Week beginning 8 April 2026

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

Kathy Spillar, Ms. Executive Editor <info@msmagazine.com>

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

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

April 6, 2026 (Monday)Heather Cox Richardson Apr 7 READ IN APP 

“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.—

Notes:https://www.thetimes.com/article/dd968023-2bcf-42e9-9433-d315c60c476a?shareToken=268eae9758a25bba5da53bfe44346e21https://www.whitehouse.gov/videos/president-trump-and-the-first-lady-participate-in-the-2026-white-house-easter-egg-roll/https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/06/politics/fact-check-trump-false-bin-laden-claimhttps://www.cnn.com/2026/04/06/us/video/trump-signature-autograph-kids-easter-egg-digvid-vrtchttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/06/us/politics/hegseth-religious-tone.htmlYouTubewatch?v=xFO-SY9ykdAX:

Axios AM: Superintelligence New Deal

Mike Allen <mike@axios.com> nbox

 1 big thing: Sam’s superintelligence New Deal 

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.)

Week beginning April 1 2026

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 ListEmily 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

Reuters
Demonstrators march near the Lincoln Memorial after crossing the Memorial Bridge during the "No Kings" national day of protest in Washington, DC, on March 28, 2026. Nationwide protests against US President Donald Trump are expected Saturday as millions of people vent fury over what they see as his authoritarian bent and other forms of cruel, law-trampling governance. It is the third time in less than a year that Americans will take to the streets as part of a grassroots movement called "No Kings," the most

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.”

Protesters descend on Times Square during the "No Kings" national day of protest in New York on March 28, 2026. Nationwide protests against US President Donald Trump are expected Saturday as millions of people vent fury over what they see as his authoritarian bent and other forms of cruel, law-trampling governance. It is the third time in less than a year that Americans will take to the streets as part of a grassroots movement called "No Kings," the most vocal and visual conduit for opposition to Trump sinc

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.”

Demonstrators attend a "No Kings" protest against U.S. President Donald Trump's administration policies, in St. Paul, Minnesota, March 28, 2026. REUTERS/Tim Evans

“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.

HOUSTON, TEXAS - MARCH 28: Demonstrators take part in the No Kings Houston Protest, TX on March 28, 2026 in Houston, Texas. (Photo by Marcus Ingram/Getty Images for Women's March)

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

Sunday thought: Turning Yesterday’s Solidarity into Political Power

Where We Go From Here Robert Reich Mar 29 

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.

Live adaptations of Barbara Pym novels act as a fundraiser for St. Luke’s Episcopal Church. Courtesy Dan DiPietro

By Julia Capitelli

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.

Week beginning 25 March 2026

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

By the Indigenous Affairs Team’s Stephanie Boltje

A photo of Rhoda, she is looking at the camera with glasses and hair pulled back. She is wearing a demin jacket
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.”

A young rhoda in a suit with her arms crossed. She smiles at the camera
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
A group of people including Rhoda sat on the ground as part of a drama called poison.
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.

Image of the stadium at the olympic opening ceremony, large Indigenous artwork appears
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
Aboriginal dancers lunging forward with spears.
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 AO on stage with hands on hips and her name written on the wall behind her
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.

Kos Samaras  

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

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

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 AI will 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.

If you’re not an early adopter, today’s your chance.🎬 Watch our “Behind the Curtain” YouTube, “The AI Gap.” (Executive producer: Jimmy Shelton)Explore the data … Share this column.

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.

Week beginning March 18 2026

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 Atlantic Daily <newsletters@theatlantic.com>

Monday, January 5, 2026

David A. Graham Staff writer

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 news sources 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!”

Eleanor Watson contributed to this report.

*This report has been edited to omit the information that is available in the Atlantic article. The story below suggests that Kelly isundaunted!

upolitics

Sen. Mark Kelly Says ‘A Random Group Of People Off the Street’ Could Do A Better Job With Iran War Than Trump Administration

Sen. Mark Kelly Says ‘A Random Group Of People Off the Street’ Could Do A Better Job With Iran War Than Trump Administration

   by Tristan Butts March 9, 2026, 8:14 pm

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

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more March 17, 2026 Heather Cox Richardson Mar 18 

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.—

Notes:https://www.notus.org/trump-white-house/trump-doge-cuts-middle-eastern-oil-gas-criseshttps://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/brent-crude-oil

Cindy Lou eats in Perth

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.

The list: Rhine Journey by Ann Schlee; A Green Equinox by Elizabeth Mavor; Quartet in Autumn by Barbara Pym; Hotel du Luc by Anita Brookner; Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead by Olga Tokarczuk, translated by Antonia Lloyd-Jones; The Safekeep by Yael van der Wouden; Endling by Maria Reva; Creation Lake by Rachel Kushner.

Endling by Maria Reva

Longlisted for the Booker Prize in 2025Endling 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.’

Week beginning March 11 2026

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.

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.

By Rose Higham-Stainton March 3, 2026

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.” Though class 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’ magazine that 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 BooksApolloTANKFlash ArtTexte zur KunstThe White ReviewArt MonthlyBricks 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.

Did you know LARB is a reader-supported nonprofit?

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

Ms. Magazine

More Than A Magazine, A Movement

America’s Founding Feminists: Rewriting America’s Origin Story

3/2/2026 by Janell Hobson

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.  

On this semiquincentennial of the United States, Ms. magazine will explore these politics of inclusion through a series on America’s “Founding Feminists.” 

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. 

Founding Feminists: Series Overview 

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.

Eden Gordon|Mar 3, 2026

Anne Rice
Anne Rice | Gene Shaw/GettyImages

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 Frankensteinan 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.

Ann Radcliffe
Sketch of author Ann Radcliffe
Sketch of author Ann Radcliffe | Wikimedia Commons

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
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
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
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
Black-and-white sketch of Emily Brontë | Culture Club/GettyImages

While Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights might 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
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 Womenbut 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
Anne Rice | Gene Shaw/GettyImages

Anne Rice’s Interview with the Vampire changed 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.

Partners

University of East London provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK. View all partners

Republished here, under CC BY ND

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.

Information provided by the artist.

© Australian Art Department, Art Gallery of New South Wales, 2006

American Politics

Sunday thought: We will prevail

Finding courage in a dark time Robert Reich March 8, 2026.

Week beginning 4 March 2026

Scott Ryan The Last Decade of Cinema Black Chateau Fayetteville Mafia Press, June 2024.

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 Ounce Café

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.

Australian Politics

Pearls and Irritations

John Menadue’s Public Policy Journal
How Australia should fix capital gains tax

Bob McMullan

How Australia should fix capital gains tax

February 25, 2026     

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.

British Politics

A party can lose and still learn nothing

Tom Watson <tomwatsonofficial@substack.com> 

 Subscribe here for more

 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

By Emma Burnell Bluesky / WhatsApp / X / TikTok / email us / newsletter signup

A gory night for Labour So, 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

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

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.”—

Notes: https://www.mediamatters.org/us-iran-relations/iran-most-consequential-test-fox-trump-feedback-loop-yethttps://www.ms.now/morning-joe/watch/secy-hegseth-we-didn-t-start-this-war-but-under-trump-we-are-finishing-it-2490021443843https://apnews.com/article/un-us-budget-dues-trump-payment-7d68c072d470f989006b7d674ba85aaahttps://www.pressherald.com/2025/01/21/king-votes-against-hegseth-for-defense-secretary/https://www.pressherald.com/2025/01/14/king-questions-hegseth-during-contentious-hearing/​​https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/trumps-case-for-war-with-iran-faces-growing-scrutiny-96648cb9https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-is-shooting-at-some-of-the-worlds-busiest-airports-bb660b8ehttps://apnews.com/article/iran-us-international-law-war-aggression-6f0b57efff5e62e5c8fbc1acca4a3199X:atrupar/status/2028544448532013284allenanalysis/status/2028627916393939016tedlieu/status/2028617022394044427Bluesky:meidastouch.com/post/3mg3lfpaxlk2aiwillnotbesilenced.bsky.social/post/3mg43xmo4b22p


Rachel Maddow Fans
  · 

Steve Eskey ·27 February at 08:23 ·

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.

Week beginning 4 March 2026

Scott Ryan The Last Decade of Cinema Black Chateau Fayetteville Mafia Press, June 2024.

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 Ounce Café

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.

Australian Politics

Pearls and Irritations

John Menadue’s Public Policy Journal
How Australia should fix capital gains tax

Bob McMullan

How Australia should fix capital gains tax

February 25, 2026     

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.

British Politics

A party can lose and still learn nothing

Tom Watson <tomwatsonofficial@substack.com> 

 Subscribe here for more

 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

By Emma Burnell Bluesky / WhatsApp / X / TikTok / email us / newsletter signup

A gory night for Labour So, 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

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

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.”—

Notes: https://www.mediamatters.org/us-iran-relations/iran-most-consequential-test-fox-trump-feedback-loop-yethttps://www.ms.now/morning-joe/watch/secy-hegseth-we-didn-t-start-this-war-but-under-trump-we-are-finishing-it-2490021443843https://apnews.com/article/un-us-budget-dues-trump-payment-7d68c072d470f989006b7d674ba85aaahttps://www.pressherald.com/2025/01/21/king-votes-against-hegseth-for-defense-secretary/https://www.pressherald.com/2025/01/14/king-questions-hegseth-during-contentious-hearing/​​https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/trumps-case-for-war-with-iran-faces-growing-scrutiny-96648cb9https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-is-shooting-at-some-of-the-worlds-busiest-airports-bb660b8ehttps://apnews.com/article/iran-us-international-law-war-aggression-6f0b57efff5e62e5c8fbc1acca4a3199X:atrupar/status/2028544448532013284allenanalysis/status/2028627916393939016tedlieu/status/2028617022394044427Bluesky:meidastouch.com/post/3mg3lfpaxlk2aiwillnotbesilenced.bsky.social/post/3mg43xmo4b22p


Rachel Maddow Fans
  · 

Steve Eskey ·27 February at 08:23 ·

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.

Week beginning 25 February 2026

S.E. Lynes The Split Bookouture, March 2024.

Thank you, NetGalley, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.

S.E. Lynes has cleverly combined  a thriller with elements of character study and examination of the way relationships can develop or crumble under pressure.   These elements are woven together so seamlessly that the plot, as complex as it may appear at times, follows a  rational progress as a marriage breaks down. Questions arise from the beginning of the novel when compromising photographs of her husband, Will,  and an attractive woman are sent to Jessica. They have been married for seven years, are in their forties, and have a school age son and daughter for whom Will is the major carer while Jessica is a high-flying businesswoman. The prologue suggests that Jessica will be particularly vulnerable to the import of the photographs – and her reaction fulfills this prediction. She immediately verbally and physically assaults the just awakening Will.

Will’s characterisation is that of a man easily swayed by people and events, while being a stalwart father, loving husband and sensitive life coach.  Superficially, Jessica is stronger, but her reliance on her mother and best friend,  Lena, as the crisis in her marriage deepens, demonstrates Jessica’s vulnerability.  Will’s vulnerability also becomes more apparent as he begins to rely heavily on a recently met friend, an aggressive lawyer, and his sense of injustice. He, too, is impacted by his mother. However, unlike the support Jessica receives from hers, Will’s mothers remembered admonishments further serve to undermine his self-confidence and fulfil his sense of grievance. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.

Clare Flynn The Artist’s Apprentice Storm Publishing, February 2024.

Thank you, NetGalley, for this uncorrected proof for review.

This is the first of Clare Flynn’s novels that I have read. There is a lot to admire, for example the range of political and feminist issues that are covered in this essentially romantic novel. However, although I found the novel a good read, engaging, with interesting characters, I cannot give the writing an entirely positive response. Despite that, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to read this example of this popular author’s work and  would like to know what happens to the main protagonists in the follow up, The Artist’s Wife.

The novel begins in January 1908 at Alice’s home, Dalton Hall, in Surrey. Alice is sketching in the frost on her window and must take diversionary action so that her lateness to breakfast goes unnoticed. Taking in the mail to effect this, Alice is confronted with an envelope addressed in writing that makes her uneasy. It is an invitation from the American born wife of a newly rich neighbour, Cutler, inviting them to tea. Lord Dalton is pleased; his wife, unaware of the financial reason for her husband’s enthusiasm, is not. Alice is wary. Her brother, Victor, supports his father – he has prospects of joining the profitable Cutler firm of stockbrokers.

From this beginning, deftly sketching the outward reasons for the proposed relationship, a more ominous story begins to emerge.  Alice and the proposed marriage between her and the older Cutler son appear to be the crucial protagonists in the debates that arise over women’s position, their role in preserving family fortunes through marriage, and their lack of independence in choosing a partner. Behind this story is another that will become pivotal in deciding Alice’s future. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.

Tess Gerritsen The Spy Coast Thomas & Mercer, November 2023.

Thank you, NetGalley, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.

I am so pleased to have returned to reading Tess Gerritsen’s work after having neglected to do so for a while. This novel was an excellent move back to enjoying her work, and I look forward to reading and rereading her Rizzoli and Isles series. The Spy Coast is different but retains Gerritsen’s ability to draw characters whose stories are tempting to follow, a good plot and a satisfactory resolution.

The first chapter introduces Diana whose life has changed from being ‘the golden girl’ to one who dyes her blonde to ‘dead-mouse brown’ to escape a threat.  With such a description how can we not want to know more! Diana is on the run, but should she evoke sympathy? In chapter 2 Maggie is introduced. Rather than living in the salubrious apartment in Paris in which Diana, when introduced resided, Maggie is in a field contemplating blood, feathers and revenge for her killed chickens. Is it she with whom one should sympathise? See Books: Reviews for the complete review.

Community pantries

This is a great innovation, with community pantries now appearing in several suburbs. The bread that can be seen in this one, in O’Connor, comes from a bakery in Curtin. The other goods are brought to the pantry by members of the community. People make notes in the book provided, including thanks for supplying items and suggestions as to what would be appreciated and appropriate.

British Politics

‘Ban revenge porn or be blocked’, PM says to tech giants

LabourList <accounts@labourlist.org> Unsubscribe

By Daniel Green Bluesky / WhatsApp / X / TikTok / email us / newsletter signup

Starmer takes fight to social media firms Those of you still on X (formerly Twitter) would have, like me, been pretty disgusted last month when thousands of images were generated by Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok of deepfake nudes or of suggestive images of women without their consent. 

Although the Prime Minister’s tough stance then saw Musk restrict its ability to produce such grotesque images, Starmer is going one step further to prevent such a situation from happening again – telling social media firms and pornography websites they will have 48 hours to remove any deepfake nudes or ‘revenge porn’, or face being banned in the UK. 

Writing in The Guardian today, the Prime Minister calls violence against women and girls a “national emergency”, requiring an “immediate and uncompromising response”. “We are putting tech companies on notice. The burden of tackling abuse must no longer fall on victims. It must fall on perpetrators – and on the companies that enable harm.” 

At a time when the Prime Minister’s judgement has been called into question over his appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, Starmer’s focus on challenging online misogyny and abuse can also be seen as a move to address the concern of some in the PLP of a ‘boy’s club’ in Whitehall. 

“I am determined to transform the culture of government: to challenge the structures that still marginalise women’s voices. And it’s why I believe simply counting how many women hold senior roles is not enough. What matters is whether their views carry weight and lead to change.” 

After surviving his most challenging week as Prime Minister, Keir Starmer is continuing to prove he still has the mettle for the top job and the drive to take on the Wild West of social media.

Australian Politics

ABC News  

#ANALYSIS: In the past few days, in a series of largely ignored milestones overshadowed by news of Angus Taylor’s new frontbench, Albanese overtook Scott Morrison and John Curtin to become the 12th-longest serving prime minister.

MoreSearch the ABCStart typing for suggestions, press enter to search, or choose from a list of options below.Log in

Should Labor do its own refresh after Angus Taylor’s Liberal ‘rebrand’? By Jacob Greber

Untitled Photo - 2023-12-06 14:02:04
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese makes a virtue of having had so few cabinet reshuffles. ( ABC News: Matt Roberts )

Three months from now, Anthony Albanese’s government begins its fifth year in office.

In the past few days, in a series of largely ignored milestones overshadowed by news of Angus Taylor’s new frontbench, Albanese overtook Scott Morrison and John Curtin to become the 12th-longest serving prime minister.

A little under six months from now, he’s due to leapfrog Paul Keating. By November, after he sails past Ben Chifley, Albanese would become second only to Bob Hawke as the longest continuously serving Labor PM.

How time flies when you’re having fun…

How does Albanese get to nine years?

The future is by definition unknowable but history suggests Labor is nearing the mid-point of what might become a big entry in history’s list of longest stints in office.

Under Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison the last Coalition government clocked up eight years and eight months.

John Howard held on for more than 11 years, while Bob Hawke and Paul Keating managed 13 years.

Based on current polling and the trajectory of centre-right politics, there’s every reason to assume Albanese can win a third term in May 2028.

All things being equal — famous last words in politics — you’d have to say he has a clear runway to rack up at least nine years in the Lodge by 2031.

How he gets there is another question.

There’s plenty of criticism that the prime minister and his team are not using their political dominance to full effect, that there’s a dearth of policy ambition.

This criticism is not always fair — given the things Labor has done in its first four years, including starting the energy transition, treaty-making with allies in the region, the recognition of a Palestinian state, and movement in welfare spending. A much sounder record than its harshest critics will ever recognise.

But that has not changed the fact that many say this falls short.

A call for reform

Whether it’s economists, tax specialists, the business community, or social and welfare advocacy groups, the calls for boldness are constant.

They warn that without reform, the economy will continue a slow drift to mediocrity.

Former Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe was merely the latest to add his voice, telling The Australian Financial Review’s Patrick Durkin this week that government handouts are fine in the “normal course of events” but add to inflation when there’s little productivity growth or capacity in the economy.

“I hope the government turns out to be more ambitious than it currently looks like it will be because if it doesn’t and productivity growth remains weak, the supply capacity of the economy will remain weak,” Lowe said.

Lowe copped a slap-down the next day from the prime minister and Treasurer, who intimated the former governor was bitter about not being reappointed in 2023.

The prime minister went further, shrugging Lowe off as something of a nobody.

“Phil Lowe the footballer, former Manly player, or former RBA governor? You know … you have people who are exes, who get their name in the paper. I haven’t seen his comments,” the prime minister said.

Lowe is patently no fan of the government’s fiscal strategy, but dismissing him as a know-nothing has-been — rather than addressing the substance of his criticism — is a shabby look.

For his part, it’s unlikely Lowe is all that bothered by the political heat.

Labor figures who want to dismiss him as some kind of partisan player might find it interesting that during the Morrison government, the Coalition was not all that enamoured of Lowe. Liberals regularly complained to this columnist that he was ineffective and unhelpful.

Back then, perhaps, he was just doing his job as an independent economist. Now, he’s speaking his mind about an area he’s familiar with.

How the government’s reactiveness plays out to criticism about the direction of the political economy is being closely watched by supporters and critics alike.

Taylor’s new team

If nothing else, Angus Taylor’s rise this month to the leadership of the Liberal Party and the rollout of a new front bench is a reminder that nothing stays static in politics for long.

Presentation-wise, Taylor has delivered a much-needed refresh for the Coalition, elevating younger millennials and women to positions of prominence.

Standing alongside Jane Hume was Tim Wilson, 45, and Clare Chandler, 35, highlighting that Taylor and his team wanted to emphasise generational change.

For a party that has for too long been seen as dominated by “old blokes” — notwithstanding the last nine months under Sussan Ley — the new line-up is an appeal to lost voters.

“I know there’s so many great Liberal women out there that have been reticent about politics for all sorts of reasons… and I want them to join the Liberal Party, get involved, and ultimately stand for pre-selection and stand for election,” said Taylor.

“Any watching today, please join up. We want more great women in the Liberal Party.” Angus Taylor unveils shadow ministry

An appeal and a rebranding exercise in one. And like all re-branding efforts, early perceptions may not translate into success in the polls or ballot box.

Liberals in NSW, the ACT and Victoria in particular have tried many times to fix their problems by swapping leaders.

The only place where it has worked in the last few years is in Queensland, where the LNP is a single Coalition “brand”.

Pollster Kos Samaras cautions that flipping leaders is a “ritual” from a lost era.

“The problem conservative politics is facing isn’t a leader. It’s them,” he said on Friday, after a Newspoll of South Australian voters showed Labor’s primary at 44 per cent, One Nation on 24 per cent, the Liberals with 14 per cent and the Greens on 12 per cent.

One student of polls reckons it’s so bad for the Coalition that Labor could technically walk away with every seat in the state if those numbers play out on election day next month.

Back to Samaras: “We’ve seen the same underlying pattern in Victoria, across multiple polls: fragmentation of the two-party system, a right split between a shrinking mainstream Liberal brand and a growing populist challenger, and a political map where preferences, tactical voting, and micro-geographies matter more than ever.”

American Politics

The Economist

The Economist

The Declaration of Independence still defines America’s purpose, writes Jon Meacham

The document was written for America’s most challenging moments
Illustration: Dan Williams

Jan 6th 2026|6 min readListen to this story

IN THE BEGINNING, no one paid all that much attention to it—and, if they did, they were not particularly impressed. Now scriptural, the Declaration of Independence’s most famous sentence—“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”—was drafted by Thomas Jefferson and edited by Benjamin Franklin in the crowded hours of the Second Continental Congress in the summer of 1776. John Adams, jealous of Jefferson’s celebrity as its main author, claimed there was “not an idea in it but what had been hackneyed in Congress for two years before”. Even Jefferson admitted that the object was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of…but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject” as an “expression of the American mind”. Reviews could be harsh. In England, Jeremy Bentham dismissed the Declaration as “contemptible and extravagant”. Samuel Johnson put his finger on colonial hypocrisy with a penetrating question: “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?”

As America turns 250, we trace the triumphs, contradictions and arguments that have shaped the world’s first liberal republic

And yet since its signing the Declaration has served as a kind of north star for Americans, especially in hours of strife. “I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny; so, indeed, I regard it,” Frederick Douglass said in 1852. “The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.” That a man who had escaped enslavement and was not included in the Declaration’s assertion that “all men are created equal” could hail that crucial American document even amid the darkness of the antebellum order is testimony to its power and possibilities.

What explains the Declaration’s potency? I think Americans are drawn to it for the same reasons human beings are so often drawn to sacred scripture, which tends to be effective insofar as it offers readers and listeners an understanding of the origins, course and destiny of life. Commandment and covenant, the Declaration is the biblical base of America’s civic religion, offering precept and promise. We return to it in remembrance of battles won—beginning with the Revolutionary War itself—and to arm ourselves for battles still to come.

It is our oldest assertion of national aspiration, an articulation of the principle for which a disparate group of New World colonies chose to take on the world’s mightiest empire in armed struggle. The causes of the American revolution were varied, and not all were noble. Independence was declared after years of battles over power and money in the wake of the Seven Years’ War, when London assumed a larger burden in defending its American colonies. “The Americans have made a discovery, or think they have made one, that we mean to oppress them,” Edmund Burke remarked in 1769. “We have made a discovery, or think we have made one, that they intend to rise in rebellion against us…We know not how to advance; they know not how to retreat.” By the summer of 1776—after Lord Dunmore, the British governor of Virginia, had promised freedom to any enslaved person who rose against the colonists—war had come. Yet for all of the American limitations on who was included in the Declaration’s assertion of equality, the ideal of individual liberty, an inheritance from the British tradition, was—and is—at the heart of the national experiment.

And when that experiment is under stress, the Declaration has proven useful in defining national problems and inspiring popular effort to solve those problems. In the same way the Gospel of John linked the Christian story of a divine Jesus to the familiar Genesis account of creation by evoking the phrase “In the beginning”, American leaders from Douglass and Abraham Lincoln to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Martin Luther King Jr have found Jefferson’s words essential in framing the present in terms of the past.

Lincoln probably first encountered the text of the Declaration in William Grimshaw’s popular “History of the United States”, published in 1820; in his first major public speech, to the Young Men’s Lyceum in Springfield, Illinois, in 1838, he spoke of the sanctity of the founding; and in 1859, on the eve of his presidential campaign, he described the Declaration and its major author with reverence. “All honor to Jefferson—to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people”, Lincoln wrote, “had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.” At Gettysburg in 1863, Lincoln brilliantly grounded the Union cause not in the prose of the constitution but in the poetry of the Declaration: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” One could debate the constitution, which was the means of America. Lincoln’s rhetorical gamble—which he won—was that one could not question the purpose of America, which, in this rendering, was Jefferson’s “proposition”.

Eighty years later, amid a global war against totalitarianism, Franklin D. Roosevelt turned to the Declaration to clarify Allied aims. On April 13th 1943, Roosevelt dedicated the Jefferson Memorial on the Tidal Basin in Washington by linking Jefferson and the American Revolution with himself and the second world war. “He faced the fact that men who will not fight for liberty can lose it,” Roosevelt said. “We, too, have faced that fact. He lived in a world in which freedom of conscience and freedom of mind were battles still to be fought through—not principles already accepted of all men. We, too, have lived in such a world. He loved peace and loved liberty—yet on more than one occasion he was forced to choose between them. We, too, have been compelled to make that choice.”

And Jefferson supplied Martin Luther King Jr with the substance of the things hoped for. “I have a dream”, King intoned at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963, “that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” There, in the midst of the 20th century, in the heat of a freedom movement, King—like Lincoln and Roosevelt before him—could find no clearer articulation, no better summary of the American promise, than Jefferson’s ancient words.

In our own illiberal hour, the Declaration offers a measure of hope—which has always been part of the point. “The assertion that ‘all men are created equal’ was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, nor for that, but for future use,” Lincoln remarked in 1857. “Its authors…knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.” As it was in the beginning, so it remains. ■

Jon Meacham holds the Rogers Chair in the American Presidency at Vanderbilt University. He has written biographies of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln.

Cindy Lou finds a great eating spot for lunch

Super Sweet has indoor and outdoor seating, most of which was filled when we lunched there on Monday. On an earlier occasion we have had some very pleasant coffees, but the cool drinks were very tempting on a hot day. We had an iced yuzu lemonade and a yuzu lemonade espresso. The Shakshuka was very good, and the Katsu curry bowl with prawns was delicious.

The Saturday Paper logo

February 21 – 27, 2026  |  No. 588

Marcia Langton: What should a writers’ festival be?

There are cultural events that entertain, and there are rare ones that reorganise how a society encounters ideas. The Jaipur Literature Festival is the latter. Founded in 2006 by Namita Gokhale, William Dalrymple and Sanjoy Roy at Diggi Palace, the festival draws hundreds of thousands of people in person and tens of millions online.

Yet its magnetism lies not in scale alone. It rests on a curatorial philosophy that treats ideas as public life – dynamic, contested, interdisciplinary and sensorial. Books are catalysts for encounters – between novelists, political analysts, historians, scientists, politicians, economists and technologists.

The grace of the festival, as Gokhale puts it, is not softness but confidence in the public’s capacity for complexity. The authors, their books and their ideas are paramount. The festival does not succeed because it offers limitless free speech; it succeeds because its founders and an enormous team of moderators, volunteers and cultural practitioners practice intelligent, compelling, cogent curation.

Its freedom is constructed as a negotiated cultural common, where brilliance thrives because of orchestration. This is not an open mic of outrage nor a bureaucratically sanitised forum. It is a designed intellectual ecosystem where excellence, disagreement and complexity are actively cultivated.

This is the paradox contemporary culture often refuses to confront: scale produces influence; influence attracts power; and only strong curatorial leadership can keep ideas central rather than subordinated to chaos or institutional fear. William Dalrymple’s history factory, as I call it, was ever-present, and his presentations thrilling.

The contrast with Australia could not be clearer. The collapse of two writers’ festivals in Australia – Adelaide Writers’ Week, the country’s oldest, and the Bendigo Writers Festival – following mass boycotts by scheduled speakers after board and sponsor censorship, will drive cash-strapped festivals to ensure that speakers are safe and conversations are pre-approved.

In Australia, controversy is treated as an institutional failure rather than cultural vitality. The result is a narrowing of ambition, purpose and the place of literature in our society. The door is opened to mediocrity. In this climate, festivals will increasingly resemble risk-managed civic programming: cautious, polite, predictable.

Jaipur’s success rests precisely on refusing that timidity by engineering and curating a genuinely complex program.

One of the festival’s strengths is its capacity to elevate literary excellence while situating it within urgent social realities. Among the most compelling presences this year was Banu Mushtaq, whose collection Heart Lamp, translated by Deepa Bhasthi, won the International Booker Prize in 2025.

Mushtaq’s stories explore patriarchy, caste and class with emotional precision. They are shaped by decades of legal advocacy for Muslim women in southern India. As she explained, “The pain, suffering and helpless lives of these women create a deep emotional response within me, compelling me to write.”

Her prominence was not tokenism but recognition of intellectual authority: literature as lived social intervention.

Equally arresting was the presence of Richard Flanagan, Australia’s own Booker Prize winner, who appeared in two sessions centred on his 2023 memoir, Question 7. Written in a rush after a mistaken diagnosis of early dementia, the book is less nostalgia than a reckoning with mortality; it is art with meaning, not dogma and not despair.

Literature and fiction influenced the atomic age, he observed, asking us to resist digital despair by turning to books, poetry and everyday acts of goodness. The questions that matter most are irrational and emotional. He has answered by making his legacy a meditation on life with meaning found in love. This is his answer to Chekhov’s question 7.

The festival’s capacity for intellectual theatre was perhaps most vividly embodied by Stephen Fry, whose session on the history of Troy wove classical scholarship with wit, narrative and moral inquiry. Fry demonstrated what Jaipur curators and audiences understand: that serious ideas need not be solemn to be profound. They can dazzle, entertain and educate simultaneously.

Another kind of star power appeared in the form of Viswanathan Anand, India’s first chess grandmaster, who drew vast crowds of children and adults alike. Anand warned the children gathered around him against reliance on “ready-made solutions” from artificial intelligence, emphasising disciplined practice, resilience and learning from defeat. In a festival dominated by literary discourse, his presence reinforced Jaipur’s interdisciplinary ethos – intelligence as lived practice rather than abstract performance.

This breadth of ambition throws into relief the crisis engulfing Australian literary institutions. In her reporting on the collapse of the Bendigo Writers Festival, journalist Rosemary Sorensen documented historian Clare Wright’s critique of La Trobe University, accusing it of “looking at the wrong risks” and lacking “moral courage”. The university’s requirement for speakers to comply with its anti-racism plan, which includes anti-Semitism, after complaints about Randa Abdel-Fattah’s appearance triggered a boycott that led to the festival’s cancellation.

In Australia, controversy is treated as an institutional failure rather than cultural vitality. The result is a narrowing of ambition, purpose and the place of literature in our society. The door is opened to mediocrity.

La Trobe University and City of Greater Bendigo agreed on a code of conduct for all participants, which included compliance with the university’s anti-racism plan and its contested definition of anti-Semitism, after complaints about Randa Abdel-Fattah’s scheduled appearance. This triggered the mass boycott by speakers that ended the festival.

These were not eruptions of excessive free speech but failures of institutional courage. Under decades of tightening public funding and growing dependence on sponsorship, Australian festivals have adopted a managerial logic in which controversy equals reputational risk and ideas become liabilities.

The contemporary obsession with free speech absolutism obscures the real work of culture. Unstructured openness is not a curatorial philosophy; it is abdication. Yet bureaucratic censorship is equally corrosive. Between these poles lies what Jaipur demonstrates: freedom sustained through rigorous, informed, courageous curation.

Critics have rightly complicated the Jaipur story. Its success has drawn it closer to corporate capital, elite social worlds and political power, including affinities with India’s ruling establishment. Marginalised voices risk being crowded out; sponsorship increasingly shapes visibility. Yet this does not reveal hypocrisy so much as the political economy of cultural influence. Scale produces power; power attracts interests; and only strong leadership can keep ideas central rather than subordinated to spectacle or fear.

Jaipur does not pretend neutrality. It selects excellence. Its debates feel alive because disagreement is anchored in knowledge rather than the performance of outrage. Passion coexists with depth. This is why it can host global conversations on geopolitics, religion, economics and culture at a scale Australia has never attempted.

It is difficult to imagine any Australian writers’ festival currently exercising comparable cultural authority.

I thought about this as I attended sessions on the Indian constitution, free speech and legal reform. I later learnt that Indian children are required to study the Indian constitution in secondary school, and this explained the packed tents, enthusiasm and robust debates about constitutional and legal reform in the multiethnic, multi-religious nation that emerged from the violent partition, its impacts still vividly felt today by so many.

I thought about this while listening to Fara Dabhoiwala discuss his book What is Free Speech: The History of a Dangerous Idea, which steers us away from simplistic ideas of absolute free speech. This is particularly relevant in an age of ever-reducing knowledge of historical suppression and censorship, rapacious social media platforms, AI and endless digital slop, and harmful disinformation spread by extremely bad actors intent on undermining democracies and human rights worldwide.

In pre-modern times, before the printing press, unbridled speech was a crime in many societies. Words were regarded as dangerous weapons and regulated by custom, laws, religion and hierarchies. Dabhoiwala makes the point that “even if you disapprove of them, any flourishing culture is going to be full of lies, bullshit and offensive language … Each of these may be tolerable or even appropriate … It is also perfectly reasonable to oppose utterances that you believe to be seriously harmful, and to argue that these shouldn’t qualify as ‘free speech’.”

I was scheduled to speak on the last day of the festival with Rashmi Narzary, an award-winning Bodo writer from Assam. The session was titled “The Old Ways”, which we transformed into presentations on our respective books about our present-day Indigenous cultures, customs, arts, history and Indigenous knowledge, moderated by Georgina Godwin.

I feared the title would box us into that peculiar sociocentric past tense that dominant societies use to dismiss Indigenous peoples and local, traditional minorities. However, that is not the nature of Jaipur.

Narzary represents one group – an Indigenous or ethnic group, scheduled as a tribe under Indian laws but in any case one of the many minorities in north-east India, in the rich, complex societies of the valleys of the Tibeto-Burman region, linguistically and culturally diverse and, most of all, resilient.

She wore an exquisite handwoven outfit with the distinctive patterns unique to her Bodo people. She mentioned it as she described the villages in her region and how they maintain their culture.

I spoke after her and tried to engage her in a conversation about how works like hers and mine, which document Indigenous knowledge and culture, serve as evidence of our peoples’ existence and tools for their cultural survival. Our marginality became visible; not just history, politics, borders, encapsulation by modern states, but how we are intellectually on the edges of core ideas about civilisation and nations.

The lesson is not that Australia should imitate Jaipur’s scale or ignore its contradictions. It is that sustainable literary culture requires stable funding that reduces fear-driven government and sponsorship control. Festivals need boards committed to artistic courage rather than reputational management; curators empowered to stage complexity rather than neutralise it, to seek excellence rather than outrage; and renewed faith in audiences’ intellectual resilience.

Freedom of expression is not protected by gag clauses, cancellations or bureaucratic caution. It is protected by institutions willing to stand behind ideas.

The Jaipur Literature Festival proves that literature can be mass public culture without being dumbed down; that power and ideas can co-exist without collapsing into spectacle; and that curated excellence is the precondition of vibrant democratic life.

Australia’s recent festival implosions reveal the cost of abandoning those principles. The tragedy is not the absence of great writers and thinkers, it is the erosion of institutional boldness and Australian literary and intellectual culture. If Australian literary life is to recover its public relevance, it must move beyond both free-speech theatrics and managerial timidity – and once again trust ideas to do the work of democracy.

That is the reform our cultural future now urgently demands.

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on February 21, 2026 as “What should a writers’ festival be?”.

Week beginning 18 February 2026

Julia Cooke Starry and Restless Three Women Who Changed Work, Writing, and the World Farrar, Straus and Giroux, February 2026.

Thank you, NetGalley, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.

I read Julia Cooke’s Come Fly the World and was thoroughly engaged. Starry and Restless Three Women Who Changed Work, Writing, and the World is even more impressive. This book stands out for its valuable insights and compelling storytelling about three remarkable women. It  is  one of the most valuable and engrossing books on my bookshelf; an engaging work to return to frequently; a story written by yet another amazing woman who has, with this work, brought together feminist understanding, dedication to thoughtful detail of the worlds in which Rebecca West, Martha Gellhorn and Mickey (Emily) Hahn worked, developed loving and complex relationships with women and men, became parents, and came to grips with their own feelings, faults, virtues and challenges.

The book is in four parts; Stranger Even to Myself; The Urgency of Geography; Never Do Your Own Housework; and The Most Powerful Magic I Knew.  Each woman features in all the sections, with their location and the year providing the framework. In 1936-37 Rebecca West is in Yugoslavia; Mickey Hahn on her way to China; and Martha Gellhorn in Spain. The narrative spans the years from this period through the 1940s to the early 1950s and locations as varied as China, Cuba, England, Hong Kong, New York, Italy, Germany, the United States, Mexico, Taiwan and South Africa. The woman journalist is introduced after a prologue featuring Mickey Hahn on a journey to the Belgian Congo, a gun wrapped in a silk blouse. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.

Rebecca Heath The Dinner Party  Aria & Aries, Head of Zeus — an Aries Book Jan 2024. 

The Dinner Party is a gripping domestic thriller, at its core, a missing baby. Forty years after the dinner party that was in progress when Megan Callaghan disappeared Ruby is making a podcast as part of a renewed effort to find her. The domestic nature of the past and present are very much in evidence, Ruby’s grandmother was at the dinner party, as was Billie’s whose mother, Amanda is missing child’s sister, and was with her in the house when she disappeared. One of the men responsible for checking the sleeping children of the dinner guests, her grandfather, is now in a secured unit in a care home. His wife is dead. Billie’s other grandparents are alive and remain part of the community in which Megan vanished. Eve, Billie’s sister, is married to one of their childhood friends. Trish, the wife of couple at whose home the dinner party took place is still a presence: she is part of the Callaghan family business and Billie’s godmother.  Into this environment comes Donna – claiming to be the missing Megan. Amanda readily and lovingly accepts her. Billie does not, even when Eve makes it clear she is content with Donna’s explanations.

The story is told through Billie, Trish and Barbara from the dinner party, and Ruby’s podcast. The latter moves from the past to the present, interviewing all those still able and willing to contribute to the podcast. Trish tells the story of the evening through her experiences, contributing to the belief that all was not what it seemed between neighbours who periodically entertained at dinner parties, had children at the same school, and were part of a community in the past and now, often through the podcast. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.

I was fortunate to find more of Rebecca Heath’s work – The Last Encore fulfilled my expectations of her work.

Rebecca Heath The Last Encore Aria & Aries, January 2026.

Thank you, NetGalley, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.

Rebecca Heath places a group of unpleasant people on an island off the coast of Australia where the environment, a mix of beauty and fear invoking landscapes, plays its part in exposing duplicity and brutality. The past, eighteen years before, hovers uneasily above the present. The once famous Cedrics Band, with its demise the result of the death of its lead singer and guitarist, reunites. But this is an uneasy reunion. None of those involved, whether past members of the band, spouses or the couple hosting the event at their previously burnt-out resort appears to be innocent of the murder referred to in the prologue.  

Someone is now set on another murder in revenge. At the beginning of the novel, and in its early progression, this does not seem to be a problem. A mystery is there to be solved, but the protagonists excite no sympathy.  The person set on revenge for Jonny’s murder and the culprit could be any of the cast. Do we care who murdered Jonny Rake, dead at twenty-two? Are we invested in any of the characters? Bullying Bruce and his complicit and calculating partner, Florence? Weak, and alcoholic Adam who hated his brother? Slimy, greedy former band manager, ‘Bugsy’ Malone? Niggling couple, Lara, playing extensively to the cameras, but also taking her own photos, and former band member, the enigmatic Edward? Arrogant former drummer, and Jonny’s best friend, Dylan? Ivy St Fleur and her daughter Malone, Jonny’s ex and daughter? The pretentious and controlling Marco D’Angelo, director of the film that is to be made of the reunion, or his unpleasant and compliant wife, Connie? See Books: Reviews for the complete review.

Martha Gellhorn (Starry and Restless, see above review) has been the subject of several Facebook posts recently:

“I took only one suitcase, and a cosmetics case for medicines but I was worried about books. Solitude is all right with books, awful without.”

― Martha Ellis Gellhorn (8 November 1908 – 15 February 1998)

Virago Modern Classics Readers’ posts

Virago Modern Classics Readers

‘If you could leave and know the terror and confusion was ended; if you could leave, and others who did not leave could remain behind in safety …’

Mary Douglas, an assured American, arrives in Prague in October of 1938, the days of disintegration following the Munich Pact, to find the city on the brink of blackout, transformed by fear. As the Gestapo net spreads wider, countless refugees – from Austria, Germany, Sudetenland – are forced to return: for many this will mean torture, concentration camp, death. In her hotel Mary greets other journalists who like herself, cover international disasters and depart, their detachment intact. But through her friend Rita, a German refugee, Mary becomes passionately involved with the plight of the hunted victims of Nazi rule.

First published in 1940, this powerful novel, written from the author’s own experience, is a compelling record of one of the darkest moments of Europe’s history, and of the heroism of those who resisted the insane brutality of fascism.

“It was a terrific year for talk. But through it all the talk would come back to Marc Royer and Liana. That subject never failed; it belonged to the island entirely. Everyone asked everyone else, during that whole year, why Marc Royer had married her”

The year is 1940. France has fallen to the Germans, but on the tiny French Caribbean island of Saint Boniface nothing absorbs the inhabitants more than the news of wealthy Marc Royer’s marriage to the young mulatto, Liana. Marc himself is impervious to the scandal – Liana, after all, is “something he had bought for use when he could not have what he loved” – but for Liana the price of becoming a “white wife” is alienation both from her own people and from those whom, for a time, she tries to emulate. Only with Pierre, her teacher, does she feel herself free, but he is white, and a man, and in the end knows where his allegiances lie.

Liana does not have that certainty and in this disturbing novel about the sadness and inhumanity of oppression, her plight speaks to us as powerfully today as when Liana was first published in 1944.

Australian Politics

With their first female leader gone, can the Liberals shake their ‘women problem’?

Senior Liberals say Sussan Ley’s removal was about polling, not gender. But experts warn it may reinforce doubts about the party’s appeal to women.

With the Liberals’ first female leader, Sussan Ley, dumped after less than a year at the helm, experts say the party has done little to shake its perceived “women problem”.

But senior party figures insist gender had nothing to do with Ley’s removal, instead blaming dire polling and looming electoral oblivion.

Ley became the Liberal Party’s first female leader in its 80-year history after the Coalition’s landslide defeat at the May 2025 election. A moderate, she narrowly defeated conservative frontbencher Angus Taylor 29 votes to 25.

Nine months later, she was ousted and replaced by Taylor, who secured a decisive 34 to 17 victory after several of Ley’s key backers switched sides.

On Friday morning, before Ley was ousted, NT senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price said any attempt to frame a leadership change around gender would amount to “identity politics”.

“Frankly, Australians can see through this nonsense. Leadership is not about gender — it is about competence,” she said on social media.

She pointed to the Coalition’s primary vote falling from about 31 per cent at the election to 18 per cent in recent polling, arguing the party was “bleeding votes to One Nation”.

Victorian senator and key Liberal power-broker James Paterson was among the first to publicly back Taylor’s leadership bid, also pointing to recent opinion polls.

“Political leaders are judged on their performance, not their gender,” he said.

‘A classic case of the glass cliff’

While Ley’s detractors rejected the idea that the leadership spill reflected a broader issue for women, some experts argued her removal risked reinforcing long-standing concerns among female voters.

Michelle Ryan, director of the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at the Australian National University, told SBS News Ley’s elevation was a “classic case of the glass cliff”.

Ryan was among the first researchers to coin the term that describes women being promoted during times of crisis, when the risk of failure is high.

“Coming in after the worst electoral performance in history … the fact that she’s now been pushed out after such a short time sort of illustrates the precarity,” she said.

The day she was elected Liberal leader, Ley said she didn’t accept that she was facing a “glass cliff”, saying her agenda was broader than gender.

Tony Barry, a former senior Liberal staffer and now director of RedBridge Group — which conducts polling and political research — said the party faced an entrenched perception problem around gender.

“The problem for the Liberal Party is there’s an existing prejudice amongst voters,” he said.

“They do have a women problem, whether that’s real and whether that’s fair or not, that is the perception.

“The events of the last week are at risk of reinforcing that.”

He said Labor didn’t have the same issue, despite Julia Gillard being knifed as leader because the party had a high representation of female MPs.

Blair Williams, a politics lecturer at the University of NSW Canberra, said the Liberals’ gender problem was threefold: Under-representation in parliament, declining support among female voters and what she described as a “toxic blokey culture”.

She said accusations of bullying and sexual assault over the past decade had contributed to a culture many women viewed as unwelcoming.

“Young women, gen Z, Millennials, they are not voting for the Liberals,” she said.

“It’s a competition between Labor and the Greens at this point for those votes. You really do see a pretty dire scenario if they don’t get their act together when it comes to women.”

Women under-represented in Liberal ranks

Despite setting targets more than a decade ago for equal gender representation by 2025, both the Liberals and their Coalition partner, the Nationals, have fallen short.

Women make up just 33 per cent of Liberal MPs. Among the Nationals, a little over a quarter of MPs are female. Neither party has adopted gender quotas.

By contrast, Labor reached 50 per cent female representation in 2022. After its landslide victory at last year’s election, its caucus rose to 56 per cent women, and 12 of its 23 cabinet portfolios were held by women.

A line graph showing gender representation of the Labor, Liberal and Nationals parties
Source: SBS News

Labor introduced a 35 per cent quota for female MPs in 1994, later moving to a “40:40:20” model requiring no fewer than 40 per cent of seats be held by men or women, with the remaining 20 per cent open to either gender.

In June last year, Taylor said a “crusade” was needed to involve more women in the Liberal party, but he remained opposed to gender quotas, arguing they “subvert democratic processes”.

“I think there are better ways of achieving this … mentoring, recruitment, support is the way to make sure you have talented people,” he told ABC Radio National.

Catharine Lumby, expert in media and gender studies at the University of Sydney, said quotas could be implemented while still setting “high bars for achievement”.

“Those two things can coexist,” she told SBS News.

“The fact that there’s a resistance to quotas tells you there’s a deep-seated cultural issue in the Liberal Party.”

A graph showing gender composition in the federal parliament
Source: SBS News

Williams said the Liberal Party needed a clear policy platform that spoke to women if it wanted to attract support, noting its proposal to end work-from-home for public servants, which it took to the last election and was later dumped, was particularly unappealing.

“It’s not just about who your leader is, it’s about what does the party actually stand for … how can they actually relate to a changing generation of Australians and especially Australian women?” she said.

Barry said all political parties benefited from diversity.

“Putting mostly gen X white men around a table doesn’t bring about diversity of opinion and viewpoints, and that’s a dangerous thing for any political party,” he said.

“It means that you’re representing a small base as opposed to the majority.”

‘Totally un-Australian’: Canavan joins backlash against Hanson

The New Daily
Feb 18, 2026, updated Feb 18, 2026Share

Pauline Hanson has faced a chorus of criticism, including from Matt Canavan Photos: AAP

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has partially backtracked – partially – on her latest inflammatory anti-Muslim comments, as conservative senator Matt Canavan declared they were “un-Australian” and showed she was not a fit leader.

Hanson said in an interview on Monday there were “no good Muslims”, while also suggesting future generations would suffer if more followers of the religion were allowed into Australia.

“I’ve got no time for the radical Islam,” Hanson told Sky News in the interview. “Their religion concerns me because what it says in the Quran, they hate westerners.

“You say, ‘Oh well, there’s good Muslims out there’. Well I’m sorry, how can you tell me there are good Muslims?”

The comments were strongly rejected by Islamic faith groups, as well as by Labor and coalition politicians.

When pressed about her comments on Wednesday, the Queensland senator backtracked on her remarks about there being no good Muslims.

“No, I don’t genuinely believe that,” she told ABC TV, adding that a non-practising Muslim woman had run for election for One Nation.

“If I’ve offended anyone out there that doesn’t believe in Sharia law or multiple marriages or wants to bring ISIS brides in or people from Gaza who believes in the caliphate… then I apologise to you for my comment.

“But in general, that’s what they want: a world caliphate and I’m not going to apologise.”

Nationals senator Canavan, also from the political right, has added his voice to the condemnation of Hanson’s original comments, describing them as divisive and inflammatory.

“It’s un-Australian, totally un-Australian, for someone to say that of those 800,000 Australians who are Muslim, there’s no good people among them,” he told Nine’s Today show.

Canavan said the One Nation leader had gone “too far”.

“It is just not something that I think is part of our country.”

NSW Premier Chris Minns and Mayor of Sydney’s Canterbury-Bankstown council are among other leaders who have criticised the firebrand senator’s original comments.

Race Discrimination Commissioner Giridharan Sivaraman urged Hanson to apologise, saying “comments that single out and diminish any community have real and lasting impacts”.

“Words that stigmatise and devalue people do not strengthen our society,” Sivaraman said in a statement on Wednesday.

“They increase fear, deepen division, and intensify pain and harm that many in our communities have experienced for far too long.”

The commission added: “To those who speak about the importance of social cohesion: you cannot build it by isolating, belittling, or casting suspicion on an entire group of Australians. Unity starts with respect.”

Australian National Imams Council president Shadi Alsuleiman said Hanson’s comments reflected a serious misunderstanding of Islam and the Muslim community.

“For many years, she has made inaccurate and harmful statements based on misinformation rather than genuine engagement,” he told AAP.

“Muslims have contributed positively to the growth and advancement of this nation and continue to do so with pride and commitment.”

Hanson dismissed the criticism from Islamic groups.

“Of course they’re going to say that, but I’ve heard more hateful things coming out of the mouths of imams giving their sermons on the streets of Sydney, and other places in Australia, but nothing’s been said about that,” she said.

Senator Hanson used her maiden speech to the Senate in 2016 to claim Australia was being “swamped by Muslims”, a repeat of her 1996 speech to parliament’s lower house about Australia “being swamped by Asians”.

More recently, she drew widespread condemnation when she wore a burqa in the senate.

One Nation has been out-performing the coalition in recent surveys, although that has changed since a change of Liberal leadership to Angus Taylor.

The latest Roy Morgan survey showed a bump in support for the Liberals and Nationals on Taylor’s first weekend as leader, and a drop for Pauline Hanson’s party.

Primary support for the Coalition was up 3.5 per cent to 23.5 per cent, and One Nation down 3.5 per cent to 21.5 per cent.

–with AAP

Australian Labor Party 

13 February at 08:32 ·

On this day in 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered a historic apology to Indigenous Australians and the Stolen Generations.

The Apology acknowledges that the laws and policies of successive governments had resulted in the forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families and ‘inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians’.

American Politics

Joyce Vance from Civil Discourse <joycevance@substack.com> of 34,915

Context Matters: Trump Administration Summons Secretaries of State

And the context for this one isn’t promising.

Joyce Vance Feb 17 

Despite Donald Trump’s claim earlier this month, U.S. states are not agents for the federal government in elections. State officials don’t work for him.

Trump said it as part and parcel of his stab at getting Republicans to take over state elections—Trump said they should be “nationalized.” I don’t know why the federal government doesn’t do them anyway,” he said, adding that it’s a “disgrace” how “horribly” some states run elections. Anyone who has been watching knows what this is about. It’s more of the same from the candidate who asked state officials in Georgia to find him 11,780 votes so he could overturn the result in an election that he lost. With Trump, his complaints about others are always projection: He wants to make sure he can steal the midterm elections if his party loses, and no better way to do them than to get election administration out of pesky officials who insist on doing a fair count.

Hence Trump’s appeal to “nationalize” elections. He wants to take control.

That context makes it particularly interesting that federal agency “election partners” from FBI, DOJ, DHS, the Postal Inspection Service, and The Election Assistance Commission “invited” election officials from across the country to a briefing on “preparations” for the midterms. Secretaries of state and local officials run each state’s election. Not the president. While they might coordinate with their local U.S. Attorney(s) in advance of an election, a nationwide call like this is unprecedented, particularly in the absence of a credible, identified threat from a foreign country that would require, say, cyber intelligence coordination.

The call is being organized for February 25. No one seems to know precisely what it’s about. But Trump’s claim that majority Black/Democratic counties, like Fulton County, Georgia, aren’t fit to run elections, and they should be taken over by Republican interests, is a pretty good bet.

The email invite is signed off on by Kellie M. Hardiman, who identifies her role as “FBI Election Executive,” a position I have not heard of previously. As a career federal prosecutor and a U.S. Attorney for eight years during the Obama administration, and as someone whose responsibilities included election protection, I’m fairly familiar with DOJ’s internal architecture for this work. NBC reported that one state election official said that “No one has heard of this person — and we’re all wondering what an ‘FBI Election Executive’ is.”

NBC also reported that “An FBI spokesperson said in a statement Friday: ‘The Election Executive is not a new role. There have been designated executives in previous election cycles to take point on coordinating election related matters and speaking on behalf of the FBI.” This is not completely out of bounds. DOJ doesn’t get involved in deciding who won a specific election, but they do investigate claims of fraud (there have been exceptionally few successful prosecutions, and when they are brought, for the most part, they seem to involve fraud on behalf of Republican candidates). There are meetings among state and federal partners in advance of elections. But it feels different in a cycle where the president is openly seeking greater control and making false claims about fraud where elections are run by his political opponents. And most of DOJ’s election protection work, at least in Democratic administrations, involves pushing back against voter suppression (like this case). Those are civil cases and the FBI and other law enforcement agencies do not get involved in them.

Hardiman wrote to state election officials that the FBI and other federal agencies “would like to invite you to a call where we can discuss our preparations for the cycle, as well as updates and resources we can provide to you and your staff.” State officials are concerned.

NPR correspondent Miles Parks put it like this: “President Trump wanted a bigger role in local processes. Just two months into his second term, he signed an executive order aimed at adding new voting restrictions, for instance. Most of that has been blocked by the courts at this point. But he also – his administration laid off much of the election security staff at the Department of Homeland Security. And I was talking about all of that with the secretary of state of Minnesota, Steve Simon, who’s a Democrat, and he said the idea of federal interference is on election officials’ minds as they game plan out every scenario.” Following the execution of a search warrant on election officials in Fulton County, Georgia, based on old, disproven claims of elections fraud, a bipartisan group of “more than a dozen election officials” told Politico “they fear Trump is laying the groundwork to undermine results still months away.”

Chief among those concerns is the risk of federal troops or an executive branch agency like ICE being deployed to the polls, which could easily intimidate voters who have watched ICE indiscriminately arrest people and put them into deportation proceedings, only checking their immigration status after the fact (more here). But that is the sort of move that would be likely to provoke nationwide outrage. Don’t expect it to be the Trump administration’s only move.

Trump began issuing executive orders designed to make it more difficult for Americans to register and vote as soon as he took office. The SAVE Act is circulating in the Senate (we discussed it recently here). And the administration has been seeking states’ voter rolls, which could provide it with fodder for making wholesale challenges, and permitting private parties in states to do so too, forcing individual voters to go on the defensive and prove they are eligible to vote and disrupting state proceedings. That is most definitely not the kind of burden that should be imposed on Americans’ fundamental rights.

Trump has said that Atlanta and other cities with Democratic strongholds as seeing “horrible corruption on elections.” “The federal government should not allow that,” he said Tuesday. “The federal government should get involved. These are agents of the federal government to count the votes. If they can’t count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should take over.”

Last April, a federal judge enjoined Trump from enforcing his executive order on voting. She wrote, “A president cannot make new law or devise new authority for himself—by executive order or otherwise. He may only wield those powers granted to him by Congress or by the Constitution.” She pointed out that “our Constitution entrusts Congress and the states — not the President — with the authority to regulate federal elections.”

Presidents do not get to dictate the rules in our elections. But to ensure this election is free and fair, it appears that state election officials, along with federal judges, will have to keep the president in check. They will have to keep him for usurping power that is not properly his, as he has done on so many other occasions. Do you know who your secretary of state (they have different titles in some states) is?

Maine’s Secretary of State Shenna Bellows told me, “In any other year, the invitation might seem innocuous, but in the context of Trump’s assault on the rule of law and threats to elections, the odd invitation raises concerns. I’ll be attending with skepticism.”

Here is a list of election officials in every state. If you aren’t already, get familiar with yours. And make sure they know you’ll be watching how they handle the meeting on February 25. Call them or send them a letter in the next day or two, letting them know that you know Donald Trump isn’t entitled to “nationalize” our elections and you expect them to uphold the law.

Thanks for supporting Civil Discourse. Your paid subscriptions make the newsletter possible!

We’re in this together,

Joyce

The Oldest Pub In England Is Just An Hour Away From London – It’s Home To Medieval Décor, Hearty Pub Food, And Even A Ghostly Visitor Or Two

While a lot of pubs around the country boast some impressive pedigree, this boozer has the strongest claim to being the oldest pub in England.

 Sam Barker – Staff Writer • 9 February, 2026

medieval interiors of The Royal Standard of England pub
Credit: Thomas Louis Angelo Forte

In a country with England’s lengthy history, storied pub culture, and historic landmarks around every corner, you can bet that England is home to some pretty ancient pubs. And many of them make some pretty wild claims to having been around for 100s or 1,000s of years. But just an hour from London, you’ll find a stunning community boozer that has perhaps the strongest argument in its favour for being the oldest pub in England: The Royal Standard of England.

The pub traces its origins all the way back to 1100, but the first recorded instance of the venue dates to 1213, when it was known as The Ship. Its current identity dates to 1663, when King Charles II gave the pub the title of The Royal Standard of England. All that to say, it has an impressive history regardless of whether or not it truly is the oldest pub in the country.

a sign for The Royal Standard of England pub, the oldest pub in England
Credit: Thomas Louis Angelo Forte

And you can feel that history as soon as you step inside. The modern world is all but left outside as you step through the doors into a pub full of Medieval touches, hanging beams, and fireplaces. Candles light up the tables around you as dusk approaches, and you can feel the weight of history all around you. You might even be visited by some of the characters from the pub’s past! (Keep an ear out in the car park, and you might hear the sound of a ghostly drum from a drummer boy who was killed in the Civil War).

The Royal Standard of England

Lest you think this is little more than a tourist attraction dressed up as a pub, this is a proper neighbourhood boozer. The decor and history inside make the space feel warm and cosy, without seeming like a movie set. Although, ironically, the pub has been the setting for quite a lot of movies and TV shows, such as Hot FuzzThe Theory of Everything, and Afterlife. There’s even a chicken pie on the menu named for Midsomer Murders, which has shot in the pub numerous times.

a handful of tables next to a roaring fire in a pub
Credit: Thomas Louis Angelo Forte

Visitors can expect plenty of local ales to sip on and hearty, warming pub food to match the cosy environs. And the pub is a popular spot for a Sunday Roast, with plenty of people walking from all around to reward themselves with a slap-up meal in the pub.

Is it really the oldest pub in England?

Well, it might be! It’s hard to verify with any degree of accuracy which pub in England is actually the oldest in the country. But The Royal Standard of England makes a damn good claim for the title. Ye Olde Fighting Cocks in St Albans also makes a claim for the title, and once held a Guinness World Record for being the oldest pub in England. But that record was later revoked, as it proved impossible to verify.

Another pub, or inn rather, that makes a claim for the title is Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem in Nottingham. They’ve even printed ‘the oldest inn in England’ across the outside wall above their door. But while the pub clearly boasts some impressive history, there don’t appear to be sufficient records to date the pub appropriately far into the past.

one of the oldest pubs in the UK, Ye Olde Trip To Jerusalem, with it's white walls and black detailing
Credit: Ye Olde Trip To Jerusalem

The Royal Standard of England traces its origins back to the Saxon and Germanic settlers. The site, thanks to its natural spring water, was a brewing ground for King Alfred’s West Saxons. The first official record of the pub is from 1213. Back then, it was officially recorded as The Ship Inn, serving the Royal deer hunts.

As if that wasn’t enough, their website is actually ‘theoldestpub.com’. And who are we to argue with that? Either way, the pub is still a brilliant spot to visit. It’s packed full of history, novelty, and charm.

📍 The Royal Standard of England, Forty Green, Beaconsfield, HP9 1XT.
🚂 30 minutes on the train from London Marylebone, plus a half-hour walk.
🚗 The pub boasts a large car park for visitors, and is a 15-minute drive from the M40 (Junction 2).

Cindy Lou’s snack at Edgars

Edgars is such an easy place to eat – pleasant service, a varied menu, indoor or outdoor seating and warm in winter and fans in summer. We had a cauliflower flavoursome salad, crisp pitta bread and delicious humous.

Brontë Parsonage Museum is with Warner Bros. and Wuthering Heights Movie. 7 February at 02:03 ·

Last night we exchanged bonnets for ball gowns at the London premiere of Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” in Leicester Square. ⚡️

Thank you to Wuthering Heights Movie and Warner Bros. for inviting us along!

Read about how Margot Robbie’s red carpet look was inspired by Charlotte Brontë’s bracelet here: bronte.org.uk/news/charlotte-brontes-bracelet


Nikki Gemmell’s post
– review of “Wuthering Heights”


My darlings, some news …

I’m now the chief film critic of The Australian newspaper. First woman in the role, ever, and stepping into some very big shoes here (gulp.) Thank you to Stephen R, David S and Evan W. Never imagined I’d one day be handed this amazing gift of a job.

And so a whole new world has opened up around my other writing. I’ve been a screenwriter for the past couple of years (stay tuned for some exciting news,) as well as a novelist for 30 years, and story is my thing. So fricken excited to be diving into this new world. Change, risk, feels exhilarating.

And here my darlings is my review of Wuthering Heights.

In praise of boundary pushing. Persistence. And fearless women who risk, creatively.

I think a woman’s creative success lies in her ability to endure, as much as anything. To keep on going, despite the very strong headwinds coming at her. So I applaud Emerald for keeping on going with her gleeful audacity and her irreverent, deeply thoughtful provocation … and can’t wait to see what she tackles next. Five stars.

My first five-star review: I inhaled Wuthering Heights with my groin

In Emerald Fennell’s hands we get the essence of women-directed sex. Sex through the female gaze. What women actually want. It’s dark. It’s filthy. Brace yourselves…

I am sorry – no-one I know subscribes to The Australian, so we’ll all have to make do with this.

ABC Arts

Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi sizzle, but Wuthering Heights isn’t quite the full Brontë By Luke Goodsell 10 February 2026

Two people in wedding blacks stand on a cliff
Despite electric performances, Wuthering Heights can’t quite capture the magic of the original story. (Supplied: Universal/Warner Bros)

Is 19th-century Gothic romance back? Is Emily Brontë brat? What would Wuthering Heights look like if the spooky, intergenerational melodrama — all those howling winds and pleading ghosts — were replaced with heaving bosoms and sub/Dom bondage?

Fast facts about Wuthering Heights

What: Oscar-winning filmmaker Emerald Fennell’s loose adaptation of Emily Brontë’s classic, a tale of secret passion between a mysterious outsider and a girl who marries into a wealthy family

Starring: Margot Robbie, Jacob Elordi, Hong Chau, Shazad Latif, Alison Oliver, Martin Clunes, Charlotte Mellington, Owen Cooper

Director: Emerald Fennell

Where: In cinemas February 12

Likely to make you feel: Hot and bothered, but not quite satisfied

Oscar-winning British filmmaker Emerald Fennell (Promising Young WomanSaltburn) is no stranger to provocation, and her new Charli xcx-scored adaptation of Brontë’s 1847 classic already has everyone losing their minds over the liberties being taken with the beloved source material.

From Jacob Elordi’s casting as the novel’s racially ambiguous Heathcliff to executive producer Margot Robbie taking on tempestuous teenager Catherine Earnshaw, the film’s scare quotes — this is “Wuthering Heights”, the film’s marketing insists — have been working overtime to remind the audience that this is but one woman’s riff on the story.

“I wanted to make something that made me feel like I felt when I first read it, which means that it’s an emotional response to something. It’s, like, primal, sexual,” Fennell, who first read the book at 14, told the BBC.

True to her word, the writer-director’s Wuthering Heights — sorry, “Wuthering Heights” — is the kind of fanfic fever dream that feels ripped from the cover of some lurid pulp imprint, full of Gothic spires, crashing thunder, strained bodices and torrid coupling.

Sex and death

Right from the movie’s opening seconds, with what sounds like a mounting orgasm slowly revealed to be the dying gasp of a man on the gallows, Fennell has sex and death on the brain.

Watching on is young Catherine Earnshaw (a spirited Charlotte Mellington), the mischievous moppet of Wuthering Heights, a gloomy homestead on the Yorkshire moors that has seen better days.

When Cathy’s father (Martin Clunes), busy frittering away what’s left of the family wealth (and his teeth) on booze and gambling, brings home a mysterious young urchin (Adolescence’s Owen Cooper) from one of his ill-fated trips, Cathy names the orphan Heathcliff.

a man and a woman passionately embrace in the rain
Fennell has said the inverted commas around her film’s title represent that it’s her teenage interpretation of Wuthering Heights. (Supplied: Universal/Warner Bros)

Roaming and rambling across the moors, the wild-eyed Cathy and Heathcliff quickly become inseparable, and quickly grow up — with a glow-up — into Queensland’s finest, Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi.

Elordi has always had a cruel, brooding quality barely disguised by his matinee idol looks, and his physicality makes for a suitably dark and stormy Heathcliff — even if he appears to have taken some accent lessons from the Gallagher brothers.

Robbie, meanwhile, plays the unhinged Cathy closer to upwardly mobile rom-com heroine or naughty Disney princess — the kind who spends her days masturbating on the moors or peeping on stable-hands engaged in sweaty bondage sessions in the farmhouse.

Days away from the release of Emerald Fennell’s highly anticipated adaptation of Emily Brontë’s classic novel, critics and fans alike are still fighting about text fidelity in the comments.

Heathcliff and Cathy’s burgeoning, windswept romance is cut short by the arrival of new neighbours at nearby Thrushcross Grange, an opulent mansion with ruby-red halls and Beauty and the Beast-style candelabra holders that Barbie would deem too garish. 

And its barmy new residents — the swarthy textile merchant Edgar Linton (Shazad Latif) and his borderline-idiot ward Isabella (poor Alison Oliver, giving it her all) — wouldn’t be out of place at Fennell’s Saltburn.

With a scorned Heathcliff banishing himself abroad, Edgar has soon married Cathy and installed her at his palace with her longtime confidante and housekeeper, Nelly (Hong Chau). (Having the two main actors of colour portray the romantic villain and the meddling help, respectively, is certainly a curious choice on Fennell’s part.)

It’s a marriage of social convenience rather than true love, at least from Cathy’s perspective. Fennell takes her cues less from Brontë than her own Saltburn in these early passages, playing the author’s class anxieties and patriarchal entanglements closer to farce — almost as though playing anything without a layer of irony might confuse a modern audience.

By contrast, Heathcliff’s swooning return and his secret affair with the married Cathy, is the movie’s sweet spot. It’s the best representation of Fennell’s idea of Brontë as slumber-party ur-text, a sexual awakening unraveled by torchlight under the covers.

A woman runs her hands down a flesh coloured wall.
Cathy’s bedroom walls were designed to look like Margot Robbie’s skin, using photograph’s of Robbie’s arm and skin-toned latex. (Supplied: Universal/Warner Bros)
Pinterest-perfect

Robbie and Elordi summon their movie-star charisma, Fennell shows off her talent for hot and heavy close-ups, and Charli’s songs trill eerily from some auto-tuned teen bedroom of the future. 

Even the director’s goofier choices — like revealing Heathcliff’s silver tooth in a moment of supposed intensity — feel like loving doodles from a schoolgirl’s fantasy of the novel.

Sure, every frame looks more or less designed for a mood board, but the film’s old-school movie look — shot in 35mm VistaVision by Saltburn cinematographer Linus Sandgren — is undeniably ravishing, particularly coupled with production design that’s equal parts Black Narcissus, Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Stevie Nicks music videos. It’s tactile and sensuous.

For all her stylistic exertion, though — all those squelching slugs and runny eggs and sweat glistening on skin — Fennell can’t get to the essence of a story that’s always been more of a haunting than a romance, nor conjure up something sufficiently radical to make it her own.

As magnetic as Elordi and Robbie are as performers, no amount of steamy montages can quite convince us that they’re souls entwined in the cosmos, the kind of supernatural pairing whose whims seemed to command the elements — one of the reasons Kate Bush’s Wuthering Heights remains undefeated as the greatest adaptation of the novel; a feat it achieves in all of four minutes and 29 seconds.

Still, Fennell’s Wuthering Heights is most definitely her own, and if you want to see Jacob Elordi hoisting up Margot Robbie by the bodice with one hand — and let’s face it, who doesn’t — her lurid, lusty adaptation may well satisfy your Valentine’s Day craving. Hooting and hollering at this hot mess is all part of the fun.

Brontë Birthplace ·Follow

13 February at 21:35 ·

What perfect day for the release of the Wuthering Heights, and a trip to the place where it all began. Neither rain, snow, or endless fog will close our doors – pop by for a tour and a cuppa today from 12pm – 3pm.

Isn’t this a marvellous idea!

WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH EDIT-a-thon at Cambridge Library – 15th March 2026

Event by Central Library, Cambridge and Cambridgeshire Libraries

7 Lion Yard, CB2 3QD Cambridge, United Kingdom

Public  · Anyone on or off Facebook

Join us in the Cambridgeshire Collection and learn to create or improve Wikipedia entries about local women’s history!

Learn how you can contribute to Wikipedia, the free, online encyclopedia, written and maintained by a community of volunteers. To celebrate Women’s History Month, we’ll be editing entries about women with a historical connection to Cambridgeshire. We’ll have a list of suggested articles to work on, but if you have something that you’d like to edit please do bring that too!

A trainer from Wikimedia UK will help you learn to edit Wikipedia and you get started on your Wikipedia editing journey. This workshop is suitable for beginners and those with experience alike. Whether you’re new to Wikipedia or would like to brush up your skills, this session is perfect for you – we’ll provide training at the beginning of the session. More experienced editors who’d like to come along are also very welcome!

This event is free and everybody is welcome. No special skills are needed. Come with your curiosity! Book your free place via Eventbrite: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/…/womens-history-month…

The event will take place in the Cambridgeshire Collection on the 3rd floor of Cambridge Central Library, which is wheelchair accessible. There is a baby change and accessible toilet on site. There is Blue Badge holder parking at the Grand Arcade parking.

For full details of Central Library’s facilities, please visit our website: https://info.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/…/service.page…