficking goes back to my days as First Lady. I worked to pass the first federal legislation against trafficking and was proud that my husband signed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which increased support for survivors and gave prosecutors better tools for going after traffickers.
As Secretary of State, I appointed a former federal prosecutor, Lou CdeBaca, to ramp up our global antitrafficking efforts. I oversaw nearly 170 anti-trafficking programs in 70 nations and directly pressed foreign leaders to crack down on trafficking networks in their countries. Every year we published a global report to shine a light on abuses.
The findings of those reports triggered sanctions on countries failing to make progress, so they became a powerful diplomatic tool to drive concrete action.
I insisted that the United States be included in the report for the first time ever in
2011. Because we must hold ourselves not just to the same standard as the rest of the world but to an even higher one. Sex trafficking and modern slavery should have no place in America. None.
Infuriatingly, the Trump Administration gutted the Trafficking in Persons Office at the State Department, cutting more than 70 percent of the career civil and foreign service experts who worked so hard to prevent trafficking crimes. The annual trafficking report, required by law, was delayed for months. The message from the Trump Administration to the American people and the world could not be clearer: combatting human trafficking is no longer an American priority under the Trump White House.
That is a tragedy. It’s a scandal. It deserves vigorous investigation and oversight.
A committee endeavoring to stopping human trafficking would seek to understand what specific steps are needed to fix a system that allowed Epstein to get away with his crimes in 2008.
A committee run by elected officials with a commitment to transparency would ensure the full release of all the files.
It would ensure that the lawful redactions of those files protected the victims and survivors, not powerful men and political allies.
It would get to the bottom of reports that DOJ withheld FBI interviews in which a survivor accuses President Trump of heinous crimes.
It would subpoena anyone who asked on which night there would be the “wildest party” on Epstein’s island.
It would demand testimony from prosecutors in Florida and New York about why they gave Epstein a sweetheart deal and chose not to pursue others who may have been implicated.
It would demand that Secretary Rubio and Attorney General Bondi testify about why this administration is abandoning survivors and playing into the hands of traffickers.
It would seek out officers on the front lines of this fight and ask them what support they need.
It would put forth legislation to provide more resources and force this administration to act.
But that’s not happening.
Instead, you have compelled me to testify, fully aware that I have no knowledge that would assist your investigation, in order to distract attention from President Trump’s actions and to cover them up despite legitimate calls for answers.
If this Committee is serious about learning the truth about Epstein’s trafficking crimes, it would not rely on press gaggles to get answers from our current president on his involvement; it would ask him directly under oath about the tens of thousands of times he shows up in the Epstein files.
If the majority was serious, it would not waste time on fishing expeditions. There is too much that needs to be done.
What is being held back? Who is being protected? And why the cover-up?
My challenge to you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, is the same challenge I put to myself throughout my long service to this nation. How to be worthy of the trust the American people have given you. They expect statesmanship, not gamesmanship. Leading, not grandstanding. They expect you to use your power to get to the truth and to do more to help survivors of Epstein’s crimes as well as the millions more who are victims of sex trafficking.