Archive is background info via this BBC post from 2023, but that's just one piece. Yeah, a lot of us have seen the photo, and maybe some of us know it was during the Viet Nam War, during Civil Rights protests in the U.S. and not that long after the assassination of MLK. Maybe you even know that Muhammad Ali lost his belt and was banned from boxing in the U.S. for refusing the draft to Viet Nam:
"Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go ten thousand miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights?"
I did not know the Black Power Salute got all 3 athletes BANNED from the Olympics and pretty much ruined their lives. From NPR post for 50th anniversary:
Both men received hate mail and death threats. There was discussion of stripping them of their medals. Many Americans shunned them for their silent gesture: For years, they struggled to find good jobs. Their marriages suffered under that strain. Their children were bullied at school. Employers shied away from them.
And Smith and Carlos were banned from future participation in any Olympics for life. (They were in their early 20s in Mexico City, and this effectively prevented them from competing in other races in Munich and Montreal.) There were no offers of the complimentary stadium tickets usually offered to medaled athletes.
(Peter Norman suffered many of the same indignities when he returned to Australia. He was ostracized, never allowed on an Australian Olympic team again, despite qualifying in several national trials.[...]
Which gets us to The White Man In That Photo (from 2015 -- long and worthy of a full read):
Norman was a white man from Australia, a country that had strict apartheid laws, almost as strict as South Africa. There was tension and protests in the streets of Australia following heavy restrictions on non-white immigration and discriminatory laws against aboriginal people, some of which consisted of forced adoptions of native children to white families.
The two Americans had asked Norman if he believed in human rights. Norman said he did. They asked him if he believed in God, and he, who had been in the Salvation Army, said he believed strongly in God. “We knew that what we were going to do was far greater than any athletic feat, and he said “I’ll stand with you” – remembers John Carlos – “I expected to see fear in Norman’s eyes, but instead we saw love.”
Smith and Carlos had decided to get up on the stadium wearing the Olympic Project for Human Rights badge, a movement of athletes in support of the battle for equality.
They would receive their medals barefoot, representing the poverty facing people of color. They would wear the famous black gloves, a symbol of the Black Panthers’ cause. But before going up on the podium they realized they only had one pair of black gloves. “Take one each”, Norman suggested. Smith and Carlos took his advice.
But then Norman did something else. “I believe in what you believe. Do you have another one of those for me”? he asked, pointing to the Olympic Project for Human Rights badge on the others’ chests. “That way I can show my support for your cause.” Smith admitted to being astonished, ruminating: “Who is this white Australian guy? He won his silver medal, can’t he just take it and that be enough!”.
So they all go to the podium in solidarity and the U.S. winners give the salute and suffer the aftermath. More from 'white guy':
As John Carlos said, “If we were getting beat up, Peter was facing an entire country and suffering alone.” For years Norman had only one chance to save himself: he was invited to condemn his co-athletes, John Carlos and Tommie Smith’s gesture in exchange for a pardon from the system that ostracized him.
A pardon that would have allowed him to find a stable job through the Australian Olympic Committee and be part of the organization of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. Norman never gave in and never condemned the choice of the two Americans.
He was the greatest Australian sprinter in history and the holder of the 200 meter record, yet he wasn’t even invited to the Olympics in Sydney. It was the American Olympic Committee, that once they learned of this news asked him to join their group and invited him to Olympic champion Michael Johnson’s birthday party, for whom Peter Norman was a role model and a hero.
Norman died suddenly from a heart attack in 2006, without his country ever having apologized for their treatment of him. At his funeral Tommie Smith and John Carlos, Norman’s friends since that moment in 1968, were his pallbearers, sending him off as a hero.
Note that the 'white guy' article talks about a commemorative statue built in 2005 of just Smith and Carlos -- no Norman. Norman approved that artistic choice. Transcript from Democracy Now where Carlos himself explains how he called Norman to hear him say so (part 1 and part 2):
JOHN CARLOS: Yeah, “Blimey, John. You’re calling me with these blimey questions here?” And I said to him, I said, “Pete, I have a concern, man. What’s this about you don’t want to have your statue there? What, are you backing away from me? Are you ashamed of us?” And he laughed, and he said, “No, John.” He said—you know, the deep thing is, he said, “Man, I didn’t do what you guys did.” He said, “But I was there in heart and soul to support what you did. I feel it’s only fair that you guys go on and have your statues built there, and I would like to have a blank spot there and have a commemorative plaque stating that I was in that spot. But anyone that comes thereafter from around the world and going to San Jose State that support the movement, what you guys had in ’68, they could stand in my spot and take the picture.”
The U.S. (but not just the U.S.) has a woeful history of treating those who protest Injustice horribly. There's always an excuse for it, too. From the above articles, we can see that the Olympic head allowed the Nazi salute for the ~~Munich~~ Berlin games but expelled Smith and Carlos in 1968 with the rational that the first was a national salute and therefore acceptable whereas 'Black Power' was not.
More recently, Kaepernick kneeling got him in trouble with the NFL but they were fine with Butker's speech that, "denounced abortion rights, Pride Month, COVID-19 lockdowns..." and suggested women should be homemakers instead of using their newly earned college diplomas. Supposedly the 'difference' is that Kaepernick's silent protest was on the NFL's time but Butker spoke on his own time so it was fine ... but they can always find a difference and it is never as valid as simply siding against injustice.
EDIT: I inadvertently typed 'Munich' instead of the correct 'Berlin' games for when the Nazi salute was allowed. Fixed now.
At least for now, I am hopeful. All sorts of other countries have elected women. The U.S. should get with it. I know there will be people who say, "Maybe, but not THAT woman" -- but those people always say that about any woman, so that's never going to be the base.
Yay!!!
I can't get myself to click a twitter link, so in case others feel the same, here's an alternate piece that basically says the same thing (I can't yet find an article with detailed info): https://www.ign.com/articles/bethesda-game-studios-microsoft-game-studios
I don't think that was her thought process. This news broke into network programming (CBS, anyway) so people will hear it.
I think she's mad at the shooting so did it as a pro-Trump retaliation. More coverage here: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/15/us/trump-documents-case-dismissed
EDIT: I stand corrected! They're saying it is a 90+ page ruling so she didn't do it over the weekend. Maybe it was planned as a celebration for the start of the RNC?
-- and while he's at it, maybe Biden could see that Alito and Thomas met with some unfortunate fatality... and if congress does not think he should be allowed to replace them, perhaps they, too, would suddenly find their numbers shrinking as the pile of bodies mounts (I'm looking at you, Mitch McConnell).
I appreciate that the "Gradient Canopy" roof is covered in solar cells and collects rainwater while also letting in natural light, so maybe the problem is they didn't do enough by not adding in some shielding, too.
Msnbc's Alex Wagner pointed out on her show that, "After all, it took just 51 days from the time Trump was kicked off the ballot in Colorado on December 19th to when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for that case -- the 14th Amendment case -- on February 8th. Now on December 11th, 2023, Counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to quickly weigh in on Trump's immunity appeal and to do so early , which the Court rejected! And now by the time we get to April 22nd, which is when the Court plans to hear arguments in this immunity case, it will have been 133 days since the Court was first asked to hear the appeal. So the pace is... curious? Around 50 days when it helps Donald Trump, and over 130 days when it doesn't."
The headline is a lie. I wish I could trust fair.org to be honest, but they are being ... unfair. WaPo gives the male/female liberal/conservative ratios and rightly concludes that the numbers don't match. At no point do they say which sex should compromise. Here's what they say:
As the researchers Lyman Stone and Brad Wilcox have noted, about 1 in 5 young singles will have little choice but to marry someone outside their ideological tribe. The other option is that they decline to get married at all — not an ideal outcome considering the data showing that marriage is good for the health of societies and individuals alike. (This, of course, is on average; marriage isn’t for everyone. Nor is staying in a physically or emotionally abusive marriage ever the right choice. But, on the whole, while politically mixed couples report somewhat lower levels of satisfaction than same-party couples, they are still likely to be happier than those who remain single.)
I'm not saying that the Washington Post should be trusted on all things, or that we should forget that it can act as a billionaire influencer project, but I DO think we should expect fair.org to be more credible than to make up such misleading click-bait headlines.
“Godfather of AI” Geoff Hinton, in recent public talks, explains that one of the greatest risks is not that chatbots will become super-intelligent, but that they will generate text that is super-persuasive without being intelligent, in the manner of Donald Trump or Boris Johnson. In a world where evidence and logic are not respected in public debate, Hinton imagines that systems operating without evidence or logic could become our overlords by becoming superhumanly persuasive, imitating and supplanting the worst kinds of political leader.
Why is "superhumanly persuasive" always being done for stupid stuff and not, I don't know, getting people to drive fuel efficient cars instead of giant pickups and suvs?
H-h-how? HOW? do they 'anonymize' DNA?!?! Remember how in 2007 'anonymized' netflix data was linked back to actual members? That was just checking what people watched on Netflix compared to what they rated on IMDB.
With DNA, you should be able to figure out who someone is by the fact you an exact DNA record! I mean, it'll share similarities with your parents, and children, and to a lesser degree, more removed relatives. How hard can it be to figure out that this woman is related to that guy with an arrest record. Or more specifically: this is the exact person because we see other records from any doctor or whatever with the same DNA.
Umm... Republicans made the rule that any solitary Representative could call for a vote to remove the Speaker. Dems didn't make that rule. In fact, they could have used that rule at any time, but they didn't. Gaetz(R) called to oust the speaker. Why? Because McCarthy cut a deal with Dems where both sides lost stuff to keep the government open -- and then McCarthy BLAMED the Dems for shutting the government down!
Anyway, working with Democrats was too much for Gaetz, so he moved to oust the Speaker. Most Republicans voted to keep McCarthy, but not all. Meanwhile, Democrats were pretty mad that McCarthy blamed them for a crisis they'd helped avert by accepting concessions. So? So they vote against the guy who threw them under the bus, then unite to vote for one of their own, Jeffries, to replace him.
All that is to say that when I hear people blame the Dems -- particularly McCarthy repeatedly saying 'a handful of Republicans worked with Democrats to cause chaos' -- I wonder anyone can think the Dems are to blame. If Republicans were 'working' with Democrats, all they had to do was vote for Jefferies any time in the last 3 weeks and we'd have had a Speaker.
The problem was NO ONE was working with Democrats. Republicans could have peeled off a handful of Democrats by conceding on some points, but the current (R) party has made cooperation a death sentence. Politics should be about stuff like which road to fix first and not all the BS it has become.
There's no publicly known proof that any of Mary Trump's accusations are true, but since the war is decidedly World News, the possibility that the attack by Hamas was made viable through a U.S. leak is worth considering.
Refresher on McCabe from The Guardian:
I mention this because y'all know that Trumpers will immediately brush off McCabe's comments as a known-bad-guy who was fired for being so awful and is now trying to get revenge.