Week beginning 27 November 2024

Charlotte Booth and Brian Billington The Crime Movie and TV Lover’s Guide to London Pen & Sword | White Owl, November 2024.

Thank you NetGalley and Pen & Sword for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.

The Crime Movie and TV Lover’s Guide to London provides yet another source for understanding and exploring London through a popular and, at times, familiar, gateway. Previous books published by Pen & Sword have used other entry points, all of which were instructive, interesting, and worth following. This guide follows in their footsteps as a well thought out way of viewing London. The information can be used in two ways – as a wonderful instruction manual about the films and television series that have been made in London, and the localities and as a way of understanding the way in which films and television series may impact the environment in which they are made. See Books: Reviews for complete review.

Some interesting post American election observations

Senator John Fetterman, Democrat of Pennsylvania, in Washington this year. Eric Lee/The New York Times

Fetterman to Democrats: You need to calm down

Jess Bidgood

Senator John Fetterman wasn’t in Washington for the first Trump administration. But he has a few ideas about how Democrats should handle the second.

He wants his party to accept its losses. He wants his party to chill out a little. And he wants his party to please stop with all the hot takes about what went wrong in November, since Democrats have four long years to figure it out.

Fetterman has some experience taking on President-elect Donald Trump’s G.O.P. He won his seat in 2022 after overcoming a near-fatal stroke and beating the Trump-endorsed Dr. Mehmet Oz, who has since become the president-elect’s pick to run Medicare. As the Democratic Party reckons with its losses in places like Pennsylvania — where Trump beat Vice President Kamala Harris by 1.7 percentage points and Bob Casey, a third-term Democratic senator, lost his seat — I called Fetterman.

Our conversation was the first in a series of interviews I’ll do in this newsletter about the path forward for the Democratic Party. Drop me a line and tell me about others you want to hear from.

This interview was edited for length and clarity.

Incumbent parties struggled or lost elections around the world this year, particularly in Western democracies. Do you think the Democrats’ losses in November were inevitable?

That’s a question worth asking. I had a lot of concern — there was a couple of one-offs. One of them was the assassination in Pennsylvania. I think some people seem to forget that, or how incredibly dangerous that was for a nation, God forbid, if he would have been mortally wounded. But the kind of imagery and the kinds of energy that emerged from that, absolutely, I witnessed that on the ground in Pennsylvania. I thought, well, that might be ballgame.

Then, Musk was involved. He was described as moving to Pennsylvania. And sometimes that doesn’t really mean much, but he was an active surrogate — and I mean, his checkbook was helpful. That wasn’t really the defining facet for me. I was concerned that he’s going to have a lot of sway with a part of the demographic that the Democrats have to win, and we’ve struggled with.

You’re talking about the tech billionaire Elon Musk, but what’s the demographic in question?

Whether it’s the “bros,” that negative term that perhaps even your publication uses, as a negative — it’s the bros, or, you know, males, blue-collar guys, just people. It’s very rare, in my opinion, that surrogates have “fanboys.” Making fun of him or make light of it, you do that at your peril, because it is going to matter.

How do you think Democrats should be talking to bros, and should be talking to men, and should be talking to working-class voters?

Have a conversation. Have a conversation with anyone that’s willing to have an honest conversation. That’s always been the rule, and that’s what I’m going to continue. I’ve had conversations on Fox News, and they’ve played me straight. I’ve shown up on Newsmax, and they’ve played it straight. And Rogan. Rogan was great. He was cordial and open and warm.

Why was it important to you to go on Joe Rogan?

I’m a fan. I’m a huge fan of Bill Maher, a huge fan of Colbert.

Why do you think Democrats have struggled with men?

It’s already migrated. In 2016, I was doing an event with the steel workers, across the street where I live, and I was noticing different kind of energy with this, with Trump. It was clear at that time that people were voting for Trump. And the Democrats’ response was, “Aren’t they smart enough to realize they’re voting against their interests?” And that’s insulting, and that’s, I mean, that’s, that’s just not helpful. It’s condescending. And if anything, that reinforces that kind of stereotype.

Telling them that “I know better than you do,” that’s not helpful.

In 2022, you won your Senate race by almost five points. It wasn’t particularly close. Why do you think you did so much better in 2022 than Democrats in Pennsylvania did in statewide races in 2024?

A lot of different kinds of things converged in this cycle. So, in some sense, it’s not perfectly analogous to compare ’22 to ’24. Trump absolutely is a much more compelling top of the ticket than Dr. Oz, or, you know, the ultimate Democratic candidate dream of Doug Mastriano.

Is there something that you think you understand, though, about the recipe for success in Pennsylvania or the voters you need to talk to, that other Democrats don’t?

I don’t have “You should, you should, you should.” This is “I do, I do, I do.”

The opinions and the hot takes from the safety of, like, a deep blue seat or state, that doesn’t really count for much.

The things that they say, and those kinds of positions, are filling the clips that the Republicans unload on us in states like Pennsylvania.

How do you think the Democratic Party needs to change right now?

I don’t give advice except on fashion. Again, I want to thank your publication for putting me on the best-dressed list, so you understand why I am a fashion plate.

Do Democrats need to do an analysis of what went wrong? And, if so, who should do it?

We’re not even at Thanksgiving, and Democrats just can’t stop losing our minds every fifteen minutes. We really need to pace ourselves, or, you know, for FFS, just grab a grip. Realize that this is how elections go. At least for the next two years, they’re going to have the opportunity to write the narrative and to drive the narrative.

Trump is assembling a cabinet of people many Democrats find deeply objectionable. How do you think Democrats should respond?

I’m just saying, buckle up and pack a lunch, because it’s going to be four years of this. And if you have a choice to freak out, you know, on the hour, then that’s your right. But I will not. I’m not that dude, and I’m not that Democrat. I’m going to pick my fights. If you freak out on everything, you lose any kind of relevance.

Do you think Democrats have done too much freaking out when it comes to Trump?

It’s symbiotic. One feeds off the other. The Democrats can’t resist a freakout, and that must be the wind under the wings for Trump.

I saw a quote from you where you referred to, the Matt Gaetz pick, as “God-tier-level trolling.”

Obviously! The response or the opinions on the Democratic side aren’t interesting. They’re not. They’re not surprising. The real interesting ones are going to come from my colleagues on the Republican side.

It sounds like you want Democrats to be quiet and let Republicans have their own fight.

All I’m saying is, the freakout and all the anxiety and all that should have been before Nov. 5.

Does clutching the pearls so hard — does that change anything? Did it work? Did it change the election? Was it productive? And, like, I can’t believe the outrage. That has to be candy for Trump.

You said Democrats needed to pick their battles. What’s one you’d choose?

I’m not going to pick one before Thanksgiving.

One analysis of the election that we’ve heard from your colleague Senator Bernie Sanders is that Democrats failed to recognize how bad people were feeling about the economy, about the country generally, and failed to name a villain. Do you agree with that analysis?

I do not.

Why?

I think there was a lot of other issues. I would even describe them as cultural. Walk around in Scranton, tell me what an oligarch is. I think it’s like, “Whose argument is the closest match to the kinds of things that are important to me?” And I think some of them are rooted in gender and worldviews, and even backlash of things like cancel culture.

I witness people, now there’s specific kinds of clothing. They call it Blue Collar Patriots. I’m willing to bet you know who they’re voting for.

And why is that? I don’t think it’s because we haven’t talked enough about oligarchs, and how it’s rigged.

What do you think Democrats need to do to bring about the kind of cultural shift you’re talking about?

For a party that’s had way too many bad takes, we should take our time.

Dismissed
Joyce Vance Nov 26

I had plans to write about a number of things tonight, most importantly, the not-unexpected but still deeply disturbing dismissal of the federal criminal cases against Donald Trump. Instead, I’m going to just share a few quick thoughts with you, and then I’m going to turn in. Thanksgiving preparation is not for the weak, and I’m exhausted from it! It’s only Monday, and today, I went to three stores looking for the broccolini a recipe I’m making calls for, only to be shut out at the first two places and disappointed by the quality at a third. I need some sleep before I try to process what happened today in a serious way.

I may not have accomplished everything I needed to today, but I did make these amazing fresh-squeezed orange juice ice cubes for use in Thanksgiving morning Mimosas.

But I did want to leave you with a quick and hot-ish take on the dismissals. The most important thing is this: Donald Trump is not innocent.

Often, when prosecutors dismiss criminal cases that have been indicted, it’s because they’ve learned a defendant is actually innocent or at least discovered they do not have sufficient evidence to prove guilt. That is not the case here. Special Counsel Jack Smith wrote that his view of the merits of his case—in other words, his ability to obtain and sustain convictions against Donald Trump, has not changed.

Trump outran the justice system by winning the election. It is DOJ policy, not a lack of evidence, that compelled Smith to move to dismiss the cases. That is no small thing. Trump won’t face juries in these cases. But that does not mean Trump can claim he has been exonerated. He has not been. Full stop.

Smith will write a report and it’s extremely likely it will be public. How fulsome it will be and what it reveals remains to be seen. The question is whether it will make a difference in some meaningful way in the future.

I continue to think it will. We have lived through one of the most difficult months our democracy has endured. But our democracy has endured. We don’t get to quit just because it isn’t easy. Sometimes, you give it your all and it still doesn’t go your way. But if you believe the Constitution and the rule of law mean something, mean a better way of life for us and our children—and I do—then you can’t just give up and walk away. You have to keep going.

So even as I’m getting ready to spend the rest of the week with friends and family, I’m thinking about what we are going to do, how we are going to be prepared to do the big things and the small things necessary to prevent Donald Trump from controlling our futures. We will have work to do.

Trump has threatened to fire and prosecute investigators and prosecutors who followed the law, took their evidence to a grand jury, obtained indictments, and proceeded against him, while providing him with every measure of due process. His Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi said in August of 2023 that when Trump returned to office, “the prosecutors will be prosecuted — the bad ones — the investigators will be investigated.” That’s unconscionable for a person who aspires to be the country’s top law enforcement officer. Bondi, unless she changes her tune, and that seems unlikely since she Donald Trump’s pick, is precommitted to using the Justice Department as a political tool to please a president.

But that’s easier said than done. Former FBI acting Director Andrew McCabe won his lawsuit against the Trump Administration after he was wrongfully fired. And it’s easy to see how efforts like this could backfire. If Trump’s DOJ goes after Smith’s team, claiming their prosecutions were political, the ensuing litigation would almost certainly reveal the full scope of the Special Counsel’s office investigation and the evidence that was compiled against Donald Trump and others. Defending themselves against claims their prosecution wasn’t legitimate would necessarily call for a full account of the investigation and the basis for prosecutors’ decision to indict. Trump should remember that old adage: Be careful what you ask for.

There is much more to come. I’m not giving up and I hope you won’t either.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

Heather Cox Richardson – letters from an American

Since the night of the November 5, election, Trump and his allies have insisted that he won what Trump called “an unprecedented and powerful mandate.” But as the numbers have continued to come in, it’s clear that such a declaration is both an attempt to encourage donations— fundraising emails refer to Trump’s “LANDSLIDE VICTORY”—and an attempt to create the illusion of power to push his agenda. 

The reality is that Trump’s margin over Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris will likely end up around 1.5 points. According to James M. Lindsay, writing for the Council of Foreign Relations, it is the fifth smallest since 1900, which covers 32 presidential races. Exit polls showed that Trump’s favorability rating was just 48% and that more voters chose someone other than Trump. And, as Lindsay points out, Trump fell 4 million votes short of President Joe Biden in 2020. 

Political science professor Lynn Vavreck of the University of California, Los Angeles, told Peter Baker of the New York Times: “If the definition of landslide is you win both the popular vote and Electoral College vote, that’s a new definition” On the other hand, she added, “Nobody gains any kind of influence by going out and saying, ‘I barely won, and now I want to do these big things.’”

Trump’s allies are indeed setting out to do big things, and they are big things that are unpopular. 

Trump ran away from Project 2025 during the campaign because it was so unpopular. He denied he knew anything about it, calling it “ridiculous and abysmal,” and on September 16 the leader of Trump’s transition team, Howard Lutnick, said there were “Absolutely zero. No connection. Zero” ties between the team and Project 2025. Now, though, Trump has done an about-face and has said he will nominate at least five people associated with Project 2025 to his administration. 

Those nominees include Russell Vought, one of the project’s key authors, who calls for dramatically increasing the powers of the president; Tom Homan, who as acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) oversaw the separation of children from their parents; John Ratcliffe, whom the Senate refused in 2019 to confirm as Director of National Intelligence because he had no experience in intelligence; Brendan Carr, whom Trump wants to put at the head of the Federal Communications Commission and who is already trying to silence critics by warning he will punish broadcasters who Trump feels have been unfair to him; and Stephen Miller, the fervently anti-immigrant ideologue.

Project 2025 calls for the creation of an extraordinarily strong president who will gut the civil service and replace its nonpartisan officials with those who are loyal to the president. It calls for filling the military and the Department of Justice with those loyal to the president. And then, the project plans that with his new power, the president will impose Christian nationalism on the United States of America, ending immigration, and curtailing rights for LGBTQ+ individuals as well as women and racial and ethnic minorities.

Project 2025 was unpopular when people learned about it. 

And then there is the threat of dramatic cuts to the U.S. government, suggested by the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency,” or DOGE, headed by billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. They are calling for cuts of $2 trillion to the items in the national budget that provide a safety net for ordinary Americans at the same time that Trump is promising additional tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Musk, meanwhile, is posturing as if he is the actual president, threatening on Saturday, for example: “Those who break the law will be arrested and that includes mayors.”  

On Meet the Press today, current representative and senator-elect Adam Schiff (D-CA) reacted to the “dictator talk,” with which Trump is threatening his political opponents, pointing out that “[t]he American people…voted on the basis of the economy—they wanted change to the economy—they weren’t voting for dictatorship. So I think he is going to misread his mandate if that’s what he thinks voters chose him for.”

That Trump and his team are trying desperately to portray a marginal victory as a landslide in order to put an extremist unpopular agenda into place suggests another dynamic at work. 

For all Trump’s claims of power, he is a 78-year-old man who is declining mentally and who neither commands a majority of voters nor has shown signs of being able to transfer his voters to a leader in waiting. 

Trump’s team deployed Vice President–elect J.D. Vance to the Senate to drum up votes for the confirmation of Florida representative Matt Gaetz to become the United States attorney general. But Vance has only been in the Senate since 2022 and is not noticeably popular. He—and therefore Trump—was unable to find the votes the wildly unqualified Gaetz needed for confirmation, forcing him to withdraw his name from consideration. 

The next day, Gaetz began to advertise on Cameo, an app that allows patrons to commission a personalized video for fans, asking a minimum of $550.00 for a recording. Gaetz went from United States representative to Trump’s nominee for U.S. attorney general to making videos for Cameo in a little over a week. 

It is a truism in studying politics that it’s far more important to follow power than it is to follow people. Right now, there is a lot of power sloshing around in Washington, D.C. 

Trump is trying to convince the country that he has scooped up all that power. But in fact, he has won reelection by less than 50% of the vote, and his vice president is not popular. The policies Trump is embracing are so unpopular that he himself ran away from them when he was campaigning. And now he has proposed filling his administration with a number of highly unqualified figures who, knowing the only reason they have been elevated is that they are loyal to Trump, will go along with his worst instincts. With that baggage, it is not clear he will be able to cement enough power to bring his plans to life.

If power remains loose, it could get scooped up by cabinet officials, as it was during a similarly chaotic period in the 1920s. In that era, voters elected to the presidency former newspaperman and Republican backbencher Warren G. Harding of Ohio, who promised to return the country to “normalcy” after eight years of the presidency of Democrat Woodrow Wilson and the nation’s engagement in World War I. That election really was a landslide, with Harding and his running mate, Calvin Coolidge, winning more than 60% of the popular vote in 1920.

But Harding was badly out of his depth in the presidency and spent his time with cronies playing bridge and drinking upstairs at the White House—despite Prohibition—while corrupt members of his administration grabbed all they could. 

With such a void in the executive branch, power could have flowed to Congress. But after twenty years of opposing first Theodore Roosevelt, and then William Howard Taft, and then Woodrow Wilson, Congress had become adept at opposing presidents but had split into factions that made it unable to transition to using power, rather than opposing its use.

And so power in that era flowed to members of Harding’s Cabinet, primarily to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, who put into place a fervently pro-business government that continued after Harding’s untimely death into the presidency of Calvin Coolidge, who made little effort to recover the power Harding had abandoned. After Hoover became president and their system fell to ruin in the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took their lost power and used it to create a new type of government. 

In this moment, Trump’s people are working hard to convince Americans that they have gathered up all the power in Washington, D.C., but that power is actually still sloshing around. Trump is trying to force through the Senate a number of unqualified and dangerous nominees for high-level positions, threatening Republican senators that if they don’t bow to him, Elon Musk will fund primary challengers, or suggesting he will push them into recess so he can appoint his nominees without their constitutionally-mandated advice and consent. 

But Trump and his people do not, in fact, have a mandate. Trump is old and weak, and power is up for grabs. It is possible that MAGA Republicans will, in the end, force Republican senators into their camp, permitting Trump and his cronies to do whatever they wish. 

It is also possible that Republican senators will themselves take back for Congress the power that has lately concentrated in presidents, check the most dangerous and unpopular of Trump’s plans, and begin the process of restoring the balance of the three branches of government.

—

Notes:

https://www.cfr.org/blog/transition-2025-did-trump-win-unprecedented-and-powerful-mandate

https://www.mediamatters.org/russ-vought/trump-set-appoint-project-2025-architect-russ-vought-office-management-and-budget

https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/nov/14/in-context-tom-homans-comments-that-fam/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/senate-confirms-john-ratcliffe-as-next-director-of-national-intelligence/2020/05/21/81a9f0be-9ada-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/matt-gaetz-on-cameo-platform-rcna181565

https://www.thedailybeast.com/vances-failed-first-test-fuels-doubts-about-white-house-power/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/21/matt-gaetz-withdraws-ag-nomination

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/20/trump-project-2025-second-administration/

https://apnews.com/article/trump-project-2025-administration-nominees-843f5ff20131ccba5f056e7ccc5baf23

X:

elonmusk/status/1860425033450975678

Bluesky:

atrupar.com/post/3lbpdhkn5722f

bernybelvedere.bsky.social/post/3lbq5fdhzls2m

Amalfi Coast

Drive to Sorrento

Positano

Positano is undeniably touristy – but thoroughly delightful in my opinion. The walks through the town are attractive, with domestic attributes as well as churches, glimpses of the ocean from the heights, and beach walks, ocean side eateries and picturesque ceramics amongst the stonework. The care for cats, although not as wholehearted as on Capri, is a lovely feature.

Eating in Positano

Morning tea on the square was lovely – coffees came with a jug of milk and the pastries were delicious. Lunch was close to the beach, but not right on the beach – after all the claim that Nureyev had a connection to the cafe was incentive enough. The meals were fresh, plentiful and served with pleasant smiles.

Trip back up the mountain in traffic jam – narrow road, parked cars and us looking down to wither cars that risked being scraped or a steep incline.

Eventually the bus started moving at a brisker pace!

Capri will be covered in the next post, together with Naples – the end of our Amalfi Coast experience.

Week beginning 20 November 2024

Carol Ann Lloyd Courting the Virgin Queen Elizabeth I And Her Suitors Pen & Sword | Pen & Sword History, July 2024.

The great strength of this account of Queen Elizabeth and her suitors is its commitment to providing a broad account of marriage in the period, the context in which a woman, and a queen, was courted and the significance both personally and politically. Elizabeth is drawn as a woman, and a queen; a person with agency, as well as being at the mercy of a patriarchal structure enhanced by the political nature of the courting; a woman with personal ambitions for love and comradeship at the same time as having political ambitions and no need to seek companionship, which was hers by dint of her status. While maintaining the accessibility at which the Pen & Sword publications excel, Carol Ann Lloyd compiles a pleasingly complex discussion of marriage, politics, personal ambition, and human frailty in this book. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.

Valerie Keogh The Wives Boldwood Books, November 2024.

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

What a clever novel this is, with its hints of being a domestic drama with familiar themes to becoming a thriller, with touches of comedy and a graphic punishment for the most heinous character in the book. The latter makes uncomfortable reading but also fulfills the desire to see the ‘villain’ suffer – all too often not given enough space for the reader who seeks imaginary revenge. Possibly deplorable but thank you Valerie Keogh for indulging this fault!

The wives are three, until Natasha meets Daniel who is charming, attractive, and wealthy. He provides a pleasant way out of Natsha’s increasing dissatisfaction with her work. She would like to retire, have children, and like her friends lead a more domesticated life. Daniel appears to be ideal husband material. He even approves Natasha’s married friends, dull though Natasha thinks they might be in comparison with her highflyer partner. Daniel and Natasha marry after a short courtship, and the four couples enjoy outings as couples, as well the men meeting when the wives pursue their outings at which Natasha was once the spinster friend. The highlight of this togetherness is the cruise for the four couples with Daniel footing the bill. At the same time, Daniel ensures that he and Natasha have superior accommodation and the diverse benefits that go with this. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.

After the book reviews: Amalfi Coast; Civil Discourse by Joyce Vance.

Bus ride to hotel, arrival at village and a lovely balcony to our room

Sorrento, Capri and Positano

The tour followed the tourist sites of the Amalfi coast – Sorrento, Capri and Positano. each had its distinctive features, each had its touristy aspects, and each was fun. Although travelling in an organised group for eight days has its challenges, it also has benefits. This was particularly the case with this tour company and group. Some people, like us, had chosen the Amalfi Coast Tour because it was organised through The Guardian – surely the way to meet likeminded people? And indeed, we did. There were British Labour Party members and supporters, most of the Americans were Democrats, some members of the group were nonpolitical, four supported Trump. A credit to the group was that we all enjoyed ourselves, forming small groups, walking around as couples, being part of a large group. The What’s App group continues to be a source of interest and kindness to each other. There was plenty of free time, and plenty or organised activities. Twenty-one people in a group for eight days was enough, but a tremendous way in which to visit the Amalfi Coast, stay at a pleasant hotel, and meet a well-informed and friendly guide.

Photos from Capri and Positano will be in next week’s blog.

In the first section of her article, Joyce Vance discusses X and Blue Sky. The topic has been raised on Facebook and Vance makes some worthwhile observations.

Joyce Vance from Civil Discourse <joycevance@substack.com>

The Week Ahead, November 24, 2024*

A number of you have written to ask my thoughts about social media and whether I’ll be part of the exodus from X. I feel the same way about this issue that I felt about breastfeeding and cloth diapering as a young mom. They worked great for us in our household. But I had lots of friends who used formula or disposable diapers with great success. I’m a big fan of people doing what works best for them on these sorts of issues, and that’s how I feel here. Different options make sense for different people. As for me, I’m keeping a toehold on Twitter because I don’t believe in making it easy for them. Nolite te bastardes carborundum,as fans of Margaret Atwood’s novel “The Handmaid’s Tale” say. But I am posting more often on BlueSky, and I’m liking it there. The tone is respectful, and more and more interesting people, including journalists so you can find breaking news, are there. Also, the knitters, chicken and other animal people, and liberal Alabamians (yes, there is such a thing), seem to be out in full force. I like the respectful conversations and the tone so far. You can find me here if you’re considering heading in that direction, too.

Looking towards the week ahead, I’ve been forced to confront the past. It’s that feeling of déjà vu—we’ve been here before—and honestly, I have no clue how so many Americans could have thought it was a good idea to go back. My tweet from 2018 fills me with such a sense of sadness and naivete. At the time, a lot of people dismissed me as an overly dramatic female type. But I understood that Trump was pushing the country into klepto- and kakistocracy (a government whose corruption benefits its leaders and a government of incompetence, respectively) and stacking the Court to gain power, even though I couldn’t yet contemplate that Court would one day give Trump absolution for his crimes and Americans would return him to power nonetheless…

So many of us are stuck in that place of sadness and wondering what more we could have done. That’s understandable. But we cannot let it prevent us from getting back to work. We teach our children that when you fail, you pick yourself up and get back to work. I intend to remain relentlessly in favor of democracy.

Donald Trump was scheduled to appear in a New York courtroom this week, on Tuesday, November 26, to be sentenced for his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records to keep Americans from learning he’d paid hush money to adult film star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election to keep her from making their sexual encounter public. Trump denies it ever happened. A Manhattan jury didn’t believe him and found him guilty of cooking the books to conceal the payment.

Now, that sentencing has been delayed indefinitely. It’s not clear it will ever happen. Trump’s lawyers have suggested evidence that the Supreme Court said is protected as part of his presidential immunity was improperly used against him, and the Judge has given them until December 2 to file a motion to dismiss based on the fact that Trump is now the president-elect. We don’t even whisper that no man is above the law in this country anymore.

It’s not clear what the DA’s position is, although they’ve suggested they may argue that sentencing could be continued until after he leaves office, although Trump’s lawyers say the threat of that sentencing would be an unlawful impediment on his performance while in office. In a practical sense, for those who fear Trump will not leave once reinstalled in the White House, it would be yet another incentive to cling to power.

At this point, it does not appear that Trump will face justice in a criminal court, despite being indicted in four of them and convicted in one. Future historians will undoubtedly assess this era as a dark time where the rule of law was under attack and a demagogue rose to power. But it does not have to be the final chapter in the American experiment. Already, as Trump prepares his next administration, there is work for us to do.

Last week saw the announcement of people who were absolutely unfit to hold office to take cabinet positions, including some who made it clear that Trump’s effort to separate himself from Project 2025 last summer was a farce. As you doubtless recall, Project 2025 was so stunningly unpopular that Trump lied and said he knew nothing about it to keep the association from dampening his chances. To put it down where the hogs can get it, he lied to the American people, unsurprisingly and again, about what he was committed to doing if he became the president. Let’s not let him get away with that. There is still value in the truth, and this is a big one: the truth that Project 2025, which frightened and disgusted many Americans, is Trump’s plan.

Project 2025 was 900+ pages of anti-American authoritarianism and Christian nationalism brought to life under the rubric of conservatism. But I have never known conservatives who thought it was a good idea to have Russia-friendly people like Tulsi Gabbard as the Director of National Intelligence, or a man like Seth Hegseth, who has been accused of sexual assault and who paid off his accuser, in charge of the Department of Defense. Conservatism is out, even more so than during the first Trump administration, and Trumpism is in—firmly and exclusively in place.

Sometimes it’s the “little” things that take your breath away, like this from Marjorie Taylor Greene [ who has threatened the funding for National Public Radio].

National Public Radio (NPR) was founded in 1970. According to the MacArthur Foundation, it serves as a major source of news and cultural programs for more than 60 million Americans each week, with 260 local member stations and more than 50 podcasts. Its mission from the outset: To be a “source of information of consequence,” “celebrate the human experience,” help citizens be “enlightened participants” in society and “speak with many voices and many dialects.” So, of course, that means it’s on the chopping block with Trumpism. I wonder how many of you share my experience of having learned important details about daily news and democratic principles while commuting to or from work and listening to NPR? Greene would take aim at that free flow of information in our society.

Then there is Federal Communications Commission nominee Brendan Carr, who wrote the FCC chapter in Project 2025. The mission statement sounds good, “The FCC should promote freedom of speech, unleash economic opportunity, ensure that every American has a fair shot at next-generation connectivity, and enable the private sector to create good-paying jobs through pro-growth reforms that support a diversity of viewpoints, ensure secure and competitive communications networks, modernize outdated infrastructure rules, and represent good stewardship of taxpayer dollars.” But it goes downhill fast, for instance early on, where he lays out the the tradition of bipartisanship on the FCC is a matter of tradition, not law, suggesting without coming out and saying it that Trump could change that.

The FCC regulates radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable networks. In response to an LA Times tweet, suggesting Carr might “make life more difficult” for media companies, Carr confirmed it, suggesting he could take away broadcast licenses from media companies that don’t “operate in the public interest.” That’s preparation for authoritarianism.

So many people on both sides of the political equation have checked out, and, for entirely different reasons, are unaware of the truth. But these are facts that people need to be aware of, and we are the people who can do that. Make sure you share what Carr has threatened or that Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense is a TV presenter who paid off a woman who filed a police report accusing him of rape.

We live in times where courage is called for. We already see signs that some people will not be brave, that some people will obey in advance. But I take heart from the following quote, a line from the film “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”—that speaks forcefully to how I am feeling as we enter this holiday week: “Some believe it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. It is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love.”

What small acts of kindness or truth-telling can you plan for yourself this week? I’d love to hear about your ideas. Let’s make a difference, even when that seems challenging.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

*Some twitter comments have been omitted

Week Beginning 13 November 2024

Marc Wanamaker and Steven Bingen Hollywood Behind the Lens Treasures from the Bison Archives Globe Pequot Lyons Press, May 2024.

Thankyou, NetGalley, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.

This is the story of loss and an amazing effort to redeem this loss – the accumulation of Hollywood memorabilia undertaken through the Bison Archives. The focus of this non-fiction book is an archive replete with fascinating material, collected through diligence, imagination, and love. The story of how this collection has grown is so convincingly told that it almost leaps off the page. I enjoyed reading about the way in which Marc Wanamaker and Steven Bingen began collecting the missing items that tell us about Hollywood, the films that were made, and the actors, writers, directors – everyone involved in film making – in the Bison Archive. Both authors have impeccable backgrounds in the industry – but more importantly, both seem to have a deep affection for the work they have undertaken on behalf of the industry. See Books: Reviews

Articles following: American Politics; Civil Discourse, Joyce Vance – 3 articles related to the election and outcome; Vice-President Kamala Harris, President Joe Biden, and President Barack and Michelle Obama – posts; Heather Cox Richardson; Tom Nichols, The Atlantic; Amalfi Coast Trip – Herculaneum and Pompeii; articles about Pompeii; Archeological Museum, Naples.

American Politics

The devastating decision was not predicted in Bob McMullan’s article on this blog last week, although it was part of the three scenarios he out lined. I am grateful that his high regard for voters, and hope for the best outcome, contributed to maintaining the democratic ideal. Wrong this time, but this is a rare occasion. Some of the cynical posts on Facebook, in their rush to predict the outcome as votes were being counted or demonstrate their ‘knowledge’ about why the vote went the way it did, ignore what this outcome will mean for not only America but the world. See comment by Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), ‘who campaigned for Harris every single day the House was out of session,‘ ‘ below.

In contrast with some of the cynicism Joyce Vance wrote with optimism on 4 November, and then when the results became increasingly ominous, with hope for the future of democracy, while acknowledging the threat.

Joyce Vance ended her optimistic article on November 4 as follows:

I’ll vote first thing this morning with friends from my neighborhood. Our polling place has been combined with another polling place. Instead of a school, we now vote at a library. It’s a little bit further from our house, but not significantly so. We’ve been wondering what the lines will be like with the combined precincts. It feels festive, important, and very American to be preparing to vote in this most crucial of all elections…

In many ways, this campaign has been a form of slow torture. But I have also learned something important in the past few months: We still have what it takes. We are strong. We care deeply about our democracy. We can build community. Of course, that’s not true for everyone. Some people have gone astray and have given in to the allure of easy money, snake oil and a would-be-strongman who gives them permission to blame all of their woes on immigrants and communist-Democrats. But there are enough of us who still care about democracy and about having the ability to live our lives in freedom and with dignity. And we are going to prevail.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

A Tough Election Day

Joyce Vance

It’s not the election day we were hoping for, but it’s also not over yet. I’m writing at 11 p.m. and while it looks dark at the moment, key states remain close and undecided. We likely won’t know the result for certain before tomorrow. But my heart is heavy, thinking that so many people in our country, knowing exactly who Donald Trump is, have voted for him again.

While we all continue to watch the votes come in and worry about the ultimate result, I want to make sure you were aware of a really disturbing development: the plethora of bomb threats at polling places that broke out today…

Only cowards call in bomb threats. I know this because I used to prosecute bombings and bomb threats, and the common thread in the crimes and the criminals is that they want people to be afraid and they want to use that fear to manipulate them. In this situation, they are the antithesis of what our elections are about. They are foreign terrorism. It is an outrage, and the entire country should be jumping up and down about it. But we all know that it’s unlikely that Donald Trump will…

This is a difficult night, and it’s made more difficult still by news of Russia’s attempted attack on our election. Russia doesn’t want Americans to be able to vote. There is a sustained attack on democracy at work on multiple fronts, from people who object to our freedom.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

It was a difficult night, followed by a hard day. I’m not far enough away from the reelection of Donald Trump to have much in the way of perspective yet, and I’ll leave the post-mortems about what went wrong to others. It doesn’t feel important or valuable to me right now to have someone to blame. What I realized when I woke up this morning was that my concern had already turned towards what we’re going to do. What comes next?

After the election in 2016, which feels like a very like time ago—I was still at the Justice Department when Trump won—people like me knit the ubiquitous pink pussy hats and joined the Women’s March on January 21, the day after Trump was inaugurated. We prepared for the fight we knew was coming for civil rights, without knowing precisely what it would consist of or what we would be called to do.

In that moment, I learned something really important—that there is great value in community, fellowship, and sisterhood. That, when times are tough, you need to circle the wagons and be with the people you care about, the people who lift you up. There is nothing wrong with recharging your batteries by laughing with friends or enjoying a beautiful fall day. You can do that online or in person; it’s all good. The important thing is, Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum. As Margaret Atwood’s novel, The Handmaid’s Tale says, don’t let the bastards get you down.

That’s not to say we should forget about the fact that this is bad, that a Trump 2.0 administration has the potential to be devastating. But living in a difficult time doesn’t mean that we are powerless. It means we have to be thoughtful about organizing and using our power, and that means we need to prepare, because we have work to do. I had hoped we would be talking about fixing democracy, repairing institutions that had been stretched out of shape, in 2025. Sadly, that is not where we are going to be.

Donald Trump won the election, and he won the popular vote. But he won it with almost ten million fewer people participating (71,725,928) than when Joe Biden won in 2020 (81,284,666). What that means about the level of support for his policies, as opposed to the general malaise of “prices are too high” that afflicted the country ahead of the election, remains to be seen. But if there are protests, and I suspect there will be, we are going to have to discuss how Trump will wield presidential powers, like those granted to him under the Insurrection Act, to quell any protest.

Earlier today, NBC’s Ken Dilanian reported that Jack Smith is consulting with DOJ officials about closing the two federal criminal cases against Trump since DOJ policy doesn’t permit prosecution of a sitting president. The reports painted a picture of prosecutors who had concluded their only option was to close up shop because Trump prevailed in the case. It’s possible that is what is happening, but there is another possibility, too.

At the conclusion of a special counsel’s investigation, section 600.9(a)(3) of the Special Counsel Regulations requires the Attorney General to provide Congressional leadership with “a description, and explanation of instances (if any)” where the Attorney General overruled an action the special counsel wanted to take. That requirement would be triggered if Smith proposed moving forward despite DOJ policy against prosecuting a sitting president (there were earlier reports he intended to continue his work through inauguration day), and the Attorney General countermanded him because of existing policy. It’s hard to assess what value a report like that might have, beyond information and evidence Smith’s court filings have already made public. It would at least guarantee there would be a permanent public record that would survive Trump’s certain demand that the Justice Department kill the cases against him. This is one potentially intriguing possibility in a day that didn’t have much optimism to offer. It bothers me deeply, nonetheless, that Trump has avoided accountability at the hands of a jury that would consider the evidence against him and decide whether to convict him or not. I know I’ll struggle with that for a long time.

Whatever the next days and weeks hold, the most important thing is not to let Donald Trump take away your sense of power as an American. Do not, as Tim Snyder says, obey in advance. We did not quit during Trump’s first four years in office and we are not going to quit now. We will pick our priorities and marshal our resources to do what must be done. Make sure you take the time now to nurture yourself for what is ahead. There will be a role for each of us.It is very hard to lose an election, and this one more than most. I don’t know yet what specific challenges we’ll face and what we’ll be called upon to do. But I am confident we will meet those challenges just like we always have.

We’re in this together, Joyce

Kamala Harris

Vice-President Kamala Harris Post

My heart is full today—full of gratitude for the trust you have placed in me, full of love for our country, and full of resolve.

The outcome of this election is not what we wanted or what we fought for, but hear me when I say: The light of America’s promise will always burn bright—as long as we never give up, and as long as we keep fighting.

Earlier today, I spoke with President Trump. I told him that we will help him and his team with the transition, and we will engage in a peaceful transfer of power.

In our nation, we owe loyalty not to a president or party, but to the Constitution of the United States, our conscience, and our God. My allegiance to all three is why, while I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fueled this campaign: the fight for freedom, for opportunity, and for fairness and the dignity of all people.

That is a fight I will never give up.

I will never give up the fight for a future where Americans can pursue their dreams, ambitions, and aspirations; a future where women have the freedom to make decisions about their own bodies and not have their government telling them what to do; where we protect our schools and our streets from gun violence.

We will never give up the fight for rule of law, equal justice, and for the sacred idea that every one of us, no matter who we are or where we start out, has certain fundamental rights and freedoms that must be respected and upheld.

To the young people watching, it is okay to feel sad and disappointed. On the campaign, I would often say: When we fight, we win. Sometimes the fight takes a while, but that doesn’t mean we won’t win. The important thing is to never stop trying to make the world a better place.

There is an adage: Only when it is dark enough can you see the stars. I know many people feel like we are entering a dark time. For the benefit of us all, I hope that is not the case. But, America, if it is: Let us fill the sky with the light of a billion brilliant stars.

May the light of optimism, faith, truth, and service guide us—even in the face of setbacks—toward the extraordinary promise of the United States of America.

President Joe Biden post

What America saw today was the Kamala Harris I know and deeply admire.

She’s been a tremendous partner and public servant full of integrity, courage, and character.

Under extraordinary circumstances, she stepped up and led a historic campaign that embodied what’s possible when guided by a strong moral compass and a clear vision for a nation that is more free, more just, and full of more opportunities for all Americans.

As I’ve said before, selecting Kamala was the very first decision I made when I became the nominee for president in 2020. It was the best decision I made. Her story represents the best of America’s story. And as she made clear today, I have no doubt that she’ll continue writing that story.

She will continue the fight with purpose, determination, and joy. She will continue to be a champion for all Americans. Above all, she will continue to be a leader our children will look up to for generations to come as she puts her stamp on America’s future.

President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama post

Here’s our statement on the results of the 2024 presidential election:

Heather Cox Richardson

Heather Cox Richardson from Letters from an American <heathercoxrichardson@substack.com>

Yesterday, November 5, 2024, Americans reelected former president Donald Trump, a Republican, to the presidency over Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala Harris. As of Wednesday night, Trump is projected to get at least 295 electoral votes to Harris’s 226, with two Republican-leaning states still not called. The popular vote count is still underway.

Republicans also retook control of the Senate, where Democrats were defending far more seats than Republicans. Control of the House is not yet clear. 

These results were a surprise to everyone. Trump is a 78-year-old convicted felon who has been found liable for sexual assault and is currently under indictment in a number of jurisdictions. He refused to leave office peacefully when voters elected President Joe Biden in 2020, instead launching an unprecedented attack on the U.S. Capitol to stop the counting of electoral votes, and said during his campaign that he would be a “dictator” on his first day in office.  

Pollsters thought the race would be very close but showed increasing momentum for Harris, and Harris’s team expressed confidence during the day. By posting on social media—with no evidence—that the voting in Pennsylvania was rigged, Trump himself suggested he expected he would lose the popular vote, at least, as he did in 2016 and 2020. 

But in 2024, it appears a majority of American voters chose to put Trump back into office. 

Harris and her running mate, Minnesota governor Tim Walz, offered a message of unity, the expansion of the economic policies that have made the U.S. economy the strongest in the world in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, and the creation of an “opportunity economy” that echoed many of the policies Republicans used to embrace. Trump vowed to take revenge on his enemies and to return the country to the neoliberal policies President Joe Biden had rejected in favor of investing in the middle class.

When he took office, Biden acknowledged that democracy was in danger around the globe, as authoritarians like Russian president Vladimir Putin and China’s president Xi Jinping  maintained that democracy was obsolete and must be replaced by autocracies. Russia set out to undermine the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that enforced the rules-based international order that stood against Russian expansion. 

Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, who overturned democracy in his own country, explained that the historical liberal democracy of the United States weakens a nation because the equality it champions means treating immigrants, LGBTQ+ individuals, and women as equal to men, thus ending traditionally patriarchal society.

In place of democracy, Orbán champions “illiberal democracy,” or “Christian democracy.” This form of government holds nominal elections, although their outcome is preordained because the government controls all the media and has silenced opposition. Orbán’s model of minority rule promises a return to a white-dominated, religiously based society, and he has pushed his vision by eliminating the independent press, cracking down on political opposition, getting rid of the rule of law, and dominating the economy with a group of crony oligarchs. 

In order to strengthen democracy at home and abroad, Biden worked to show that it delivered for ordinary Americans. He and the Democrats passed groundbreaking legislation to invest in rebuilding roads and bridges and build new factories to usher in green energy. They defended unions and used the Federal Trade Commission to break up monopolies and return more economic power to consumers. 

Their system worked. It created record low unemployment rates, lifted wages for the bottom 80% of Americans, and built the strongest economy in the world in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, setting multiple stock market records.  But that success turned out not to be enough to protect democracy. 

In contrast, Trump promised he would return to the ideology of the era before 2021, when leaders believed in relying on markets to order the economy with the idea that wealthy individuals would invest more efficiently than if the government regulated business or skewed markets with targeted investment (in green energy, for example). Trump vowed to cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations and to make up lost revenue through tariffs, which he incorrectly insists are paid by foreign countries; tariffs are paid by U.S. consumers. 

For policies, Trump’s campaign embraced the Project 2025 agenda led by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, which has close ties to Orbán. That plan calls for getting rid of the nonpartisan civil service the U.S. has had since 1883 and for making both the Department of Justice and the military partisan instruments of a strong president, much as Orbán did in Hungary. It also calls for instituting religious rule, including an end to abortion rights, across the U.S. Part of the idea of “purifying” the country is the deportation of undocumented immigrants: Trump promised to deport 20 million people at an estimated cost of $88 billion to $315 billion a year. 

That is what voters chose.

Pundits today have spent time dissecting the election results, many trying to find the one tweak that would have changed the outcome, and suggesting sweeping solutions to the Democrats’ obvious inability to attract voters. There is no doubt that a key factor in voters’ swing to Trump is that they associated the inflation of the post-pandemic months with Biden and turned the incumbents out, a phenomenon seen all over the world.

There is also no doubt that both racism and sexism played an important role in Harris’s defeat. 

But my own conclusion is that both of those things were amplified by the flood of disinformation that has plagued the U.S. for years now. Russian political theorists called the construction of a virtual political reality through modern media “political technology.” They developed several techniques in this approach to politics, but the key was creating a false narrative in order to control public debate. These techniques perverted democracy, turning it from the concept of voters choosing their leaders into the concept of voters rubber-stamping the leaders they had been manipulated into backing. 

In the U.S., pervasive right-wing media, from the Fox News Channel through right-wing podcasts and YouTube channels run by influencers, have permitted Trump and right-wing influencers to portray the booming economy as “failing” and to run away from the hugely unpopular Project 2025. They allowed MAGA Republicans to portray a dramatically falling crime rate as a crime wave and immigration as an invasion. They also shielded its audience from the many statements of Trump’s former staff that he is unfit for office, and even that his chief of staff General John Kelly considers him a fascist and noted that he admires German Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler.

As actor Walter Masterson posted: “I tried to educate people about tariffs, I tried to explain that undocumented immigrants pay billions in taxes and are the foundation of this country. I explained Project 2025, I interviewed to show that they supported it. I can not compete against the propaganda machines of Twitter, Fox News, [Joe Rogan Experience], and NY Post. These spaces will continue to create reality unless we create a more effective way of reaching people.” 

X users noted a dramatic drop in their followers today, likely as bots, no longer necessary, disengaged. 

Many voters who were using their vote to make an economic statement are likely going to be surprised to discover what they have actually voted for. In his victory speech, Trump said the American people had given him an “unprecedented and powerful mandate.” 

White nationalist Nick Fuentes posted, “Your body, my choice. Forever,” and gloated that men will now legally control women’s bodies. His post got at least 22,000 “likes.” Right-wing influencer Benny Johnson, previously funded by Russia, posted: “It is my honor to inform you that Project 2025 was real the whole time.” 

Today, Trump campaign press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump would launch the “largest mass deportation operation” of undocumented immigrants, and the stock in private prison companies GEO Group and CoreCivic  jumped 41% and 29%, respectively. Those jumps were part of a bigger overall jump: the Dow Jones Industrial Average moved up 1,508 points in what Washington Post economic columnist Heather Long said was the largest post-election jump in more than 100 years. 

As for the lower prices Trump voters wanted, Kate Gibson of CBS today noted that on Monday, the National Retail Federation said that Trump’s proposed tariffs will cost American consumers between $46 billion and $78 billion a year as clothing, toys, furniture, appliances, and footwear all become more expensive. A $50 pair of running shoes, Gibson said, would retail for $59 to $64 under the new tariffs.

U.S. retailers are already preparing to raise prices of items from foreign suppliers, passing to consumers the cost of any future tariffs. 

Trump’s election will also mean he will no longer have to answer to the law for his federal indictments: special counsel Jack Smith is winding them down ahead of Trump’s inauguration. So he will not be tried for retaining classified documents or attempting to overthrow the U.S. government when he lost in 2020. 

This evening, Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán posted on social media that he had just spoken with Trump, and said: “We have big plans for the future!” 

This afternoon, Vice President Kamala Harris spoke at her alma mater, Howard University, to concede the election to Trump. 

She thanked her supporters, her family, the Bidens, the Walz family, and her campaign staff and volunteers. She reiterated that she believes Americans have far more in common than separating us.

In what appeared to be a message to Trump, she noted: “A fundamental principle of American democracy is that when we lose an election, we accept the results. That principle as much as any other distinguishes democracy from monarchy or tyranny, and anyone who seeks the public trust must honor it. At the same time in our nation, we owe loyalty not to a president or a party, but to the Constitution of the United States, and loyalty to our conscience and to our God. 

“My allegiance to all three is why I am here to say, while I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fuels this campaign, the fight for freedom, for opportunity, for fairness and the dignity of all people, a fight for the ideals at the heart of our nation, the ideals that reflect America at our best. That is a fight I will never give up.”

Harris urged people “to organize, to mobilize and to stay engaged for the sake of freedom and justice and the future that we all know we can build together.” She told those feeling as if the world is dark indeed these days, to “fill the sky with the light of a billion brilliant stars, the light of optimism, of faith, of truth and service,” and to let “that work guide us, even in the face of setbacks, toward the extraordinary promise of the United States of America.” 

—

Notes:

https://www.vox.com/2024-elections/383208/donald-trump-victory-kamala-harris-global-trend-incumbents

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/virtual-politics-and-the-corruption-post-soviet-democracy

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-victory-china-tariffs-taxes-inflation/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/11/06/trump-trials-disappear-new-york-sentencing/

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-day-one-election-victory-karoline-leavitt-1981319

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-mass-deportation-program-cost/story?id=115318034

X:

TheTNHoller/status/1854361581234065723

JStein_WaPo/status/1854026321841549636

Tom Nichols, Staff Writer

Donald Trump won a significant victory in both the popular vote and the Electoral College because he offered a majority of Americans what they wanted: anger, drama, and a renewal of their favorite political reality-TV show.

Democrats and liberal pundits are already trying to figure out how the Trump campaign not only bested Kamala Harris in the “Blue Wall” states of the Midwest and the Rust Belt, but gained on her even in areas that should have been safe for a Democrat. Almost everywhere, Donald Trump expanded his coalition, and this time, unlike in 2016, he didn’t have to thread the needle of the Electoral College to win: He can claim the legitimacy of winning the popular vote.

Trump’s opponents are now muttering about the choice of Tim Walz, the influence of the Russians, the role of the right-wing media, and whether President Joe Biden should not have stepped aside in favor of Harris. Even the old saw about “economic anxiety” is making a comeback.

These explanations all have some merit, but mostly, they miss the point. Yes, some voters still stubbornly believe that presidents magically control the price of basic goods. Others have genuine concerns about immigration and gave in to Trump’s booming call of fascism and nativism. And some of them were just never going to vote for a woman, much less a Black woman.

But in the end, a majority of American voters chose Trump because they wanted what he was selling: a nonstop reality show of rage and resentment. Some Democrats, still gripped by the lure of wonkery, continue to scratch their heads over which policy proposals might have unlocked more votes, but that was always a mug’s game. Trump voters never cared about policies, and he rarely gave them any. (Choosing to be eaten by a shark rather than electrocuted might be a personal preference, but it’s not a policy.) His rallies involved long rants about the way he’s been treated, like a giant therapy session or a huge family gathering around a bellowing, impaired grandpa.

Back in 2021, I wrote a book about the rise of “illiberal populism,” the self-destructive tendency in some nations that leads people to participate in democratic institutions such as voting while being hostile to democracy itself, casting ballots primarily to punish other people and to curtail everyone’s rights—even their own. These movements are sometimes led by fantastically wealthy faux populists who hoodwink gullible voters by promising to solve a litany of problems that always seem to involve money, immigrants, and minorities. The appeals from these charlatans resonate most not among the very poor, but among a bored, relatively well-off middle class, usually those who are deeply uncomfortable with racial and demographic changes in their own countries.And so it came to pass: Last night, a gaggle of millionaires and billionaires grinned and applauded for Trump. They were part of an alliance with the very people another Trump term would hurt—the young, minorities, and working families among them.

Trump, as he has shown repeatedly over the years, couldn’t care less about any of these groups. He ran for office to seize control of the apparatus of government and to evade judicial accountability for his previous actions as president. Once he is safe, he will embark on the other project he seems to truly care about: the destruction of the rule of law and any other impediments to enlarging his power.

Americans who wish to stop Trump in this assault on the American constitutional order, then, should get it out of their heads that this election could have been won if only a better candidate had made a better pitch to a few thousand people in Pennsylvania. Biden, too old and tired to mount a proper campaign, likely would have lost worse than Harris; more to the point, there was nothing even a more invigorated Biden or a less, you know, female alternative could have offered. Racial grievances, dissatisfaction with life’s travails (including substance addiction and lack of education), and resentment toward the villainous elites in faraway cities cannot be placated by housing policy or interest-rate cuts.

No candidate can reason about facts and policies with voters who have no real interest in such things. They like the promises of social revenge that flow from Trump, the tough-guy rhetoric, the simplistic “I will fix it” solutions. And he’s interesting to them, because he supports and encourages their conspiracist beliefs. (I knew Harris was in trouble when I was in Pennsylvania last week for an event and a fairly well-off business owner, who was an ardent Trump supporter, told me that Michelle Obama had conspired with the Canadians to change the state’s vote tally in 2020. And that wasn’t even the weirdest part of the conversation.)

As Jonathan Last, editor of The Bulwark, put it in a social-media post last night: The election went the way it did “because America wanted Trump. That’s it. People reaching to construct [policy] alibis for the public because they don’t want to grapple with this are whistling past the graveyard.” Last worries that we might now be in a transition to authoritarianism of the kind Russia went through in the 1990s, but I visited Russia often in those days, and much of the Russian democratic implosion was driven by genuinely brutal economic conditions and the rapid collapse of basic public services. Americans have done this to themselves during a time of peace, prosperity, and astonishingly high living standards. An affluent society that thinks it is living in a hellscape is ripe for gulling by dictators who are willing to play along with such delusions.

The bright spot in all this is that Trump and his coterie must now govern. The last time around, Trump was surrounded by a small group of moderately competent people, and these adults basically put baby bumpers and pool noodles on all the sharp edges of government. This time, Trump will rule with greater power but fewer excuses, and he—and his voters—will have to own the messes and outrages he is already planning to create.Those voters expect that Trump will hurt others and not them. They will likely be unpleasantly surprised, much as they were in Trump’s first term. (He was, after all, voted out of office for a reason.) For the moment, some number of them have memory-holed that experience and are pretending that his vicious attacks on other Americans are just so much hot air.

Trump, unfortunately, means most of what he says. In this election, he has triggered the unfocused ire and unfounded grievances of millions of voters. Soon we will learn whether he can still trigger their decency—if there is any to be found.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), who campaigned for Harris every single day the House was out of session, told us that if you were out there listening to union members, to Black voters, to men, to young people, to working women and men struggling to pay for groceries … you knew what was coming. “Democrats shouldn’t do the blame game,” she said. “They should do: ‘What aren’t we doing right — all of us?'”

Amalfi coast trip

The highlights of this trip, as interesting as all the other activities were, were the excursions to Pompeii and Herculaneum. These were undertaken one after the other, with a break for lunch, so really made for a very full and energetic day. We all survived very well, despite uneven pathways, staircases, distressing sights and the warm weather.

Herculaneum

Long-held beliefs about ancient residents of Pompeii debunked by DNA testing

DNA testing of some inhabitants of the buried city of Pompeii has found popular narratives around their identities and relationships are largely wrong, a study finds.

The eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD buried the ancient Roman town in ash, leaving behind an entire archaeological site almost perfectly preserved before its rediscovery in 1748.

Published in scientific journal Current Biology, the study was lead by researchers at the University of Florence in Italy and Harvard University in the US, and is part of a wider project to map the DNA of over 1,000 human remains uncovered at the site.

Pompeii’s status as a port city influenced a wide range of eastern Mediterranean, Levantine and North African DNA samples found, representing a wider range of ethnicities than originally assumed, the authors said.

A 2015 restoration of some plaster casts of remains found many had been significantly altered by the first archaeologists and restorers who found them, meaning interpretations based on the final pose or shape of the victims’ bodies were impacted, as well as assumptions around proximity and gender roles.

The study’s authors took samples from individual bone fragments mixed with plaster from 14 casts and analysed the nuclear and mitochondrial DNA left behind after thousands of years preserved in ash.

Jewellery’s associations found to be false

A group found in 1974 in the House of the Golden Bracelet, named for the piece of jewellery found on the arm of one resident, was previously assumed to be a family group that included a mother, based on the bracelet and child in close proximity.

However, the researchers concluded the four individuals were unrelated and all were male, with “considerable variation” in their genetic diversity.

One of the people found had black hair and dark skin, which alongside genetic markers indicated eastern Mediterranean or North African ancestry.

“These discoveries challenge longstanding interpretations, such as associating jewellery with femininity or interpreting physical closeness as an indicator of biological relationships,” the authors wrote.

“Instead of establishing new narratives that might also misrepresent these people’s lived experiences, these results encourage reflection on conceptions and construction of gender and family in past societies as well as in academic discourse.”

Nuclear genetic testing showed one of the pair was a young adult male, meaning the first two theories were excluded, and the pair were not related through the maternal line.

The young man’s ancestry was also Mediterranean, and consistent with modern day Turkish populations, the study showed.

The researchers were unable to determine the sex of the second individual, though CT skeletal scans suggested they were aged in their mid to late teens.

Pompeii

The Independent

‘Fragile’ Pompeii to cap daily tourist numbers at 20,000 to protect the site

Story by Alexander Butler

 The Roman archaeological site of Pompeii will limit the number of daily visitors to the site after a steep rise in visitors.

The Pompeii archaeological park plans to limit visitor numbers to 20,000 a day and introduce personalised tickets starting next week.

It comes after a record high 36,000 tourists visited the site on the first Sunday of October, when entry was free, according to local media.

The ancient Roman city in southern Italy was buried under ash and rock following the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD.

Nearly four million people visited the main Pompeii site in 2023, a third more than the previous year, according to authorities. The site is one of the best-preserved Roman cities anywhere in the world (Parco Archeologico di Pompei/Handout via REUTERS)

The site is one of the best-preserved Roman cities anywhere in the world (Parco Archeologico di Pompei/Handout via REUTERS)

Visitor counts had been climbing in the run up to the 2020 pandemic and in 2023 were above pre-Covid levels.

“We are working on a series of projects to lift the human pressure on the site, which could pose risks both for visitors and the heritage that is so unique and fragile,” the park’s director Gabriel Zuchtriegel said.

The park’s management is also trying to attract more tourists to visit other ancient sites connected to Pompeii by a free shuttle bus under the “Greater Pompeii” project, including Stabia, Torre Annunziata and Boscoreale sites.

“The measures to manage flows and safety and the personalisation of the visits are part of this strategy,” Mr Zuchtriegel said.In October 2024, there were more than 480,000 visitors, putting the average at about 15,500 a day (Giorgio Cosulich/Getty Images)

In October 2024, there were more than 480,000 visitors, putting the average at about 15,500 a day (Giorgio Cosulich/Getty Images)

“We are aiming for slow, sustainable, pleasant and non-mass tourism and above all widespread throughout the territory around the Unesco site, which is full of cultural jewels to discover,” he added.

Post-pandemic, the influx of millions of visitors to tourist-strewn towns has, in some cases, risen to levels above those seen in 2019.

Archeological Museum Naples

Artifacts from the Pompeii and Herculaneum sites are housed in the Alcohological Museum in Naples. We visited Naples for three days at the end of the Amalfi trip and visited the museum.

Week beginning 5 November

Articles and some light relief: Bob McMullan; Heather Cox Richardson; Joyce Vance; Jess Piper; Cindy Lou and food.

American Politics

Bob McMullan

Final US election review

Less than one day until the polls close. In Australia it will be Wednesday before we know who wins.

The election remains very unpredictable. That does not necessarily mean that it will be close. A small consistent error in the polls could point to a clear victory for either side.

But it is extremely difficult to forecast a result with confidence.

I think it is possible to isolate three strands of thinking about the prospects of the candidates.

The first was outlined by veteran Democrat political consultant, James Carville. Carville outlined three reasons why he is confident Kamala Harris will win. My summary of his arguments is:

1) Under Trump’s leadership the Republicans have lost every election since 2018 and Trump has made very little effort to broaden his base of support.

2) Harris has a distinct financial advantage which should enable her to run a bigger and better ground game in the final days than Trump.

3) He can’t believe that the country he grew up in could re-elect such a man.

The first two arguments have validity, I hope the third one does, but I am not certain.

The second view of the likely outcome is represented by Nate Silver, the respected analyst of data-based probabilities. His criticism of some pollsters and analysis of the “herding” phenomenon by which some pollsters make sure their results are not too far from the mainstream is very interesting.

In this review, however, I am more interested in his polling averages. The most recent Silver averages have Harris winning only Michigan and Wisconsin among the battleground states. Which would mean Trump winning 287/251 in the electoral college.

A third view is from the Washington Post, which has been very careful in selecting only high quality pollsters for its voting average. The Post shows Harris increasing her lead over Trump in Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin while continuing to hold a narrow but shrinking lead in Pennsylvania. Such a result on Tuesday would mean Harris winning 276/262.

These divergent views from smart and informed people show the difficulty in forecasting the result this time.

Some other indicators which I have fed into my ultimate conclusion.

1. The gender gap remains very large and early voting data suggests that women are voting more than men.

2. Related to this, Trump has always had a strong base but has seemed to have a ceiling of support at about 46-47%. In this election he seems to be relying on a low-propensity voting group, young men, to turn out for him. The early voting data suggests this may not be happening sufficiently to overcome the gender gap problem, but of course they may turn out on election day.

3. The measures of enthusiasm and indicators of organizational capacity appear to favour Kamala Harris, which should help with turn out on the day.

4. We recently had the astonishing Iowa poll from the usually very reliable Des Moines Register which gave Harris a three point lead in Iowa. If this is true Harris is in for a big win, but it may be an outlier.

5. Such data as exists suggest that those few late deciders are trending more towards Harris than Trump.

6. Late polls from NYT/Sienna, YouGov and Focaldata all have Kamala Harris winning enough states to win the Electoral college, although they don’t agree about which states she will win. These forecasts would mean Harris winning 270-292 votes to Trump 268-246.

 7. Conversely Real Clear Politics predicts Trump will win all 7 battleground states. This would mean Trump winning 312/226.

Conclusion

Nobody knows who is going to win, but if the gender gap and the differential in turn-out between men and women continue I think Harris is more likely to win.

Those who read my predictions last time will recall that I ventured a guess about the margin. This time it is more difficult, as the range of possibilities makes clear.

Heather Cox Richardson

Letters from an American <heathercoxrichardson@substack.com> 

However, the pattern of credible polling data over recent weeks has consistently suggested the most likely result is 276/262 to Harris.

I’m home tonight to stay for a bit, after being on the road for thirteen months and traveling through 32 states. I am beyond tired but profoundly grateful for the chance to meet so many wonderful people and for the welcome you have given me to your towns and your homes.

I know people are on edge, and there is maybe one last thing I can offer before this election. Every place I stopped, worried people asked me how I have maintained a sense of hope through the past fraught years. The answer—inevitably for me, I suppose—is in our history.

If you had been alive in 1853, you would have thought the elite enslavers had become America’s rulers. They were only a small minority of the U.S. population, but by controlling the Democratic Party, they had managed to take control of the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court. They used that power to stop the northerners who wanted the government to clear the rivers and harbors of snags, for example, or to fund public colleges for ordinary people, from getting any such legislation through Congress. But at least they could not use the government to spread their system of human enslavement across the country, because the much larger population in the North held control of the House of Representatives. 

Then in 1854, with the help of Democratic president Franklin Pierce, elite enslavers pushed the Kansas-Nebraska Act through the House. That law overturned the Missouri Compromise that had kept Black enslavement out of the American West since 1820. Because the Constitution guarantees the protection of property—and enslaved Americans were considered property—the expansion of slavery into those territories would mean the new states there would become slave states. Their representatives would work together with those of the southern slave states to outvote the northern free labor advocates in Congress. Together, they would make enslavement national. 

America would become a slaveholding nation. 

Enslavers were quite clear that this was their goal. 

South Carolina senator James Henry Hammond explicitly rejected “as ridiculously absurd, that much lauded but nowhere accredited dogma of Mr. Jefferson, that ‘all men are born equal.’” He explained to his Senate colleagues that the world was made up of two classes of people. The “Mudsills” were dull drudges whose work produced the food and products that made society function. On them rested the superior class of people, who took the capital the mudsills produced and used it to move the economy, and even civilization itself, forward. The world could not survive without the inferior mudsills, but the superior class had the right—and even the duty—to rule over them. 

But that’s not how it played out. 

As soon as it became clear that Congress would pass the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Representative Israel Washburn of Maine called a meeting of thirty congressmen in Washington, D.C., to figure out how they could fight back against the Slave Power that had commandeered the government to spread the South’s system of human enslavement. The men met in the rooms of Representative Edward Dickinson of Massachusetts—whose talented daughter Emily was already writing poems—and while they came to the meeting from all different political parties, often bitterly divided over specific policies, they left with one sole purpose: to stop the overthrow of American democracy.

The men scattered back to their homes across the North for the summer, sharing their conviction that a new party must rise to stand against the Slave Power. They found “anti-Nebraska” sentiment sweeping their towns; a young lawyer from Illinois later recalled how ordinary people came together: “[W]e rose each fighting, grasping whatever he could first reach—a scythe—a pitchfork—a chopping axe, or a butcher’s cleaver.” In the next set of midterm elections, those calling themselves “anti-Nebraska” candidates swept into both national and state office across the North, and by 1856, opponents of the Slave Power had become a new political party: the Republicans. 

But the game wasn’t over. In 1857, the Supreme Court tried to take away Republicans’ power to stop the spread of slavery to the West by declaring in the infamous Dred Scott decision that Congress had no power to legislate in the territories. This made the Missouri Compromise that had kept enslavement out of the land above Missouri unconstitutional. The next day, Republican editor of the New York Tribune Horace Greeley wrote that the decision was “entitled to just so much moral weight as would be the judgment of a majority of those congregated in any Washington bar-room.”

By 1858 the party had a new rising star, the young lawyer from Illinois who had talked about everyone reaching for tools to combat the Kansas-Nebraska Act: Abraham Lincoln. Pro-slavery Democrats called the Republicans radicals for their determination to stop the expansion of slavery, but Lincoln countered that the Republicans were the country’s true conservatives, for they were the ones standing firm on the Declaration of Independence. The enslavers rejecting the Founders’ principles were the radicals.  

The next year, Lincoln articulated an ideology for the party, defining it as the party of ordinary Americans defending the democratic idea that all men are created equal against those determined to overthrow democracy with their own oligarchy.

In 1860, at a time when voting was almost entirely limited to white men, voters put Abraham Lincoln into the White House. Furious, southern leaders took their states out of the Union and launched the Civil War.

By January 1863, Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation ending the American system of human enslavement in lands still controlled by the Confederacy. By November 1863 he had delivered the Gettysburg Address, firmly rooting the United States of America in the Declaration of Independence. 

In that speech, Lincoln charged Americans to rededicate themselves to the unfinished work for which so many had given their lives. He urged them to “take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

In less than ten years the country went from a government dominated by a few fabulously wealthy men who rejected the idea that human beings are created equal and who believed they had the right to rule over the masses, to a defense of government of the people, by the people, for the people, and to leaders who called for a new birth of freedom. But Lincoln did not do any of this alone: always, he depended on the votes of ordinary people determined to have a say in the government under which they lived.

In the 1860s the work of those people established freedom and democracy as the bedrock of the United States of America, but the structure itself remained unfinished. In the 1890s and then again in the 1930s, Americans had to fight to preserve democracy against those who would destroy it for their own greed and power. Each time, thanks to ordinary Americans, democracy won.

Now it is our turn. 

In our era the same struggle has resurfaced. A small group of leaders has rejected the idea that all people are created equal and seeks to destroy our democracy in order to install themselves into permanent power. 

And just as our forebears did, Americans have reached for whatever tools we have at hand to build new coalitions across the nation to push back. After decades in which ordinary people had come to believe they had little political power, they have mobilized to defend American democracy and—with an electorate that now includes women and Black Americans and Brown Americans—have discovered they are strong. 

On November 5 we will find out just how strong we are. We will each choose on which side of the historical ledger to record our names. On the one hand, we can stand with those throughout our history who maintained that some people were better than others and had the right to rule; on the other, we can list our names on the side of those from our past who defended democracy and, by doing so, guarantee that American democracy reaches into the future. 

I have had hope in these dark days because I look around at the extraordinary movement that has built in this country over the past several years, and it looks to me like the revolution of the 1850s that gave America a new birth of freedom. 

As always, the outcome is in our hands. 

“Fellow-citizens,” Lincoln reminded his colleagues, “we cannot escape history. We…will be remembered in spite of ourselves.”  

–-

Notes:

James Henry Hammond, Selections from the Letters and Speeches of the Hon. James H. Hammond, of South Carolina (New York: John F. Trow and Company, 1866), 126.

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/peoriaspeech.htm

New York Tribune, March 7, 1857, p. 4.

November 3, 2024

Joyce Vance , Nov 4 Joyce Vance

This is it folks. This is the week we’ve been waiting for.

And it’s a jungle out there. The Trump camp’s borderline frivolous and outright meritless lawsuits, challenging both voters and ballots, are coming at a frenetic pace.

This morning I wrote about a lawsuit in state court in Georgia that was an effort to stop people from turning in their absentee ballots in person over the weekend. It’s too late to put them in the mail; they don’t count unless they’re received by election day. But lawyers for the Georgia GOP opposed keeping county offices open so people could turn their ballots in.

It wasn’t much of a case, and the judge promptly dismissed it. That should’ve been it, but it wasn’t. Tonight, the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Georgia Republican Party filed the case a second time, in federal court.

You really can’t make this stuff up. It’s all about voter suppression and helping develop a winning narrative of voter fraud (that isn’t true) in case he loses.

Trump has, of course, spent his weekend exactly as you’d expect, saying it was okay with him if members of the press were killed.

He also said that he should not have left the White House after losing the 2020 election. Thankfully, no microphones appear to have been abused in his Sunday appearances.

As the candidates make their very different closing arguments to the American people, expect the election-related litigation to continue. It will morph into recounts and challenges once the race is decided, which we should not expect to happen quickly. I’ve written before that I don’t expect the outcome to be decided in the Supreme Court. That can happen if you’ve got a situation like Bush v. Gore in 2000, where a small tranche of ballots in one state were going to decide the whole thing. But that’s not the usual case. It’s likely most of the litigation will be decided quickly in state courts, with some cases in federal district and appellate courts.

Law professor and election law expert Justin Levitt has written an excellent piece about this that you’ll enjoy if you want to dig in on this topic. It’s an antidote to the frenzy of concern that the Court we’ve come to hold in low esteem will weigh in for Trump: Please Stop Wishcasting the Supreme Court into a Decisive Election Role.

The GOP pre-election lawsuits were primarily designed to erode confidence in the election and fuel post-election narratives that the entire election was tainted by fraud. Some cases hinted at a post-election strategy of refusing to certify election results. But certification of election results is a mandatory legal duty, and courts like Georgia that have considered it have held thatstate and local officials do not have discretion to refuse to certify election results.

If an official delays or refuses to certify results, state officials and courts (as well as candidates and voters, in some circumstances) can step in to compel certification. Officials who refuse to certify can be held accountable through both civil and criminal penalties. There are plenty of opportunities baked into the process to ensure that the count is correct. But certification is not one of those points. Refusal to certify election results is really a refusal to count an entire jurisdiction’s votes.

Each state sets its own deadline for certifying the count. Some examples below. A key date to look for is December 11, when the Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA) requires the governor of each state to certify the appointment of electors well in advance of the electors’ votes. On December 17, the electors meet in their respective states to take part in the Electoral College and formally cast their state’s electoral votes for president and vice president. The ECRA removes the ambiguity that Trump’s lawyers exploited to create the fake electors scheme in 2020. Any refusal to certify the vote can be dealt with by lawsuits that force the certification or state rules that provide alternate paths for certification. People who refuse to follow the law and certify results can even face penalties.

In preparation for Tuesday, law enforcement officials have been vigilant about the possibility of violence at the polls or around the election, while hoping it won’t occur. Keep in mind that if it does, we will not see federal law enforcement or troops out at the polls. Election oversight is largely left to to the states; it’s even a crime for armed federal agents like FBI or U.S. Marshals’ personnel, along with members of the military, to be sent in. I’m told there is an unprecedented level of cooperation between federal, state, and local law enforcement to keep the election—and election workers—safe.

There’s also good news in preparation for election day. As many as 17,000 voters in Erie County, Pennsylvania, who didn’t receive their mail-in ballots are being permitted to vote early in person. The voters requested ballots but didn’t receive them, but a judge gave them permission to vote up through Monday and, equally as important, ordered that polling places needed to have sufficient numbers of ballots on hand in case these voters all show up at the precinct on election day. This case is a great example of how election-related issues frequently get resolved in the lower courts. And one of the sleeper stories emerging in this election already is about how some pockets of slow and delayed mail delivery are factoring into who gets a ballot and whose ballot makes it back in time to be counted.

In other words, we are all over the place as election day approaches, with lots of moving parts. I hope you’ll leave a note in the comments about what’s going on in your part of the country.

Today in North Carolina, Trump referenced a candidate named David as “one of the best” and looked around at the crowd, asking if he was out there. The only problem? David is David McCormick, a candidate for office in Pennsylvania. Imagine what would have happened if Joe Biden had done that?

S.V. Dáte at Huff Post tweeted tonight that he had reached out to the Trump campaign to ask “why the coup-attempting, now convicted criminal, former president is an unfocused mess in these final days.” He got this in response:

President Trump is the greatest orator in political history and his patented Weave is a brilliant method to convey important stories and explain policies that will help everyday Americans turn the page from the last four years of Kamala Harris’s failures. The media is too stupid and ignorant to understand or comprehend what is happening in the country and, therefore, is unable to accurately report on President Trump’s achievements while in office and the pro- American agenda he will implement in his second term. Or they knowingly misrepresent and purposely lie about President Trump because they suffer from a debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome that prevents critical thinking or commonsense.

If this leaves you in need of an emotional support chicken, I’ll be here for you this week. This is Guida, who only agreed to sit on my lap this morning because I had Buñuelos that I shared with her. But she purred softly, and that was just what I needed.

I’m really grateful to all of you for being here with me this week.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

Jess Piper Nov 3, email

Harris Could Take …Iowa?

Let me start by saying that I am not a data person. Numbers make my head hurt. I am a narrative person. I am full of the stories of rural people and rural areas and rural organizing.

I also know a lot about the people in Iowa. I live three miles from the IA border, and I frequently speak in the state. There is a reason people who know numbers and assemble polls are talking about Iowa today.

The Des Moines Register headline: Iowa Poll: Kamala Harris leapfrogs Donald Trump to take lead near Election Day. The nationally recognized Iowa Poll shows Kamala Harris picking up support from women to surpass Donald Trump in a ruby-red state he has won twice.

The Selzer Poll shows something I have been talking about for a few years. The story of organizing in rural spaces and the stories of the women who make it happen.The poll shows that women — particularly those who are older or who are politically independent — are driving the late shift toward Harris. “Age and gender are the two most dynamic factors that are explaining these numbers,” Ann Selzer said of the numbers.

I know this intuitively. I know that because I have been traveling into Iowa to speak to groups large and small for two years. I have been in small towns and big cities across the state and I know who is doing the organizing…It’s the women.   I was in Howard County, Iowa a year ago. I was invited by a local Howard County Democrat, Laura Hubka. The entire county has fewer than 10K people.Laura and her group organized a potluck dinner with me as the keynote speaker and several candidates driving from across the state to talk politics and what sort of shot the Democrats had. The community center was full and as I drove back to Laura’s farmhouse to stay the night, I thought about the courage it takes to have a meeting in a rural space when you might only have ten folks show up. Laura did it anyway.

I spoke in Davis County, Iowa almost two years ago. We met at the fairgrounds in the building next to the Swine Pavilion. I was asked to come and speak on state politics including Kim Reynold’s school voucher scheme and the Iowa abortion ban. I sat down to another potluck with midwestern sushi — a pickle slathered with cream cheese and rolled up in a piece of ham, sliced into little sushi rolls. I washed it down with lemonade and made sure to snag a Scotcharoo before I spoke.The abortion ban was the topic of conversation with the women in this group, and I have news for those politicians going around thinking that abortion bans are only relevant to women of child-bearing age…they are wrong.

Women know that abortion bans impact every part of our lives. We know bans drive OBGYNs out of our states making any gynecological care difficult. We are losing women’s healthcare in states with bans. Rural women are hit particularly hard with an abortion ban.Fairgrounds, Davis County, Iowa.

I drove from Davis County to Johnson County the next day. I was invited to be the Keynote speaker at a large event in Johnson County, Iowa. It was the annual BBQ held at the fairgrounds as well. This was a big event with several special guests including the Iowa Democratic Chair, Rita Hart and Congressional candidate Christina Bohannan. Again, the topic that most women were concerned about? Abortion and reproductive healthcare. I spoke on the issue at length and grabbed a piece of butter cake on the way out.The women who saw me out the door hugged me and told me that their daughters and granddaughters would not suffer the health repercussions that an abortion ban ushers in. That they would do whatever they had to do to make sure their children would be safe in Iowa.

Here’s the thing that a lot of pollsters have been getting wrong: they don’t think abortion will be the reason that older women choose to vote for a Democrat. And I know that isn’t true. I have talked to hundreds of folks on the ground in places like Iowa. I’ve spoken to so many women.
Abortion may be seen as a political strategy to some, but it is life or death for women and girls.

I spoke in Mt Ayr, Iowa last year. The population is 1600. I was again summoned by the Ringgold County Democrats led by a woman. We met in a woman-owned bookstore. There was wine and food and desserts and they gave me one of my favorite t-shirts. It says “Hard Working Rural Democrat” and I wear it often.Over half of the folks who showed up to this Mt Ayr event were teachers. That’s very often the case in the spaces I travel to speak…they are quiet, but they always show up. You’d think with all of those teachers that the topic would be public schools and that is indeed where we started, but the Q and A session turned into a forum on abortion bans. Most of the women at the event were grandmothers — they worried that their daughters would need reproductive care and could die waiting for it under an abortion ban.

That is a fair worry. A worry that women have been dealing with since the creation of the United States. “ desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation. ”Abigail Adams to her husband John Adams, 1776.

We have been fighting for equal rights under the law for hundreds of years.I have been in Council Bluffs. I have spoken in Iowa City. I traveled to Sioux City. I have been to Mount Pleasant. I have traveled the state for the past two years and I can tell you that while I am excited to see the data on Iowa, I have been telling you the stories for a while now. The rural stories — the organizing stories.The poll reinforces what we are seeing on the ground.The Selzer Poll shows that Trump still leads in rural spaces in Iowa, but here is what I know: he’s losing his grip on those folks. And the reason? Women voters. Rural women voters.The Republican ban on abortion was a step too far for most women…even for Independent and Republican voters. Especially with those rural voters who believe in limited government. Who believe that lawmakers don’t belong in doctor’s offices. Who believe in freedom.

I also have to take every poll with a grain of salt. We know that polls don’t win elections — voters will decide who takes the Presidency on Tuesday. But here is what I am telling you; the vibes have changed. I am in the rooms and you have a reason to be hopeful. You have reason to think Iowa may just go for Harris and wonder if it can happen there, where else may it happen?I know that the women are making it happen. Boys, look away while I tell a funny story. Recently, I was at an event with Fred Wellman…he doesn’t speak at small rural events as often as I do. He said of this particular event: “This is running so well. We are on time and there is a schedule of events and food too.”I told him. “You know why, right? Women organized the event.” He laughed and then realized how truthful I was. I then told him about the one event I have attended in the last two years that was organized by a man. I knew it as soon as I arrived because there was no water, no coffee, and no sweet treats.

True story.

Women are taking the lead in this election and it’s because we have everything to lose. Our lives are on the line. Our children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences of a Trump win.Women will organize events and knock doors and make calls and participate as election judges and create GOTV events and we will also feed you. We will give you information and warm your belly. Women are driving this election and it’s being done in a particularly feminine fashion.This is the year of the woman. The stars have aligned. I am optimistic but a little scared. Excited but pragmatic.If Iowa can go for Harris, any state can go for Harris. The women are working. The women are voting. We can do this.~JessP.S.

Thank you to all of the male allies. We couldn’t do this without you. Also, remember the snacks when you organize 🙂

Cindy Lou eats in Bomerano

The village was not a culinary paradise. However, this cafe was a pleasant place to be as the rain poured down outside. Pizzas and pasta were the staples, with pizzas served only at dinner. There was also a range of pastries. So, pasta it was. Oh, and meat balls.

A gelato in Napoli

Eating in Sorrento – la Villa

This cat joined us, but as she turned her nose up at the idea of a bread crumb, but leapt upon the prawn I did not think she was particularly hungry. I was, so ate most of my delicious prawns. The omelette (more suited to the breakfast hour at which we ate, was also deemed delicious).

A shocking ‘meal’ at the Archeological Museum in Napoli

The museum is worth a visit but avoid the cafe. How anyone can serve such a mess is beyond comprehension. The side of green beans was cold, over cooked beans. The pastas were lukewarm. The juices served in unopened bottles. Service was unpleasant.

Food in Napoli cafes observed as walking through the streets.

Week beginning 30 October 2024

Lidia LoPinto and Winnie LoPinto I Was a Woman Pilot in 1945 Women Airforce Training Pilots November 2022, Independently Published.

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

I was glad to have read this independently published book which shows only a few signs of not having been through a trade publishing process. It is fairly well written, although the writing could be livelier to make this a more engaging work. However, the book’s real impact is in the content, in particular the way in which this woman pilot, along with others, has a far different story from the ones I have previously read. I Was a Woman Pilot in 1945 is a worthy addition to the non-fiction books that have been written about this service, and the Marge Piercy novel, Gone to Soldiers, in which a fictional woman pilot endures some of the sexism that forms an important part of this account.

Sexism is not the only issue raised in the book, and indeed there are male heroes who also face challenges in relation to the service. Together their stories give a vastly different account of the way in which it operated. The economic advantages taken by some businesses connected to the women pilot’s training are a crucial point in the book. A point made well, without too much recrimination. Instead, the pilots whose careers were blighted, as portrayed by Lidia and Winnie LoPinto are remarkably resilient, move on with their lives and write movingly of their experiences.

I am pleased to have read I Was a Woman Pilot in 1945 Women Airforce Training Pilots as part of the information I have about the women ferry pilots.

Lidia LoPinto and Winnie LoPinto have made an important contribution to a familiar body of work.

Following articles: Amalfi Coast; American Politics – Bob McMullan; Meanwhile in America; Kamala Harris might have sealed the deal; Heather Cox Richardson; Iowa poll.

Amalfi Coast Trip Highlights

Pizza Demonstration

The hotel provided a dynamic pizza making session, where we ate some of the most well-known pizzas before, and the more elaborately flavoured after the demonstration.

Pasta demonstration

The pasta demonstration was accompanied by a feast of bread, cheese and jam with white wine while we watched. Much of the meal for that night was demonstrated – pasta, fish, tiramisu. The non-fish dish was artichokes which I understand were wonderful. I had the fish which was not nearly so nice as the clam and pipi pasta. The tiramisu was fantastic. One of the tour group assisted. The cream was a combination of whole eggs, egg whites, cream and mascarpone, with a dash of very strong coffee. It was great to see that the simple sponge fingers dipped in coffee were a feature of this elegant dish as well as the one I make. The soup was for another night – when we tasted it the necessity for cooking soup over a long period was made abundantly clear. It was delicious with a flavour that was mellow and developed with each mouthful.

American Politics

Bob McMullan

US election review at 29th October

It is definitely “white knuckle” time!

One week to go and the election is too close to call. There are definitely factors causing concern about the likely outcome as the possibility of a Trump victory looms on the horizon. There are also opportunities for Kamala Harris to win.

The main cause of concern is obviously the trend towards Trump in the polls. Some of the polling averages (e.g. 538 and Silver) have Trump winning Pennsylvania as well as the sunbelt states with the possible exception of Nevada. If this were the case Trump would win the Electoral College 281 /257.

If Trump wins Pennsylvania, Harris would need to win Nevada and one of Georgia or North Carolina to prevail in the Electoral College,

The narrowing of Harris’ lead in the national polls points to another area of risk for her. Should Trump overperform the published polls as he has in the last two presidential elections or if the Electoral College bias is as strongly in favour of Republicans as recent history would suggest then Kamala Harris would need more than her current 1-2% lead in the published national polls.

Conversely the most recent major poll, from the US ABC network gave Harris a 4% lead.

A fascinating part of the data from this poll is that it records Harris polling 56% amongst women. Combine this with the early polling statistics which suggest that women are turning out in larger numbers than men and you get the fascinating possibility that Trump’s great triumph of overturning Roe v Wade could be his downfall.

Furthermore, the Washington Post polling average, which is possibly the most rigorous in terms of focussing on the most credible polls, continues to show Harris leading in the same four states as previously, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Nevada. If this is maintained, Harris would win 276/262.

Another variable in the US system which may help Vice President Harris is the “turn-out” factor. This tends to be determined by enthusiasm and organisation. Data suggests that the Democrats should do better in both these aspects, but it is far from certain.

Jen Psaki, the former Biden press secretary who is now an MSNBC commentator quoted some interesting statistics recently. She quoted polling which suggests that at this late stage Harris is doing better than Trump among those who have not yet decided or have only a loose attachment to their current choice. The New York Times Sienna poll showed 15%of voters as “not fully decided” with Ms Harris leading with that group 42/32. This suggests the late deciders may favour Harris.

Two other factors which may impact the outcome. First, recent history, particularly 2022, suggest Democrats are overperforming the polls rather than Republicans as has been the case in 2016 and 2020. The other is that analysis of the data suggests that the pro-Republican bias in the electoral college may be less this election. Harris only leads by 1-2% in the Washington Post average but would still win the college on their numbers. This may fit in with polling showing Trump narrowing the gap in New York, for example (although still losing the state).

There will still be unexpected events which may impact the outcome. Who knows what impact the Puerto Rico jokes at Trump’s New York rally will have on the 300,000 Puerto Ricans who live in Pennsylvania.

So, to sum up, it is a very difficult election to predict, but the biggest factor may be the gender gap in support if it continues to be reflected in turn-out data. We will know in a week.

CNN

November 1, 2024   Stephen Collinson, Caitlin Hu and Shelby Rose
The world is watching----------

Only Americans get to vote in next week’s presidential election, but whoever wins will have enormous power to influence the lives of tens of millions of foreigners. So it’s hardly surprising that tensions and emotions are rising across the globe as Tuesday looms. 

Always discerning Meanwhile readers are also weighing in, and some are expressing concerns that if Vice President Kamala Harris loses, part of the blame will lay with the US media. Some readers believe that Harris, who is running a largely reality-based campaign and the twice-impeached former President Donald Trump — a notorious purveyor of untruths who tried to steal the 2020 election — are being unfairly held to the same standards over performance and policy nuts and bolts. While Harris works for a president whose 41% approval rating could doom her campaign, some readers worry she’s not being given a fair go – including in our coverage. 

Christopher in Tasmania accused the American press of setting “an almost impossible task” for Harris by scrutinizing her talking points and platform while throwing up their hands at Trump’s idiosyncrasies. If Trump wins on November 5, he said, the question will be: “How did things go so badly wrong that the voters of the US elected a convicted felon, a four-times indicted criminal, a serial liar, a fascist … to the highest office in America, and arguably the most powerful position in the world?” “The answer is glaringly evident. Trump may be re-elected primarily because the national US media held Kamala Harris and the Democratic Campaigns to a completely different standard of scrutiny on issues of policy and character during the last six months,” Christopher concluded. 

Reader Paulette also took aim at media coverage of Harris, arguing that the vice president could still benefit from the momentum that swept Joe Biden to the Oval Office in 2020, when the Biden-Harris ticket won a historic number of votes. (Trump’s vote count in that election made him the second-highest vote earner in US history after Biden – although a combined swing of only about 77, 000 votes in the key battleground states could have kept Trump in the Oval Office). “How dare you write that she is part of an unpopular administration. They were elected by huge numbers!” Paulette wrote. 

And Maureen, an ex-pat living in Austria, argued that there’s too much focus on how Americans perceive the economy rather than its true performance. (For more on this, see CNN business editor David Goldman’s analysis of why the US economy feels cruddy for many despite strong jobs, GDP, consumer spending and paycheck metrics). Inflation is coming down “even if Bidenomics seems unpopular,” she said, pointing out that Harris has made promises to smooth the economic path forward for parents, minimum-wage workers, renters and other still-hurting groups. 

In contrast, Maureen argued, Trump “can’t even complete a sentence.” As CNN has previously reported, he’s calling for dramatic economic overhaul including steep new tariffs, tax giveaways and mass deportations – measures that have repeatedly been questioned by economic experts. Tension and worry are palpable in the United States ahead of the final weekend before one of the most fateful elections in modern American history. We’ll be back to report what happens next week. Keep the views, reactions and critiques coming to meanwhile@cnn.com. 

Kamala Harris May Have Sealed The Deal With One Of The Great Closing Arguments Ever

Kamala Harris didn’t just make a closing argument at The Ellipse. She may have sealed the deal.

Sarah Jones and Jason Easley , October 30, 2024

*The Daily is a reader supported newsletter that is committed to democracy and freedom. We are committed to truth, and if you would like to join us, please consider becoming a subscriber.

A Closing Argument For The Ages

The media often talks about candidates delivering their closing arguments, but if we are being honest, does anyone remember a closing speech from a candidate? Usually, presidential elections are so long that by the end all of the speeches melt together in the minds of voters.

The closing argument isn’t a real thing. Presidential candidates have always spent the final week making a mad dash to get out the vote in critical states. Speeches don’t normally stand out, but the 2024 election is not normal.

When President Joe Biden stepped aside and decided to finish out his term and not run again, Vice President Kamala Harris was placed into a mad dash of a campaign. Suddenly every moment and every speech came with intense pressure and scrutiny. Each time Kamala Harris has risen to the occasion and delivered.

With 75,000 or more people watching in Washington, D.C. VP Harris did it again.

*Three Important Quotes From Kamala Harris’s Speech

1). “Look, we all know who Donald Trump is. He is the person who stood at this very spot nearly four years ago and sent an armed mob to the United States Capitol to overturn the will of the people in a free and fair election that he knew he lost. Americans died as a result of that attack. 140 law enforcement officers were injured. And while Donald Trump sat in the White House watching, as the violence unfolded on television, he was told by staff that the mob wanted to kill his own vice president. Donald Trump responded with two words: “So what?” That’s who Donald Trump is.”

2). “I offer a different path. And I ask for your vote. And here is my pledge to you: I pledge to seek common ground and common sense solutions to make your lives better. I am not looking to score political points. I am looking to make progress. I pledge to listen: To experts, to those who will be impacted by the decisions I make, and to people who disagree with me. Unlike Donald Trump, I don’t believe people who disagree with me are the enemy. He wants to put them in jail. I’ll give them a seat at the table. I pledge to approach my work with the joy and optimism that comes from making a difference in people’s lives. And I pledge to be a President for all Americans. To always put country above party and above self.

* I am not a paid subscriber so have only two of the arguments – these should be good enough!

Heather Cox Richardson

Yesterday, in Time magazine, Eric Cortellessa explained that the electoral strategy of the Trump campaign was to get men who don’t usually vote, particularly young ones, to turn out for Trump. If they could do that, and at the same time hold steady the support of white women, Trump could win the election. So Trump has focused on podcasts followed by young men and on imitating the patterns of professional wrestling performances.

At the same time, he has promised to “protect women…whether the women like it or not,” and lied consistently about crime statistics to keep white suburban women on his side by suggesting that he alone can protect them. Today in Gastonia, North Carolina, for example, Trump told the audience: “They say the suburban women. Well, the suburbs are under attack right now. When you’re home in your house alone and you have this monster that got out of prison and he’s got, you know, six charges of murdering six different people, I think you’d rather have Trump.”

The crime rate has dropped dramatically in the past year.

Rather than keeping women in his camp, Trump’s strategy of reaching out to his base to turn out low-propensity voters, especially young men, has alienated them. That alienation has come on top of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that recognized the constitutional right to abortion. 

Early voting in Pennsylvania showed that women sent in 56% of the early ballots, compared to 43% for men. Seniors—people who remember a time before Roe v. Wade—also showed a significant split. Although the parties had similar numbers of registrants, nearly 59% of those over 65 voting early were Democrats. That pattern holds across all the battleground states: women’s early voting outpaces men’s by about 10 points. While those numbers are certainly not definitive—no one knows how these people voted, and much could change over the next few days—the enthusiasm of those two groups was notable. 

This evening, a Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll conducted by the highly respected Selzer & Co. polling firm from October 28 to 31 showed Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris leading Trump in Iowa 47% to 44% among likely voters. That outlying polling result is undoubtedly at least in part a reflection of the fact that Harris’s running mate is the governor of a neighboring state, but that’s not the whole story. While Trump wins the votes of men in Iowa by 52% to 38%, and of evangelicals by 73% to 20%, women, particularly older women, are driving the shift to favor Harris in a previously Republican-dominated state. 

Independent women back Harris by a 28-point margin, while senior women support her by a margin of more than 2 to 1, 63% to 28%. Overall, women back Harris by a margin of about 20 points: 56% to 36%. Seniors as a group including men as well as women are also strongly in Harris’s camp, by 55% to 36%.

A 79-year-old poll respondent said: “I like her policies on reproductive health and having women choosing their own health care, and the fact that I think that she will save our democracy and follow the rule of law…. [I]f the Republicans can decide what you do with your body, what else are they going to do to limit your choice, for women?”

The obvious driver for women and seniors to oppose Trump is the Dobbs decision. The loss of abortion care has put women’s lives at risk. Within days after the Supreme Court handed the decision down, we started hearing stories of raped children forced to give birth or cross state lines for abortions, as well as of women who have suffered or died from a lack of health care after doctors feared intervening in miscarriages would put them in legal jeopardy. 

As X user E. Rosalie noted, Iowa’s abortion ban also has long-term implications for the state. It has forced OBGYNs to leave and has made recruiting more impossible. As people are unable to get medical care to have babies, they will choose to live elsewhere, draining talent out of the state. That, in turn, will weaken Iowa’s economy.

That same process is playing out in all the states that have banned abortion. 

It seems possible that the Dobbs decision ushered in the end of the toxic American individualism on which the Reagan revolution was built. When he ran for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan set out to dismantle the active government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, promoted infrastructure, and protected civil rights. Such a government was akin to socialism, he claimed, and he insisted it stifled American individualism. 

In contrast to such a government, Reagan celebrated the mythological American cowboy. In his telling, that cowboy wanted nothing from the government but to be left alone to provide for and to protect his family. Good women in the cowboy myth were wives and mothers, in contrast to the women who wanted equal rights and jobs outside the home in modern America. That traditional image of American women had gotten legs in 1974, when the television show Little House on the Prairie debuted; it would run until 1983. Prairie dresses became the rage.

Reagan’s embrace of women’s role as wives and mothers brought traditionalist white Southern Baptists to his support. Those traditionalists objected to the government’s recognition of women’s equal rights because they believed equality undermined a godly patriarchal family structure. They made ending access to abortion their main issue. 

At the same time that the right wing insisted that women belonged in their homes, it socialized young men to believe in a mythological world based on guns and the domination of women. In 1980 the previously nonpartisan National Rifle Association endorsed Reagan, their first-ever endorsement of a presidential candidate, and the rise of evangelical culture reinforced that dominant men must protect submissive women. 

When federal marshals tried to arrest Randy Weaver at his home in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in August 1992 for failure to show up in court for trial on a firearms charge, right-wing activists and neo-Nazis from a nearby Aryan Nations compound rushed to Ruby Ridge to protest what right-wing media insisted was simply a man protecting his family. 

The next February, when officers stormed the compound of a religious cult in Waco, Texas, whose former members reported that their leader was sexually assaulting children and stockpiling weapons, right-wing talk show hosts—notably Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones—blamed new president Bill Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, for the ensuing gun battle and fire that killed 76 people. Reno was the first female attorney general, and right-wing media made much of the idea that a group of Christians had been killed by a female government official who was unmarried and—as opponents made much of—unfeminine. 

When he ran for office in 2015, Trump appealed to those men socialized into violence and dominance. He embraced the performance of dominance as it is done in professional wrestling, and urged his supporters to beat up protesters at his rallies. The Access Hollywood tape in which he boasted of sexual assault did not hurt his popularity with his base. He promised to end abortion rights and suggested he would impose criminal punishments on women seeking abortions. 

And then, in June 2022, thanks to the votes of the three religious extremists Trump put on it, the Supreme Court handed down the Dobbs decision, stripping women of a constitutional right that the U.S. government had recognized for almost 50 years. 

Justice Samuel Alito suggested that women could change state laws if they saw fit, writing in the decision that “women are not without electoral or political power.” Indeed, since the Dobbs decision, every time abortion rights have been on the ballot, voters have approved them, although right-wing state legislators have worked to prevent the voters’ wishes from taking effect. 

In this moment, though, it is clear that women have electoral and political power over more than abortion rights. 

The 1980 election was the first one in which the proportion of eligible female voters who turned out to vote was higher than the proportion of eligible men. It was also the first one in which there was a partisan gender gap, with a higher proportion of women than men favoring the Democrats. That partisan gap now is the highest it has ever been.

The fear that women can, if they choose, overthrow the patriarchal mythology of cowboy individualism that shaped the modern MAGA Republican Party is likely behind the calls of certain right-wing influencers and evangelical leaders to stop women from voting. For sure, it is behind the right-wing freak-out over the video voiced by actor Julia Roberts that reassures women that they do not have to tell their husbands how they voted. 

The right-wing version of the American cowboy was always a myth. Nothing mattered more for success in the American West than the kinship networks and community support that provided money, labor, and access to trade outlets. When the economic patterns of the American West replicated those of the industrializing East after the Civil War, success during the heyday of the cowboy depended on access to lots of capital, giving rise to western barons and then to popular political movements to regulate businesses and give more power to the people. Far from being the homebound wives of myth, women were central to western life, just as they have always been to American society. 

In Flagstaff, Arizona, today, Democratic presidential candidate and Minnesota governor Tim Walz told a crowd: “I kind of have a feeling that women all across this country, from every walk of life, from either party, are going to send a loud and clear message to Donald Trump next Tuesday, November 5, whether he likes it or not.”

—

Notes:

https://time.com/7171535/donald-trump-harris-young-men/

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/02/politics/older-women-voters-kamala-harris-abortion-rights/index.html

https://www.inquirer.com/news/early-voting-women-seniors-pennsylvania-20241101.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/29/gender-gap-early-voting-00186155

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/31/trump-lagging-early-votes-seniors-pennsylvania-00186612

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2018/04/16/a-quarter-century-later-dark-theories-still-hover-over-waco-siege/9982805007/

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/02/iowa-poll-kamala-harris-leads-donald-trump-2024-presidential-race/75354033007/

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/01/politics/trump-women-voters-gender-gap-harris/index.html

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/voters/gender-differences-voter-turnout

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/gender-gap-voting-choices-presidential-elections

Associated Press, “18 Months in Jail for White Supremacist,” The New York Times, October 19, 1993.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

X:

atrupar/status/1852770754208665661

Acyn/status/1852817296441635094

Info_Rosalie/status/1852921217482621379

shannonrwatts/status/1850891818256445592

Week beginning October 23 2024

Joel Brokaw – Foreword by David Geffen Driving Marilyn Life and Times of Legendary Hollywood Agent Norman Brokaw Globe Pequot|Lyons Press, October 2024.

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

Joel Brokaw has woven an absorbing story of his father’s professional and domestic life. While at times giving way to concerns verging on criticism about his father’s domestic conduct Joel Brokaw’s approach is overall generous and understanding, ensuring that the book is fair to the impressive professional whose life as a successful agent to high profile figures becomes a story of a man of substance and big-heartedness towards his clients.  This is an engaging and warm story at the same time as one that provides an extraordinary insight into the world of celebrities and their agent.

Norman Brokaw’s story of three marriages, six children, desire to maintain financial control over his family, seeming lack of interest in their day to day lives, and eventual decline into dementia is one thread in this book. As a thread, woven throughout Brokaw’s professional life, it is a gentle reminder that people are not one dimensional rather than making an insistent comparison with the concern that he showed towards his clients. Joel Brokaw’s approach is such a joy, he is honest about his feelings, recognises his father’s virtues, and ensures that his reputation remains intact. In particular, the section about Bill Cosby, for whom Brokaw Senior was agent, is sensitive to the judgments about Cosby, recognises that some people believe that his agent must have known about him, but argues convincingly that this is not necessarily so.

Norman Brokaw’s beginning in the mail room of the William Morris Agency provides an example of the detail and thoughtfulness that goes into this book. Rather than leave it as a hackneyed ‘rags to riches’ event, Brokaw provides background to the way in which the mail room worked to enable senior staff to assess the young people who worked in this capacity. The advent of television, actors’ move from large screen to small screen and vice versa and the expanding role of an agent from collaborating with actors to working with political figures is another thread in the book. In the case of Norman Brokaw, attention is drawn to the ways in which an agent could expand their role to be a much-loved mentor. The latter supported by numerous of Brokaw’s clients, and in David Geffen’s introduction where he is described as a person who nurtured relationships, expecting nothing in return.

Famous figures appear on almost every page, part of the story rather than contrived appearances to demonstrate the author and his father’s own importance. Joel Brokaw ensures that each figure is relevant to the ideas he is voicing about the work of an agent, the circumstances in film, television, and political life. This is part of the charm of this book. It is a story of a sphere in which Brokaw’s father was a major figure but while it is his story, it is also a story of that world.

The acknowledgements are informative, there is an index and endnotes. Together with the accessible writing and the spirit behind the work, Driving Marilyn The Life and Times of Legendary Hollywood Agent Norman Brokaw is an engaging and professionally researched tribute.

After review: comments on the Amalfi Coast trip; meals at the hotel; Bob McMullan and American politics.

Amalfi Coast Trip

This was my second group trip and, in contrast with the first, marvellous. The group was lively, sometimes too loud, opinionated, and of course there was the person who always looked as though they would be late but managed to scramble aboard the coach at the last minute. The first people we met were Democrats who had voted before leaving America. It couldn’t have been much better for us than that. We also met some delightful British Labour supporters and members. One couple, like us, had decided on this particular tour group because it was advertised in The Guardian. This worked to a certain extent, although some of the group would certainly not be Guardian readers! Nevertheless, everyone socialised amicably and were incredibly friendly and ready to enjoy every moment. So, a perfect experience.

The company had several groups at the hotel, and our cultural group looked on in awe as the hiking groups left early in the morning with walking equipment and hearty sounds. Our group was given the opportunity to do the Walk of the Gods, which I declined. There was plenty of walking every day, after our trip down the mountain, an experience in itself.

Hotel Due Torre meals

The accommodation was 3* in a family run hotel. The chefs gave two demonstrations, one making the pasta dishes and tiramisu we were to eat for that night’s dinner, and the other making pizzas. On the latter occasion we had already eaten too much of the two choices of vegetarian pizzas so that when the five more that we had observed being made from start to finish arrived at the table attempts to eat more were sadly poor. However, the demonstrations were great fun, including seeing that the tiramisu cream included eggs, cream, mascarpone and icing sugar with a good lacing of strong coffee. A bit different from my plain whipped cream with coffee.

The meals demonstrated that Italian cooking is more than pizza and pasta, although they featured. Breakfast was the usual continental as well as some cooked items, and lovely crusty Italian bread .

Meals associated with the cooking demonstrations were pizza one night, and pasta on another. As well as the demonstration items, there were fish and artichokes on one night, giant olives, bread and balsamic with oil, and dessert. More of the tiramisu next week, as it was part of the demonstration and looks better before it is served.

Dinner, Wednesday night – broccoli orecchiette, pork and potatoes in a mustard sauce, caprese salad, pumpkin risotto and panna cotta.

Lunch on Wednesday was a different sort of treat – hard bread and accompaniments. The bread was lowered into water, drained on the top of the water receptacle, and then eaten with pork sausages; tuna stuffed pentimentos, salad of lettuce, fennel and tomatoes; chickpeas; several varieties of cheese; and spinach.

Dinner Tuesday was soup (we had seen it cooking during one demonstration, and the flavour was probably the outcome of long slow cooking); chicken – very home cooked in appearance; salad; eggplant dish; and icecream.

Thursday was a free day, and much appreciated. We, as did many of the group, chose to go to Sorrento for the day. We were unaccompanied so wove our way around the city, purchasing bags, limoncello and gelato and eating in small groups. That night people chose to eat in the village, or have the barbeque, featuring meat or fish as desired. The items were brought out singly in many cases, so make for rather strange photos. Large salads with fennel, lettuce and rocket (arugula) were served, along with the delicious chips that were a real find – no talk of crisp outside and fluffy inside – just crisp, crisp, crisp! I seem to have concentrated on my fish below. However, the meat eaters also did well, with chicken, turkey, beef and sausages. Limoncello was served…and dessert.

Friday dinner ended with birthday cake for one of the group. The meal was aubergine parmigiana, a fennel lasagna with loads of creamy bechamel sauce, tomato and basil ravioli or fish in paper, and loads of fresh crisp lettuce (not a limp lettuce leaf anywhere on any of the salads – what a boon).

American Politics

Bob McMullan – US election review at 22nd October 

Harry Enten, the CNN political analyst summed up my thinking in a report today: “…two weeks to election day, I feel more uncertain about this year’s election result than any election I have covered professionally.” 

The most recent commentator on Sabato’s Crystal Ball, a very good political analysis site from the University of Virginia said the same thing in a more colourful way: “Has any body seen our crystal ball, it seems to have gone missing.” 

It is not only that the polling in virtually all the battleground states is extremely close and, in most cases, getting closer. There are also significant shifts in voter support in both directions amongst some key voting groups. For example, white women are moving towards Harris while black men are moving towards Trump. 

Furthermore, in such a close election, the direction of polling error and its magnitude will be decisive and is entirely unpredictable. And history provides no clear indication of the likely direction of error. It is true that in 2016 and 2020 Trump outperformed the polls. However, in 2022 the Democrats proved the forecasts of a red wave to be totally wrong and on at least one occasion Obama outperformed polling expectations. 

State voting averages have always missed the mark. This is also often true about individual electorate polling in Australia. Over the last 50 years the American battleground states averages have been out by approximately 3% and sometimes by much more. 

If the averages are out by 3% in either direction the result will be a comfortable victory for the beneficiary, whoever that may be. 

What polling can tell is whether the election is likely to be close, and whether anyone is gaining ground in a marked way. 

Even these basics are not clear this time. Most analyses show Trump gaining by small increments. For example, Nate Silver reported Harris still ahead in the usual four states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Nevada but showed Trump gaining in all pf the battleground states except Nevada. However, the Washington Post most recent survey showed Harris gaining in Nevada and North Carolina and Trump only gaining ground in Michigan and Georgia. 

One other wild card factor in such a close election is the role of the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein. Media reports suggest that friends and family have been encouraging her to pull out for fear of helping Donald Trump, as she did in 2016. However, she has refused to do so. It would be a cruel irony if the perfect was the enemy of the good on this occasion when the consequences are so important. 

So, on balance on the polling front there is no clear evidence of significant movement over the week. It is probable that such movement as there has been was slightly in favour of Donald Trump. So far it has not been enough to shift the numbers in the four states in which Harris leads which if maintained would see her win 276 electoral college votes to 262 for Trump. But they are all perilously close. 

On the early voting front, Target Smart, which is obviously Democrat aligned, has Democrats leading 51/41 in the battleground states although some other analysts see a small improvement in the relative early voting data for the Republicans as the negative impact of Trump’s attacks on early voting wears off. There is certainly a surge of early voting in some states, notably Georgia, which is probably beneficial to the Democrats at the margin, and margins are likely to count at this election. 

On balance, it is still a very close election with the national vote still clearly going to Harris but the Electoral College potentially favouring Trump if the present trends continue. If it was today, I think Harris would win, but two weeks is a long time in a close election. 

Week beginning 16 October 2024

Anton Rippon, Nicola Rippon Wartime Entertainment How Britain Kept Smiling Through the Second World War Pen & Sword|Pen & Sword History, September 2024.

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

Wartime Entertainment How Britain Kept Smiling Through the Second World War is so much more than a nostalgic trip amongst the entertainers of the time, the familiar films, and the impact of food rationing. All these topics are covered, and include material that is not well known, but where this book shines is in the information about less well-known aspects of Second World War entertainment. The material is enhanced with the occasional comment from the authors – tart, humorous or poignant and anecdotal evidence from conversations recorded at the time or recalled by those were war time adults and children. This, together with the immense amount of research that must have gone into Anton Rippon’s and Nicola Rippon’s book, makes it a tome of testimony to the range of entertainment, ideas, government responses and community acceptance, together with the thrill of finding new aspects of entertainment on offer at the time. Written in the familiar Pen & Sword style of accessible and lively language, this work stands out as one to devour. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.

Further articles: Canterbury trip, Trafalgar Square, Portrait Gallery, American politics – Bob McMullan, Tom Moore – Australian Artist, Tortworth Manor visit, Napoli Airport, Bus rides between Bomerano, Agerola in the Campania region, and Amalfi, Bomerano coffee and accommodation.

Short trip to Canterbury

The last time I was in Canterbury I was at a Women’s History Network Conference (pre-Covid) held at the university of Kent. That was an excellent event, but visiting just to see the town made a day trip from London by train. It was raining on and off, so it was a walk through the town to the cathedral, a snack and return to London.

Trafalgar Square

Some pigeons have reappeared after many years’ absence.

Portrait Gallery

A day trip to the portrait gallery is always a pleasure. However, on this occasion I saw very little as I went with a friend and we spent most of our time talking, including a trip from Trafalgar Square to Paddington on the 23 bus. This bus route used to be an excellent tourist route from Paddington to Liverpool Street, but the shorter trip was fine this time.

Recently I went to see the Tudor exhibition at the gallery, but this time we saw self-portraits and some women artists’ work.

American Politics

Bob McMullan

US election review at 14th October

Three weeks to go and the race appears to be tightening.

The usual Democrat anxiety at every worrying trend is starting to emerge.

I am not convinced that the level of apparent concern is justified by the objective data, but all the signs suggest it is likely to be a very close election.

The major polling averages are all suggesting some narrowing of Harris’ margin in the critical states in which she has been leading in recent weeks, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. However, she remains ahead in all four which would give the Harris/Walz ticket a 276/262 win in the electoral college.

So, on the one hand Harris continues to lead in sufficient states to win and is competitive in North Carolina and possibly Georgia and Arizona. On the other hand her lead in these states has apparently been falling slightly for the last two weeks at a rate that would put one or all of them at risk if it is maintained for the next three weeks.

There is no political law of gravity which means that a political trend will remain in motion. But if you want to change a trend it is wise to take action to change the political dynamics. It appears Kamala Harris has got this message and has been undertaking a “blizzard” of face to face interviews.

It was also a smart move to release her doctor’s report on her health because it has put new emphasis on Trump’s age and physical and mental health.

A balancing item against the tightening of the polls can be found in analysis of early voting trends.

In the USA most voters register for one major party or the other, principally to participate in candidate selection primaries. This when taken together with early voting lists enables an approximation of early voting trends.

The Democrats have led in this category for years, helped by Trump’s rhetoric against early voting. The interest is in the margin of advantage the Democrats are enjoying.

The early data from the battleground states is encouraging. The analysis by Target Smart suggests that Harris has a 58/29 lead in early voting compares to 50/35 at a similar stage in 2020. I don’t have any experience to draw on in assessing the importance of this data but serious and experienced US analysts place weight on its utility and claim to have used it in correctly rebutting the prevailing forecast of a red wave in 2022.

One clear strength of this Target Smart work is that it is based on real people voting rather than polling results which are based on declared intention to vote.

Whatever the truth about the current situation it seems clear that the result will be close in all the battleground states and therefore in the Electoral College.

Australian interlude: Tom Moore – Australian Artist

Tom Moore exhibited his work at CMAG in Canberra, and I was thrilled to see them. This article adds to the information about his work.

Acclaimed artist Tom Moore uses ancient glassblowing technique to create prize-winning Dandy Lion *

By Eloise Fuss

abc.net.au/news/glass-artist-tom-moore-wins-fuse-glass-prize/104377172

When Tom Moore first watched a team of glass blowers at work, he says “it felt like they were juggling fire … it blew my mind”.

Decades on, the now-acclaimed Australian artist contorts this molten material himself, with a familiarity and control that is hard to fathom.

“When you see hot glass fresh out of the furnace. It is very beautiful, and it is just so full of potential. There’s so many things you could do with it,” says Moore.

“Most of the time, because it’s expensive to get this hot, you really have to know what you’re going to do with it. You can’t really mess around with it. You just work.”

Close up of a flame melting a section of a scullture
Moore uses an oxy propane torch to smooth a surface during the final stages of making. (ABC Arts: Eloise Fuss)

Guided by Moore, his team of four work together at Adelaide’s Jam Factory, executing their precise roles to build his latest work — which he describes as a “bird on bird on bird situation”.

A pig-tailed assistant uses a metal rod to thrust open the glowing furnace, which is burning at around 1,150 degrees Celsius.

“That thing is a dragon,” says Moore. “Just going up to a furnace and opening the door is intimidating.”

“We singe the hair on [our] head all the time.”

Artist Tom Moore blasts a blow torch across a sculpture he is working on in the studio
Glass blowers are highly trained at working in teams. They can anticipate next steps in the process when working with open flames and hot objects.   (ABC Arts: Eloise Fuss)

Over a three-hour period, the glass is rotated inside the furnace, momentarily removed for a bout of shaping, stretching or fusing of elements, and then returned to the flames — again and again.

“Weirdly, glass is a very bad conductor of heat, so it takes a long time to get it hot. And once it’s hot, it stays hot, and once it gets cold, it takes a long time to get it hot again,” says Moore.

“You’ve got to stand up and sit down and put it back in the fire all the time, constantly. That’s one reason why we need to work in teams.”

Moore’s had more hands-on experience with the material than most. He led the making of all sorts of glass objects — like trophies, light shades, bottles and bowls, and movie props — as the Jam Factory Glass Studio production manager between 1999 and 2015.

“I really do feel connected to the history of glass blowing, and that is because I’ve spent thousands of hours working as part of teams making objects, which are the same objects that have been made now for thousands of years,” says Moore.

Artist Tom Moore and glass making assistant Gautriya Murathietharan work together on a hot glass sculpture
“Right at the end of making [an artwork], they can just fall off the stick, fall off the rod, and you know, smash” says Moore. Pictured with glass assistant Gautriya Murathietharan. (ABC Arts: Eloise Fuss)

His own highly distinct, skilful glass creations have been featured in exhibitions at most of Australia’s major state galleries, along with a national tour of his solo exhibition Abundant Wonder from 2020-2023.

And this year, he took out the 2024 FUSE Glass Prize, Australia’s richest prize for glass art, which goes on display at the Australian Design Centre in Sydney this October.

Moore’s funny glass things

Most glass objects in our modern lives are functional, but Moore’s acclaimed, idiosyncratic creations are “intentionally impractical, ludicrously delicate and not dishwasher safe”.

A glass sculpture upside down on the workshop bench - it looks like a character, with googly eyes and a little mouth
Moore is known for his imaginative, humorous characters. (ABC Arts: Eloise Fuss)

The short version: “I make funny animals.

“But if I have more time to explain it, then I will talk about the desire to combine plants, animals, people and machines, and the history of that kind of imagery, which is more or less universal — this imaginative combination of different things.

“I understand they don’t actually come to life and wander around … but it feels a bit sad to just call them objects.”

Artist Tom Moore in his studio, surrounded by his colourful glass creations. The middle-aged white artist wears one on his head
Moore’s glass creations are layered in meaning.  (ABC Arts: Eloise Fuss)

His art often features stacks of imagery, inspired by pictures like the Bremen Town Musicians – depicting a rooster atop a cat on a dog standing on a donkey, from the 1800s Grimms’ Fairy Tales.

“Another thing I love is the Cat in the Hat, where he’s balancing all the precarious things, the fish bowl and all these things stacked on each other, and it defies gravity, and I find that very, very exciting and satisfying.”

A glass character by Tom Moore - an upside down figure in intricate, multicoloured tones
Moore’s mother was a children’s librarian, exposing him to a lot of illustration as a child and fuelling his imagination. Pictured: Night Gardener Bottle, 2021. (Photo: Grant Hancock )*

The “stickiness” of glass allows Moore to combine different animal characters and objects in his own work.

“Glass is glue, and so I can just fuse it together with itself,” Moore says. “I can make these constructions of all these pre-made parts, and then I have to basically balance it — it’s a kind of magical material for replicating that vision that apparently defies gravity.”

Before art school, Moore had always imagined he’d realise his creative visions in clay.

But that fateful moment when he saw the trio of glass artists “juggling fire” together, at an open day at Canberra School of Art in the early 90s, changed his course.

And it wasn’t just the dangerous, alluring skill that stuck, but the specific and mesmerising glass-blowing technique they were using, dating back thousands of years.

Close up of artist Tom Moore's hands holding a chisel and breaking a piece of glass, above a colourful drawer of glass pieces
In his backyard studio, Moore cuts pieces of decorative cane to size. (ABC Arts: Eloise Fuss)*
Venetian style of glass-making

Observing Moore’s art up close, you’ll see intricate, thin lines stretching through all the forms.

This skilful, detailed approach uses decorative glass techniques first invented by the Ancient Romans, then perfected in Venice in the 1200s.

A sculpture by artist Tim Moore, it shows a bird-like creature made out of glass, filled with colourful line-work
Dancey Merganser, 2023. (Photo: Grant Hancock )

Moore describes the technique as an “international standard for glassblowers”. But it was at risk of being forgotten in the 20th century as traditional glass factories began to close in Venice.

In an “unprecedented” move, some Venetian maestro glassblowers shared the secrets of this ancient craft with members of the international glass community.

“They are very clever tricks that I feel lucky to have the opportunity to practise,” says Moore.

Venetian glassblowing centres on the use of finely patterned twisted glass rods, often just referred to as “canes”.

“I spend probably as much time making the rods as I do making the objects.”

To create them, coloured glass is embedded in molten clear glass. This is then expertly stretched out across the workshop until it is thin and metres long.

“They look like they must be made by a machine, but actually it’s a technique which can be learned by a person. And I still find it amazing that I can make these rods.”

Close up of pieces of decorative glass 'cane' - thin rods with intricate patterning through them
“They seem too perfect for me to be able to have made,” says Moore, describing the canes. (ABC Arts: Eloise Fuss)

To make a sculpture, Moore chops the rods to the requisite length, and wraps them around a blowpipe to essentially “blow” a glass bubble imbued with the patterning.

“Or I can wrap them around a blob of glass to make a solid [object].”

He also uses sections of cane to make creature-like details, like eyes, wings, boots or hands.

“I work out the drawing, do all the planning, make all the parts, and it’s almost like a paint-by-numbers set after that. Like Meccano or Lego, it’s like a kit, which I take back to the furnace, heat everything up, then I make the body and stick it all on there.”

Close up on artist Tom Moore's hands arranging glass objects on a white paper, forming a funny character
All Moore’s works are highly planned. He explores different character compositions before assembling them together in the glass workshop. (ABC Arts: Eloise Fuss)
Dandy Lion and friends — the prize-winning work

Moore spent more than 100 hours over two months creating his 2024 FUSE Glass Prize-winning work.

His series of five “mischievous ornaments” is titled Dandy Lion among the Antipodes.

Among the elaborate glass characters is an “intricately patterned, slightly surprised, somewhat charming” yellow lion called Dandy Lion.

“People have said to me they think that’s the best thing I ever made,” Moore says. “There’s a really nice symmetry and asymmetry and the decorative cane techniques are pretty sweet.”

An intricate artwork by Tom Moore - featuring a lion-like character with black and yellow patterning
Dandy Lion, 2023. Moore was very happy with this “yellow lion thing”, describing it as “just really sort of magnificent”. (Supplied: Tom Moore)

Moore consciously refers to the history of glassblowing in his designs, honouring the long legacy of making animal forms from glass.

“I think [an artwork] should be surprising, but it also should be having a conversation with the history of the material as well. So I think it needs to be new and old at the same time.”

And he likes to make his sculptures look “spontaneous”.

Since glass objects can often be very precise and exact, Moore thrives on adding unexpected wobbly lines and asymmetry to his artworks.

“I think it’s quite an unusual thing to see glass which isn’t perfect because most glass that people come across is machine-made or made in a factory in a mould.

“So making things a bit wonky is really very satisfying.”

Close up on artist Tom Moore's hands holding a sculpture that looks like a yellow brain coloured in eyes!
Moore compares a sketch with the final object, at home in his studio. (ABC Arts: Eloise Fuss)
An environmental message

Moore isn’t afraid to call his creations “cute”, and wants to inspire joy in people who look at them.

“They are a celebration of life in some of its many wondrous forms.”

But spend a while with his art and you will also spot artifice — a wide-eyed face has a bonfire on its head, a car is wrecked with trees growing out of it, and birds lie on their backs.

Two glass sculptures by artist Tom Moore - of birds on their backs holding small cars between their feet
Massive Hooligans, 2007.  (Photo: Grant Hancock )

“The works inhabit a fantasy realm [but] there is trouble in that paradise too.”

“There are some of these objects which are really not very cute and which are more responding to my discomfort at the state of the world, and which are more overtly addressing that nature is being severely impacted by human activity.”

Moore doesn’t want his work to just speak to the history of glass but also the implications of its future, acknowledging that his beloved glass is also a really energy-intensive medium.

The high heat furnaces run at makes it more energy-efficient to leave them on 24 hours a day than turn them off — hence groups of glass-blowers work together in shared facilities.

Close up on artist Tom Moore's hands holding a sculpture that looks like a yellow brain coloured in eyes!
Much of Moore’s work is imbued with environmental messages. Here a koala is severed in half, and becomes whole when looked at in reflection. (ABC Arts: Eloise Fuss)

“I have thought seriously about not blowing glass anymore because I am complicit in a very big problem, but I’ve been doing it for so long that I think I’m actually able to communicate my discomfort effectively [in the artwork] and maybe make something which is meaningful at this moment and that responds to my kind of dread.

“My intention in making them is to be upfront about my conflicted position as somebody who is enamoured by nature, but who is using a very resource-intensive process to communicate that.”

*This article is clearly marked as being for sharing. However, some of the graphics have not been treated in that way. Please go to the original to see these, and any that are missing once this blog is published.

The 2024 FUSE Glass Prize is at the Australian Design Centre, Sydney from October 3 — November 13 2024.

Tortworth Manor

This two-night stay was one of my finds on Secret Escapes. It has proved to be everything that was advertised: a Tudor inspired mansion with gracious and extensive grounds, a comfortable large room and, although mixed, some good food and service It was interesting to find that one of the previous owners was Australian. The manor has been refurbished but retains many of the original features. The exterior of the building is magnificent, and the interiors (below, the dining room and library) very grand.

The grounds are beautiful, and we went on several walks, some of which were sunny.

Some Tortworth quirky items – dog paw wash, wellie dry, an absent cat given a reference by a dog…

Tortworth meals

Meals were served in the atrium and the dining room. The breakfast was part of the package and was a generous display of continental and cooked items. The atrium meals were served by experienced staff, were delicious, and most available throughout the day and evening. Splendid sandwiches were a lunch time special.

The dinner included a reduction in price as part of the package. The staff in the dining room were young and enthusiastic but needed more training. Nevertheless, the deconstructed goats cheese pie with salad and ‘posh’ prawn cocktail, were pleasant entrees, and the chicken and duck dishes were generous. The bread variety was excellent. We had a pleasant evening. However, the prawns served in the atrium were my favourite!

Napoli Airport

Our Italian trip began at Napoli Airport, where we waited to join the tour group. Unfortunately, the sunny seating at one cafe lured us to eat there. We have found plenty of sun since, but not such awful food. The mozzarella sandwich was passible, but the stuffed courgette flowers, aubergine and cheese balls was a bad choice – not a courgette flower to be seen, and the aubergine slices were miniscule and heavily battered. Go inside or wait to eat!

Bus rides between Bomerano, Agerola in the Campania region, and Amalfi

First coffee in Bomerano

Accommodation Bomerano

This is a three-star hotel at the mountain peak. We have a generously sized room, with a balcony, and in village style I am using it to dry some clothes. Roosters wake us in the morning, there is a resident dog, and the food is generous and good. The cooking exhibitions – pasta and tiramisu and on another night, pizza have been interesting and delicious eating after the event.

Week beginning 9 October 2024

Jane Loeb Rubin Threadbare, A Gilded City Series, Level Best Books Independent Book Publishers Association (IBPA) Members’ Titles, May 2024.

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

Jane Loeb Rubin has taken the incomplete information she has about her great-grandmother and, together with meticulous and sensitive research, has written a captivating story with a heroine who earns affection and admiration.  Tillie Isaacson’s story is told in four parts: October 1879 to August 1882; October 1882 to February 1883; January 1890 to August 1890; September 1890 to February 1892. Over this period she accompanies her mother to hospital, Bellevue, rather than Mount Sinai, the latter being for those who could afford it; grows to maturity and marries; accomplishes a creative and productive business; cares for a family while conducting her business; succeeds through the depression as well as thwarting unprincipled business associates; survives ill health; and sees her younger sister into the beginnings of a profession. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.

Further material: Bob McMullan, American politics; Agatha Christie, Mousetrap story; The Duchess of Malfi; Cindy Lou eats in London.

Bob McMullan – American Politics

US election review at 6th October

The election is now less than a month away. Elections often begin to take shape at about this stage. At the moment no such shape or pattern is clearly evident.

However, unless you believe that Donald Trump will again overperform the polls it is fair to say that you would rather be in Kamala Harris’ position than Trump’s.

Will Trump overperform the polling trends? This, of course, is ultimately unknowable until after the event. However, there are some indicators. First and foremost, the history of the 2016 and 2020 elections illustrate that such an outcome is possible. In 2016 Trump took everyone, including himself by surprise by winning states such as Wisconsin which prior polling had suggested was extremely unlikely.

A similar trend was evident in 2020. Although Biden still won his margin in the key industrial states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin was less than predicted.

Most analysts argue that in 2016 the pollsters underrepresented white males without a college degree, in their samples. This was not seen as important before the event because the divergence in vote patterns based on educational qualifications had not previously been a major factor.

In 2020 attempts were made to remedy this effect but it seems they were only partially effective.

Elections between 2020 and now paint a different picture. If anything, Republicans have underperformed against expectations. The much predicted Republican wave in the mid-term congressional elections never appeared. It is also interesting that on several occasions, such as the Kansas abortion referendum, it is the progressive side of politics which has overperformed when compared to the forecasts.

Some on the Democratic side of politics allege that pro-Republican polling is “flooding the zone” with polls of dubious quality in an attempt to influence the narrative about the election in key states.

There is some evidence for this, but I regard it as a dangerous theory. It is never wise to only believe the polls which say what you want.

On this basis I come back to the view that no decisive pattern in the likely electoral college outcome has yet emerged. Although there is little doubt that Kamala Harris will win the national vote there is no prize for this. Nate Silver and most of the others attempting to assess the probabilities of success in the electoral college have Harris ahead with 55-58% probability of winning the electoral college. This is much too close for comfort.

There has been considerable speculation about the likely impact of the vice-presidential debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz on the election outcome. I think there will be little or no effect as the debate was seen as a virtual draw and opinions are too firmly established to be changed much by a debate between two men who are not the leaders of their respective tickets.

The best overall description of the current situation was a CNN summary which said in spite of wars, hurricanes and shipping strikes the electoral situation seems impervious.

However, one possibly worrying early trend is a slight improvement in support for Trump in a number of the battleground states. So far, it has not been sufficient to change the status of the four in which Harris is leading, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (which would be enough for a 276-262 victory in the electoral college). If it should be sustained rather than a one-off that would be a concern. Only time will tell.

A follow up story to my having at long last seen The Mousetrap in London recently (story in post, ).

Boy whose Mousetrap show at school led to legal threat joins West End cast

Alasdair Buchan, who directed his version aged 11 in 1997, will play mysterious stranger in long-running whodunnit

Vanessa Thorpe Sat 5 Oct 2024 18.00 BSTShare

As the curtain falls on every performance of The Mousetrap, the world’s longest-running play, applauding audience members are famously urged not to go on to reveal the secret solution to the murder mystery.

This autumn, however, a fresh element of intrigue has been added to the plot of Agatha Christie’s enduring hit, which first opened in 1952 at Nottingham’s Theatre Royal.

The new twist was seeded back in 1997, when an eager 11-year-old schoolboy decided to stage his own production in his school hall in Windsor. And only now is the final act being played out.

“I’d suddenly got into reading Agatha Christie and I was already obsessed with the theatre, so I bought a collection of her plays and copied pages of the script,” said Alasdair Buchan, now 37. “I really wanted to do it, but I don’t think my teachers at the small choir school that’s attached to the castle’s St George’s Chapel were hugely keen.”

The show went on regardless, for one night only, with a cast of 11-year-old boys, including Buchan, who also directed.

Buchan and the cast also travelled up to the capital to watch the real professional production a few days before their own performance. After the London show, they met the stars at the stage door. Each boy got an autograph and they promised to send them the programme they had made.

History does not record how the school play went down in Windsor, but a few weeks later the headteacher received an unexpected and stern “cease and desist” letter from the lawyers of the London producers. It threatened future action over the pupils’ recent staging.

Alasdair Buchan, far left, and friends perform The Mousetrap in 1997.
Alasdair Buchan, far left, and friends perform The Mousetrap in 1997.

“I was called in to see the headmaster and was terribly worried,” said Buchan.

“Back then my school managed to smooth things over and, thankfully, I was not blacklisted by the producers.”

In fact, Buchan will now join the West End cast of The Mousetrap at St Martin’s Theatre in the role of Mr Paravicini, the mysterious foreign stranger.

Buchan will take to the stage for nine shows a week over six months. “Funnily enough, when I read the script through before the audition, I remembered the lines I’d once had. Also, because I’d directed it, whole passages of dialogue came back and I was amazed how much of the structure I still knew.”

In Buchan’s school production, the eight boys played all the characters. “It was a co-ed school, but we boarders were boys. So my brother played the character of Miss Casewell.”

Alasdair Buchan with his copy of Mousetrap, at his home in London.
Alasdair Buchan with his copy of The Mousetrap, at his home in London. Photograph: Sophia Evans/The Observer

The schoolboys had been accompanied up to see the West End show by Buchan’s mother. “My own experience of stage doors now is that there’s usually no one there, unless you have a particular celebrity in the cast. It was manic, for example, when I was in Richard II with Martin Freeman, but most of the time it’s fairly dead.

“So I imagine the actors in 1997 were rather surprised to find eight pre-teen boys holding out our messy, A4 scripts to be signed.”

Some jobsworth clearly saw our programme and a legal letter went out, demanding royalties and asking what money we made

Alasdair Buchan

Buchan later sent in the colourful programme he had made for his show. “Some jobsworth then clearly saw it and a serious legal letter went out, demanding royalties and asking what money we had made.”

By Christie’s death in 1976, The Mousetrap had made more than £3m. But she had earlier given the copyright to her nine-year-old grandson, Mathew Prichard, as a birthday present. He later set up the Colwinston Charitable Trust in 1995 to use the royalties to support arts charities, chiefly in Wales. The show is now run by Mousetrap Productions.

Buchan, who co-founded the online theatre initiative “ReadThrough” during the pandemic lockdown of 2021, recalls often being bored at school, believing he wasn’t as musical as other pupils. For him, mounting The Mousetrap was an escape. “When I think back to it, I am amazed at the enormous amount of work we all did on it,” he said.

“And it was a success, in as far as we got from the beginning to the end. There [were] certainly boys who did not know their lines and we lost the plot a little bit at the end.

“I remember standing in the wings and trying to improve the acting by shouting at my brother, ‘Cry! Cry!’ I was quite a nice brother otherwise.”

This time I went to see The Duchess of Malfi at The Trafalgar Playhouse, just around the corner from where I am staying. This was a modern adaptation of the play, which I felt missed foreshadowing the tragic consequences of Giovanna’s brothers’ misogyny in favour of comedy. On reflection, was the emphasis on comedy a reference to the worn phrase, ‘it’s only a joke’? or, a reminder that what might be recognised as cruelty if enacted for long enough and accepted for long enough becomes accepted as normal? ‘I am still a Duchess’, proclaimed by Giovanna in her rags and having been imprisoned for several years, might also be a statement about class and gender – being a Duchess did not help her escape the sexist behaviour of her brothers. I remain convinced that there needed to be stronger foreshadowing, as the only instance of impending tragedy was when Ferdinand carried the twins in his arms, eventually going to the window with one of them. Jodie Whittaker was a great Duchess, in both acts – as a lover and comic actor, and as tragic heroine.

Cindy Lou eats casually in London

Firstly, a large flat white is available at Black Sheep Coffee, unlike at most London venues. They serve only one size – small, while Black Sheep Coffee has three sizes, similarly to their other coffees. Costa can make a large flat white and we found one at cafe Concerto.

Wahaca Covent Garden

We enjoyed the food at Wahaca Paddington, so this was a natural choice when we came upon Wahaca in Covent Garden. The dishes are to share, are delicious, and of a grand variety.

Caffe Concerto Trafalgar Square

Low on charm and service, but very good food, including one of the rare large flat whites in London. The garden breakfast was very good, and the range of pastries and cakes sublime.

Foyle’s Bookshop

Foyle’s Bookshop has a delightful cafe, with a large range of drinks and food. I enjoyed the pink lemonade but shall have to return to try more items on the menu.

Bakers + Baristas, Canterbury

Really friendly service, so much so that I forgave the immensely long wait for my soup. The bowl was almost overflowing, so another tick for generosity! The cake and pastry range is magnificent, and the various sandwiches and baguettes looked terrific.

Fumo Covent Garden

Fumo had a lunch special of four dishes for a set price for two. The service was friendly and helpful, fairly speedy, and very helpful. The seating is comfortable, and the environment pleasant, with enough space between the tables. This was a really positive experience, including the gracious way in which the uneaten Pasta Norma was packaged for our consumption later – yes, the dishes were very generous. Our dishes were meatballs with pasta, calamari, pasta Norma and a salad. By the time I took the photos the salad had been served, so its generous portion is not on view. I forgot to take a photo of the meatballs, but they were large and succulent, although not so plentiful as those in a Spanish tapas. The calamari was very good indeed.

We enjoyed the Pasta Norma on our last night in the Club Quarters, Trafalgar Square. Our room came with a refrigerator and microwave – excellent in this city where food prices have increased so much since our holiday here in 2023.

Week beginning 2 October 2024

Emily Bleeker When We Chased the Light Lake Union Publishing, November 2024.

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

I thoroughly enjoyed the first part of Vivian Snow’s account of her life  that appeared in When We Were Enemies. In this, Vivian is so closely aligned with her real name, Viviana Santini, that her Italian heritage is a subtle but underlying strong theme in the novel. Her role as an interpreter, friendship with Padre Antonio Trombello, the beginnings of her career and ill-fated marriage are beautifully drawn throughout the story that also features her granddaughter, Elise. In When We Chased the Light, Vivian Snow comes to the fore, as she strives to accommodate her child, her sister, mother and father, love and her career. Her Italian heritage is the theme that underlies the postcards from Padre Antonio Trombello, contrasting with her Hollywood advances, problems, marriage, and death. With great sensitivity to her readers and linked with the role Viviana played in her first career, Emily Bleeker interprets the Italian phrases.

Bleeker is such a clever writer, at the same time as she clarifies the words used between Trombello and Snow by providing the English interpretation, she leaves a mystery about their relationship. This is a mystery that is not resolved and should not be. It is the dream to which only Viviana and Antonio need the answer. Like her great granddaughter, who purchases the postcards, it is enough to know that Vivian Snow’s life was not only that played out in the public eye. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.

Alison James Just the Nicest Family Bookouture, June 2024.

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

Alison James has written a very readable psychological thriller, complete with a good twist. For me, a twist must be a logical outcome of the narrative, with signposts along the way. These must be subtle and ensure that the reader has had the opportunity to read the signs that lead to the twist – then ideally has not been able to do so. James achieves this in Just the Nicest Family, and for this I give her accolades. However, I was less impressed with the way in which one of her main characters dealt with an assertion that they knew would change their life but did little to investigate its validity.

Louise and Tim, parents of Harry and Elodie are the perfect family. Most apparent is the love between Louise and Tim, exhibited in all their interactions, private and public. Tim is a vet, Louise the deputy head at a girls’ high school. The family is invited to share a villa in France by the CEO of a Swiss company, Renee Weber, as a precursor to her buying Tim’s independent veterinary practice. He is keen to accept, and eventually he and the children join the villa residents while Louise completes her responsibility at the school. She has already been thrown by Tim’s invitation to acquaintances, Shona and Kevin, before Louise could intervene to invite friends more to her taste. The villa visit becomes even more awkward when Shona decides that Renee’s partner would suit her better than her husband. See Books: Reviews for complete review.

The Conversation

Article republished under Creative Commons licence.

Britain is finally abolishing hereditary peers from the House of Lords – a constitutional expert on the historical reforms that built up to this moment

Published: September 23, 2024 9.46pm AEST Updated: September 24, 2024 9.39pm AEST

Author

Meg Russell Professor of British and Comparative Politics and Director of the Constitution Unit, UCL

Meg Russell has in the past received funding from the ESRC for her research on the House of Lords.

Having made a pre-election pledge to do so, the government is moving forward with the House of Lords (hereditary peers) bill, a piece of legislation that will remove the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

The bill is almost certain to pass through parliament, ending a centuries-old tradition of hereditary membership in the House of Lords. But who are these hereditary peers, and how did they come to sit in parliament in the first place? Some of the answers may be surprising.

The House of Lords has ancient roots – though it has changed very fundamentally over the years. The original precursor of the English (and subsequently UK) parliament was a single-chamber body, bringing together the powerful in the land to advise the monarch. It is difficult to put a date on when this began but it included representatives of the nobility and the church.

Initially, there was no presumption that those invited to participate in one session of parliament would be invited to the next, but gradually arrangements became more fixed. The “temporal” (as opposed to “spiritual”) members of parliament became the holders of hereditary titles, which would be passed down through their family line. Over time, the members of what became the House of Commons split off, with the two chambers regularly sitting separately from the 14th century.

A portrait of WIlliam Pitt the Younger
Pitt The Younger, a big fan of handing out peerages. Wikipedia/Bonhams

Some modern preoccupations about the House of Lords can be traced back centuries. By the time of Charles I, there were already concerns that too many new peerages were being created and that the chamber was growing too large. There was even talk of money changing hands in some cases. As early as 1719, a bill was proposed to cap the size of the House of Lords, and allow new peerage creations only when existing lines died out. That bill was, however, unsuccessful.

By the late 18th century, the monarch was following prime ministerial advice in creating peerages. William Pitt the Younger became a prolific distributor of titles, increasing the number of Lords temporal from 212 to 314. In the mid-19th century, the House of Lords stood at around 450 members, and by the early 20th century, it exceeded 600 members. Immediately before it was reformed by Tony Blair’s government in 1999, its size was double that.

The reforms begin

In the late 19th century, under prime ministers William Gladstone and Lord Salisbury, there were deliberate moves to broaden the peerage and move it away from landed interests. Titles were awarded to industrialists, former diplomats, military personnel and civil servants. Notable appointees in this period included the artist Frederic Leighton, the surgeon Joseph Lister, and the former House of Commons clerk Thomas Erskine May. This helped to boost the “crossbenches” in the Lords, and build the chamber’s reputation for expertise.

Nonetheless, in another pattern familiar today, around two-thirds of those appointed were former MPs. Prominent among them were those who had held high office – routinely including former prime ministers and speakers of the House of Commons.

A painting of Queen Anne addressing the House of Lords.
A painting of Queen Anne addressing the House of Lords in the 18th century. Peter Tillemans, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The hereditary nature of titles created an obvious difficulty with size – that a seat created for a person did not die with them, but was passed to their (exclusively male) successors. Every peerage awarded (with a small exception for those with legal expertise under the Appellate Jurisdictions Act 1876) was a hereditary peerage, and large numbers continued to be created.

While some lines died out due to lack of male successors, pressure grew for the creation of life peerages rather than allowing members to pass their seat in the Lords on. The first bill to allow such appointments was introduced in 1849, but it was not until the Life Peerages Act 1958 that change finally occurred.

By 1957, the year before the act, half of members (who by now exceeded 800) owed their hereditary peerages to 20th-century creations. Among them were the descendants of Asquith, Lloyd George, Stanley Baldwin and Field Marshal Montgomery. Even Labour’s Clement Attlee (who, upon assuming office in 1945, faced a House of Lords containing just 16 Labour members) was given a hereditary peerage in 1955. His grandson still serves in the House of Lords.

After 1958, the creation of new hereditary peerages became much rarer. It was, notably, only at this point that women entered the chamber for the first time – and only in 1963 that women inheriting the few hereditary titles not travelling purely down the male line were allowed to take seats in the chamber. An interesting anomaly was Margaret Thatcher’s bestowal of a hereditary peerage on her former home secretary and de facto deputy prime minister, Willie Whitelaw, in 1983 – the first such awarded for 18 years. Having only daughters, Whitelaw did not pass his peerage on.

The reform implemented by the Blair government in 1999 was originally intended to sweep away all of the hereditary peers. But while over 650 departed, a deal between the parties allowed 92 to remain – with replacements when these peers died or retired largely filled by a bizarre system of byelections, where the only eligible candidates were hereditary peers.

These byelections were recently halted in expectation of the bill, leaving 88 hereditary peers currently serving in the chamber. All of them are men, 45 are Conservative (and only four Labour), while 43 (49%) hold peerages created only in the 20th century.

This group is anomalous, and long overdue reform. It is also less historic in certain respects than many might assume.

This article has been updated to correct the language around how many peers William Pitt the Younger added to the chamber.

Site logo imageWomen’s Film and Television History Network – UK/Ireland

The Ultimate TV Event: How Happy Valley Defies Ageism and Sexism in the Television IndustryBy ljademinor on 27/09/2024 by Lucy Brown

This blog first appeared on Reflections: A Television Digest on 10 May 2024.

Sarah Lancashire as Sergeant Catherine Cawood. Image: BBC

“Chilling,” “a dark delight,” “magnificent,” “triumphant,” and “explosive” are all words that have been used to describe the British police crime thriller Happy Valley.1 First screened in 2014, it reached an audience of over 8 million and became a hit with critics and the audience alike. The second series followed in 2016, growing its audience to over nine million, marking a record-high audience share with a third of viewers tuning in.2 

After a seven-year hiatus, the series returned with a bang on New Year’s Day 2023 and has been watched by over eleven million people. To grow an audience against a backdrop of broadcast channel ratings declining is a remarkable feat, but perhaps not surprising given it has been hailed by critics as one of the greatest television dramas of the twenty-first century,3 Yorkshire’s version of The Wire4 and “the ultimate event TV.”5 

Happy Valley follows the story of police Sergeant Catherine Cawood as she navigates through personal and professional challenges and struggles to protect her community and grandson Ryan from her nemesis, Tommy Lee Royce, Ryan’s father and a violent rapist, murderer and psychopath, who is responsible for her daughter’s suicide. The series expertly weaves together intricate plotlines, compelling characters, and outstanding performances, earning five BAFTA awards and sustaining viewer investment and engagement over the course of eighteen episodes spanning nine years.  Two middle-aged women are of prime importance to its success; on-screen, Sarah Lancashire plays the lead, Sergeant Cawood and behind-the-camera, creator, writer, director, and executive producer Sally Wainwright. It should be irrelevant that these two brilliant women are in their fifties, yet TV drama is the domain of men. Television’s lack of diversity is well known.6 See Television,Film and Popular Culture: Comments for the complete article.

American Politics – Bob McMullan

US election review at 30th September

It has been a week of apparent attrition in the US presidential election with very few break-out moments at the national level.

Hurricanes, crazy Republican gubernatorial candidates, failed Republican attempts to change the allocation of votes in Nebraska and corruption charges against the mayor of New York have been newsworthy, but there is little sign that anything has dramatically changed the support for either candidate.

The response to recent events reinforce the view that opinions about Trump are fixed and he has a locked-in level of support at about 45-47% of the likely voters, which is a high floor but a low ceiling.

Harris has attempted to challenge Trump in his areas of strength, the economy and immigration. While it is too early to say what the final impact of these initiatives will be, it does seem that she has made further slight progress in national and relevant state polling.

While the election is not won by aggregate support it is interesting to see that the Harris/Walz ticket now has a lead of as much as 3.2%. Nate Silver’s data suggests that Harris has made slight increases in support in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Nevada and maintained her lead in Michigan. Trump appears to have made slight gains in the other battleground states.

To resume my state-by state analysis, the remaining four battleground states are ones in which Kamala Harris has been leading consistently over recent weeks. Should she win all of them the Harris/Walz ticket would win the Electoral College 276 to 262.

Michigan (15 votes)

This has consistently been the best of the battleground states for Harris. Most recently she has been leading by between 2.0 and 2,9% in the various polling averages. Perhaps more importantly, the Vice President has led in the last nine published polls included in the 538 analysis.

Pennsylvania (19 votes)

Pennsylvania is the most important state in this election. While it is not indispensable, it is hard to see Harris winning without winning this state. All the polling averages have Harris/ Walz with a narrow lead of between 0.9% and 1.7%. Nate Silver’s analysis shows a slight improvement for Harris in Pennsylvania over the last week. Should this pattern continue she will be the favorite to win the Electoral College, but an enormous amount of money and effort will be expended by both sides over the next 5 weeks.

Wisconsin (10 votes)

This is the third of the “Blue Wall” seats which are the basic building blocks of the Harris majority. Unless Harris wins one of the sunbelt seats she needs all three of these to make a majority of the electoral college. To date the Harris/ Walz ticket has been consistently in front in Wisconsin by between 1 and 3%. Harris has led in 5 of the last 7 polls with one of them tied. This all combines to make her the favorite to win Wisconsin. But both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden had big leads in Wisconsin at this stage which were either illusory or fell away towards the end.

Nevada (6 votes)

This is not as essential to a Harris victory as the previous three but there are certainly scenarios in which these six votes could be vital. The result is always close in Nevada, but Harris has maintained a small but consistent lead in at least 7 of the last 10 polls. One to watch on the night.

Another interesting development is reaction to the Republican attempt to make a last minute change to the electoral rules in Nebraska. The initiative failed but it seems to have had interesting consequences. In the presidential contest subsequent polling has shown a large improvement in support for Harris. I am confident that she will win this vote. An apparent by-product of this failed attempt is a significant change in the prospects of the Democrats flipping the House seat. The incumbent member supported the Trump attempt to change the rules and has subsequently fallen behind his Democrat opponent in the polls. This was a move which in Australian parlance you would describe as “too smart by half” and as is often the case it not only failed, it may have backfired.

American Politics – Axios Article

Young men and women are moving in opposite directions

Erica Pandey

Illustration of a female and male symbol over a grid of blue and red lines
Illustration: Axios Visuals

Data of all kinds reveals a little-discussed, future-defining trend: Men and women are going separate ways.

Why it matters: The split is clear in politics, religion, education and the labor market. For the next generation, gender is becoming the biggest predictor of how you think, act and vote.

“There’s a much broader story here,” says Daniel Cox, director of the Survey Center on American Life. “Even after all the votes are tallied and we’ve moved on from the 2024 election, we’re not going to have resolved any of the cultural and relational tension between young men and young women.”

  • You see it in politics: Women are turning left, and men are turning right.
  • You see it in religion: For the first time ever recorded in the U.S., young men are more religious than young women.
  • You see it in education: There are 2.4 million more women on U.S. college campuses than men, the American Institute for Boys and Men (AIBM) notes. And those degrees are often resulting in higher-wage jobs for women in big cities, a Pew Research Center analysis of census data found.
  • You see it in the labor market: Wages and labor force participation have increased since the 1980s for college-educated men and women, and for working-class women. But they have stagnated for working-class men, who are also now significantly less likely to be employed compared to four decades ago, according to AIBM’s analysis.
  • You see it in visions for the future: Men are more likely than women to want marriage and kids, according to Pew. The percentage of 18- to 34-year-old women wanting kids has fallen to 45% versus 57% for men.

What we’re watching: The polarization is even stronger among adults under 25, Cox notes. Social media content and algorithms may be one key reason.

  • Men are constantly fed social media content that’s negative toward women, and vice versa. Videos breaking down bad dates from the perspective of either the man or the woman are a viral example of that trend.
  • Gen Zers are 15 points more likely than other generations to say social media has negatively impacted their outlook on men, and 10 points more likely to say so for women, Morning Consult finds.

The bottom line: “We live in a very individualistic culture, and, for a lot of people, the primary relationship they have is with a partner or a spouse,” says Cox.

  • For heterosexual couples, this polarization is making finding a partner trickier.
  • “This has tremendous implications for how men and women relate to one another in the dating space,” Cox says.

Voting in the ACT Election

We voted today as we shall be away when early voting opens, and there was not enough time for the electoral commission to send us our postal votes before we leave. How amazing – every effort made to accommodate our vote and travel arrangements, safe electoral officials inside the building, no nasty crowds outside trying to stop us voting, no-one with any ill intent, and our votes are safe, will be counted and there will be a fair result which will be accepted by both winners and losers. We should not live in a world where we think this is lucky.

2024 ACT Election
19 October 2024

Early voting opens
8 October 2024

2024 ACT Election

Dame Maggie Smith obituary: A formidable star on stage and screen – from the BBC online site

Alamy Dame Maggie Smith in Downton Abbey
Dame Maggie Smith played the formidable Dowager Countess of Grantham in Downton Abbey

Dame Maggie Smith, who has died at the age of 89, brought an incredible range of expression to her roles, winning high praise from directors and fellow actors alike.

It was said of her that she never took a role lightly and would often be pacing around at rehearsals going over her lines while the rest of the cast was on a break.

In a profession notorious for its uncertainties her career was notable for its longevity.

She made her acting debut in 1952 and was still working six decades later having moved from aspiring star to national treasure. See the complete obituary at Television,Film and Popular Culture: Comments.

Week beginning 25 September 2024

Elizabeth Strout Tell Me Everything Penguin General UK (Fig Tree, Hamish Hamilton, Viking, Penguin Life, Penguin Business, Viking) September 2024.

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

Elizabeth Strout brings magic to her work and Tell Me Everything is no different.  Bob Burgess and Margaret Estaver live in Maine. The enchantment of Maine’s autumn colours interspersed with prosaic and sometimes graphic detail is the setting for their marriage, their large house in which they cook together, and the security this couple, a lawyer and a Unitarian minister, provide the community. Olive Kitterage, ninety, knows the couple, sympathises with Bob’s sad past, is not fond of Margaret and has suffered through the pandemic. Lucy Barton, also from previous novels, is an important character, although mostly inconspicuous in the larger community apart for walking with Bob along the river. As autumn breaks into splendour, Olive decides to tell her story to Lucy. See the complete review at Books: Reviews.

Further information: Tree Protection; Bob McMullan, American Election; Joyce Vance, Civil Discourse Newsletter; Dervla McTiernan, email; Cindy Lou; Henry Oliver from The Common Reader.

Sign on building works in Canberra

Why is this not an issue on other building sites?

Bob McMullan – American Presidential Election

US election review at 23rd September

There have been some significant national and global events this week, but it remains to be seen whether they will impact the presidential election.

It is hard to see how the large interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve Board can be other than good for the Vice President. It may however be too delayed and indirect in its practical consequences to be of significant benefit. So far, Donald Trump has been surprisingly restrained in his comments on the decision.

The war in the Middle East has clearly taken a turn for the worse. Any partisan advantage from such a development is likely to benefit Trump, but whether this will have any electoral impact is difficult to tell.

Other major events in the week have mainly been at the state level and will be covered in the state-by- state analysis below.

Nothing in the current data contradicts Nathan Silver’s assessment this week that he has never seen such a close election.

To gain an appreciation of the state of play it is best to look from time to time at developments at the state level.

Arizona

This is a state that Biden won in 2020. This election cycle it has consistently shown a Trump lead of about 1% in polling. It has 11 Electoral College votes and while it is still in play, I think Trump is the favorite to win this state this time. The problem with assessing the current situation is that there has been no credible polling since the debate. Nate Silver gives Kamala Harris only a 36% chance of winning Arizona. There is an abortion ballot on the day so that is an imponderable, but barring an extraordinary improvement in Harris’ results in this state it might be out of reach.

Georgia

This is a state with 16 electoral college votes which voted for Biden in 2020. Trump has held a steady approximately 1% lead in polling over several weeks. This leads to Silver’s assessment of Harris’ chances in Georgia at 36%. Two factors to note. There have been official reports identifying tragic deaths of women in Georgia as a consequence of the strict abortion laws brought in since Roe v Wade was overturned. Will this impact the vote? It may increase the turnout of Democrat-leaning women. The other factor is the revised and ridiculous changes to electoral procedures agreed by the Republicans on the Georgia Elections Board. If upheld these will certainly delay the result.

North Carolina

I think this is the most interesting state. No Democrat presidential candidate has won here since Obama in 2008. However, the incumbent Governor is a Democrat who has won twice. The race is currently extremely close. All three polling aggregates have Trump ahead by 0.1%! The lead has changed back and forward between the two candidates since the debate. Nate Silver considers Kamala Harris has only a 39% chance of winning. I think it is better than that. An interesting extra factor is the possible upstream impact of the Republican’s candidate for Governor who has described himself as a “Black Nazi”. Such a downstream candidate is unlikely to affect the presidential race, but it is possible that Trump’s enthusiastic endorsement of the candidate may backfire on him.

Nebraska

This is a solid Republican state that Donald Trump will win. However, it allocates some of its votes by congressional district rather than winner takes all. It is probable that Kamal Harris will win the 2nd district in Nebraska based on Omaha. In the only recent poll she led by 5%. The real interest is in whether Trump and his supporters can persuade the Nebraska legislature to change the rules to winner takes all just weeks before the election. The possible significance of this one electoral college vote is that if Harris wins Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania plus the other stronger Democrat states the race could finish in a 269-269 tie. The NE2 vote would then swing the result to Harris. I don’t think the Republicans will succeed in this rort but it is a sign of weakness that they are trying.

I will follow up with an assessment of the race in the remaining battleground states next week. The bottom line at the moment is that the Harris/Walz ticket is leading in all these four battleground states and therefore is leading in the race to a majority in the electoral college. However, it remains close.

To conclude, a note on the margin of error in polling. The statistical reality is that all polls have to be taken as indications, not gospel. Sampling errors are inevitable even for the best pollsters and therefore the margin of error for each poll is important to note. However, the nature of polling errors means they should over time fall on each side of the contest. If one candidate is ahead within the margin of error in seven or eight polls in a row it is reasonable to assume that that candidate is actually leading.

Joyce Vance Civil Discourse Newsletter

Joyce Vance appears on MSNBC providing legal advice and information. She is really worthwhile listening to, and I have signed up for her newsletter. A positive election campaign story appears below.

Joyce Vance from Civil Discourse <joycevance@substack.com> Unsubscribe

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Writing Postcards to Voters Works Joyce Vance Sep 25 READ IN APP 

Tonight, a feel good story!

This afternoon, from 3:30 to 4:00 p.m., I had the amazing opportunity to spend half an hour with several hundred people who were in hour 22 of a 24-hour marathon postcard writing session. The event, formally known as 24 Hours in ’24 Our Freedoms Are On The Ballot Postcard Around The Clock 3.0, was a huge success.

The event kicked off yesterday, Monday, at 7:30 p.m. with Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. The idea was to keep the participants going with a constant stream of interesting conversations so they could write POSTCARDS. I’m told some of the participants pulled an all-nighter. By the time they finish up tonight, they’ll have visited with DNC Chair Jaime Harrison, Heather Cox Richardson, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and so many more! The joy is definitely back in politics.

Three groups of activists who put the event together, Downtown Nasty Women Social Group, Markers For Democracy, and Team Min, have been working together since the start of the Trump presidency. The groups were founded in the aftermath of the 2016 election and the January 2017 Women’s March. They’ve been writing postcards to voters since 2017 and have written so many postcards that they stopped counting several hundred thousand postcards ago.

Something that I love about these people is that they write postcards for races up and down the ballot, and they write all year round to make sure they focus attention on special elections and other elections that don’t happen in November. They described the current moment we’re in as “like tax season but for postcard writers.”

Dervla McTiernan

I was fortunate enough to be able to review Dervla McTiernan’s What Happened to Nina? (see Books: Reviews February 14, 2024) and later go to her talk at the ANU Meet the Authors series.

Recently I received this email which could be of interest to other readers.

Hello Robin,
I hope you’re having a wonderful September so far. I am deep into the writing of a new book, and I’m truly enjoying every minute of it. This is the book that will be published in 2026, so I’m getting a bit ahead of you all right now, but I don’t think I’ve ever had as much fun writing a book. I’m not sure if it’s the characters I’m enjoying so much, or the fact that there SO much happening in the story, or the fact that I’m writing fast, just focusing on story story story for now (as opposed to setting or deeper details).

Whatever it is, I’m having a blast at the moment, so long may it last! I’ve also been reading a lot lately. It seems that reading is a habit that is easy to fall out of at the moment, even for me. Books have been the absolute centre of my life for all of my life. They’ve held me together in the toughest of moments, brought me joy and tears and inspiration. All the good stuff. They also bring me calm (something that is in short supply these days). And yet, despite knowing all of that, I find myself with my phone in front of my face far more than is good for me. So I’ve decided to carve out deliberate reading time in the evenings, and I’ve started to charge my phone in in the kitchen again at night, instead of my bedroom. I’m reading so much more, I’m sleeping better, and genuinely, I feel so much happier. 

INSTAGRAM/FACEBOOK ‘BOOKCLUB’ THAT ISN’T
Text: Want to read a book with me?
Apart from reading and writing, my next favourite thing to do is to talk about books that I love. I’ve been thinking lately that I’d like to do that more often. So once a month, at the beginning of the month, I’m going to post a picture on Instagram of the book I’m going to be reading that month. And at the end of the month I’ll post a quick review. I’m hoping that my followers might like the look of the book sometimes, and read it with me, and then we can have a chat about it. This is going to be the most casual of casual arrangements. This is not a formal book club and no one needs to sign up to anything. It’s more like … if you follow me on Instagram or Facebook, you might like to check out the book I’m reading that month, and if it looks like your kind of thing, read along with me. At the end of the month, I’ll post another video with my thoughts, and we can chat about the book in the comments. 
 I’m going to be reading from a position of enthusiasm, not as a critic. I think it’s okay (more than okay) to approach books and movies and TV with generosity and with the expectation of enjoyment. I don’t think the world is suffering from a lack of criticism right now, and I want my reading to be a pleasant, joyful, relaxing experience. So while I’ll be honest if a book didn’t work for me, for whatever reason, I’m not doing this to pull books apart, but rather to celebrate them, and share what I love about them with other readers who feel the same way. This month’s book is Guilty by Definition, by Susie Dent (confession … I messed up in choosing this book as it’s not out in the US or Canada until next year … sorry!! Won’t make that mistake again).

Follow me on Facebook or Instagram if you’d like to keep an eye on future choices. What else have I got to share with you? THE ‘ALL THE SPOILERS’ NEWSLETTER! Oh … I need to give you a heads up. When I was on tour for What Happened to Nina? It was tricky to talk about some of the details of the book, because of spoilers. We talked about doing an All The Spoilers event when the book had been out a few months, but we never got around to it and now I’m neck deep in writing. So! I thought I could do an All The Spoilers newsletter!  So this is the fair warning …  Next month I’ll be sending out a newsletter which will answer ALL the spoiler heavy questions about Nina. If you haven’t read it yet, you’ve got four weeks to get it done, or you can skip the next email entirely 🙂

I’m so looking forward to writing it, actually. It will be fun to talk about the book completely openly. And actually … if you have any questions about the book, hit reply to this email and I’ll add your question to the bunch. Thanks, as always, for reading my newsletters. It’s lovely to get replies from so many of you, and know that I’m not sending them into the void 🙂 
All my best,
P.S – Do you know someone would like to receive my emails? Forward this email to a friend or you can share the links below on social media. The information you enter on this page will only be used to forward the email to your friend.

Cindy Lou eats breakfast in Dickson

Praga Cafe in Dickson is a very pleasant place to eat, with indoor and outdoor seating, friendly staff and good food and coffee. One of us did not want mushrooms – a larger helping of bacon was provided. This is far more generous than most responses to the request to omit an item and was appreciated. The bacon on the other plate shows the normal portion – scooped up and taken home for Leah who is on medication and needs something tasty to encourage her to have it. The mushrooms were great, by the way. Also, the tomatoes were enhanced with tarragon and were well cooked – rather different from some other breakfasts where the tomato is less flavoursome. There was enough butter, and the sourdough toast was crisp.

The muffins look fabulous, as do the cakes, but we wanted a ‘real meal’ on this occasion.

The Reader’s Quest. How literature helps us find meaning and understand the world.

Henry Oliver from The Common Reader <commonreader@substack.com>23 Sept 2024, 21:51

A few weeks ago I was awarded a second Emergent Ventures grant to write a book about reading great literature. I don’t know when or how this book will be published, but I do know that I want to share my early thoughts about it here first. This is something like what I expect the introduction to say. Some of you will have seen my note a few weeks ago, this goes into the idea much more deeply. I look forward to your thoughts…

The decline of serious reading.

Don’t die without reading Anna Karenina. It’s not worth it.You can take Anna Karenina and swap it for any number of titles or authors. Jane Eyre. Hamlet. The Divine Comedy. Proust. Austen. Milton. Wordsworth. Flaubert. Chaucer. Douglass. Woolf. Pessoa. Ovid. Whitman. Dickinson. But the point is the same.

These, and many others, are the best works of literature in Western culture. The best works of the imagination. They are some of the peak experiences available to you, akin to visiting global heritage sites, eating exceptional food, or listening to intensely great music. There are many peak experiences available to us in the world and the best literary works of the imagination are among them.

From the Arthurian Romances to The Lord of the Rings, from the Odyssey to The Crying of Lot 49, from Dante to Dickens, these books are a repository of wisdom, an enticement to the imagination, and a stimulus for new perspectives.

We read literature for many reasons: to see ourselves; to see people and parts of life we had never imagined; to be subtly persuaded to new ideas; to become mind readers of people from other times and places; to escape our life, and thus to see it more clearly, as in a distant mirror.

We read for pleasure, comfort, knowledge, distraction, wisdom, learning, fun; we read for pretentious reasons, snobbish reasons, because we are bored, because we are compelled by a plot, because we have become addicted to books, because we have discovered that nothing else stimulates the imagination in quite the way that great literature can.

Only increasingly, we don’t read great literature.

No-one here reads old books

When I spoke to a range of people in Silicon Valley recently, everyone gave the same answer. A few people here read old books. One or two of them even read Shakespeare and Tolstoy. But it’s rare. Instead, the intellectual landscape of Silicon Valley is political, with some philosophy. The majority of tech people have a modern, STEM-based view of the world; they are much less influenced, if at all, by any notion of the literary canon.

When lists of the “vague tech canon” were proposed recently there were many excellent books involved, but no Shakespeare, no Dante. In one of the richest, best-educated, most productive areas of the world, among some of the most intellectually curious and energetic people alive today, they’re reading Sapiens or Seeing Like a State, but not great literature.

And it’s not just tech people. The world is full of well-educated professionals who don’t read imaginative literature. Entries in Who’s Who in the UK have seen a decline in people listing highbrow interests like literature and a rise in “ordinary” interests like seeing friends or watching television. Likewise, professionals reporting highbrow tastes have dropped, and only half of British adults say they read books for pleasure. (It’s similar in the USA and Europe, where numbers range but always show significant proportions of adults not reading books at all.)

So many of the people I know who work in consulting, finance, and law tell me they haven’t read any classic literature since they were at school. In the book club I run on Substack, I hear from people who are reading Shakespeare in their sixties (and loving it) who also haven’t touched it since they were at school. Indeed, I know teachers who don’t read the great works. So common is it for middle-aged people to read Harry Potter that I know well-paid lawyers who read that and little else.

We are no longer appreciating the classics like we used to. A hunger to be more serious.

But I got another answer to my questions. A few of the most significant people in Silicon Valley do read the classics. And plenty of others know they should. More of them are starting to do so. I haven’t read Tolstoy but know that I need to, or words to that effect, sum up a rising mood. When I spoke to Tyler Cowen last year he told me the same thing.

Maybe what we think of as a crisis of culture, a decline of civilization, the end of reading, is actually an opportunity to bring a new generation of people to appreciate great literature. Maybe we reached the bottom and people are ready to come back to great books.

When I published a Substack piece about this, my emails and WhatsApp were all saying the same thing. People want this. It reminded me of a line from a Philip Larkin poem: “someone will forever be surprising/ A hunger in himself to be more serious.” See Television,Film and Popular Culture: Comments for the complete article.