Suchergebnisse

1963-1969.(from) The feminine mystique /Betty Friedan ;Sex and caste: a kind of memo /Casey Hayden and Mary King ;(from) Jane Crow and the law: sex discrimination and Title VII /Pauli Murray and Mary O. Eastwood ;(from) SCUM manifesto /Valerie Solanas ;(from) Toward a female liberation movement, Part I /Beverly Jones and Judith Brown ;No more Miss America! /New York Radical Women ;Statement on birth control /Black Women's Liberation Group of Mt. Vernon, New York ;On celibacy /Dana Densmore ;The myth of the vaginal orgasm /Anne Koedt ;(from) Phallic criticism /Mary Ellman ;Leaflet /Witch ;An argument for black women's liberation as a revolutionary force /Mary Ann Weathers ;(from) Radical feminism /Ti-Grace Atkinson ;The personal is political /Carol Hanisch ;The politics of housework /Pat Mainardi ;Women: Do you know the facts about marriage? /The Feminists ;Double jeopardy: to be black and female /Frances M. Beal ;The man's problem /Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz and Lisa Leghorn ;(from) The next great moment in history is theirs /Vivian Gornick ;Manifesto and principles /Redstockings --1970-1979.(from) The dialectic of sex /Shulamith Firestone ;(from) Sexual politics /Kate Millett ;(from) The 51% minority /Shirley Chisholm ;Abortion law repeal (sort of): a warning to women /Lucinda Cisler ;The woman identified woman /RadicaLesbians ;(from) Are women equal under the law? /Gene Boyer ;(from) Angry notes from a black feminist /Doris Wright ;(from) Position paper on women /Young Lords Party ;Why I want a wife /Judy Syfers ;A brief elegy for four women /Robin Morgan ;(from) The children's house /Marcia Sprinkle and Norma Allen Lesser ;(from) Rape: the all-American crime /Susan Griffin ;(from) New voice of La Raza: Chicanas speak out /Mirta Vidal ;Black & blacklesbian /Margaret Sloan ;Sisterhood /Gloria Steinem ;(from) The housewife's moment of truth /Jane O'Reilly ;(from) Women who are writers in our century: one out of twelve /Tillie Olsen ;Lesbians in revolt /Charlotte Bunch ;Welfare is a women's issue /Johnnie Tillmon ;(from) Birth control /Barbara Seaman ;(from) Women and madness /Phyllis Chesler ;(from) The verbal karate of Florynce R. Kennedy, Esq. ;(from) Consciousness-raising: a radical weapon /Kathie Sarachild ;Preface to Our bodies, ourselves /Boston Women's Health Collective ;(from) The new feminism and women's studies /Catharine R. Stimpson ;In search of our mothers' gardens /Alice Walker ;Wages against housework /Silvia Federici ;Practicing health without a license /Lolly Hirsch ;Sex and women's liberation /Anne Forer ;(from) Joan Little: the dialectics of rape /Angela Davis ;(from) Against our will: men, women and rape /Susan Brownmiller ;(from) A black feminist's search for sisterhood /Michele Wallace ;(from) The woman warrior /Maxine Hong Kingston ;(from) Through the flower: my struggle as a woman artist /Judy Chicago ;(from) Of woman born /Adrienne Rich ;(from) Trashing: the dark side of sisterhood /Jo Freeman ;A letter from a battered wife /Del Martin ;What is socialist feminism? /Barbara Ehrenreich ;The majority finds its past /Gerda Lerner ;A black feminist statement /The Combahee River Collective ;(from) In mourning and in rage... /Suzanne Lacy and Leslie Labowitz ;(from) Gyn/ecology /Mary Daly ;Notes from a free-speech junkie /Susan Jacoby ;Eleven ways to fight sexual harassment /Lin Farley ;(from) Uses of the erotic: the erotic as power /Audre Lorde ;Racism and women's studies /Barbara Smith --1980-1991.We're all in the same boat /Rosario Morales ;(from) Speaking in tongues: a letter to 3rd world women writers ;To change the world for women /Catharine MacKinnon ;(from) Pornography /Andrea Dworkin ;Pornography and pleasure /Paula Webster ;My mother liked to fuck /Joan Nestle ;(from) La güera /Cherríe Moraga ;(from) Invisibility is an unnatural disaster: reflections of an Asian American woman /Mitsuye Yamada ;(from) From housewife to heretic /Sonia Johnson ;(from) The vows, wows, and joys of the high priestess or What do you people do anyway? /Z. Budapest ;(from) In a different voice: psychological theory and women's development /Carol Gilligan ;(from) Toward a feminist sexual revolution /Ellen Willis ;The fear that feminism will free men first /Deirdre English ;(from) A gathering of spirit /Beth Brant ;(from) Who is your mother? Red roots of white feminism /Paula Gunn Allen ;(from) Thoughts on Indian feminism /Kate Shanley ;Ending female sexual oppression /bell hooks ;(from) The mother tongue, Bryn Mawr commencement address /Ursula K. Le Guin ;style no. 1 /Sonia Sanchez ;Don't you talk about my mama! /June Jordan ;WHISPER: Women hurt in systems of prostitution engaged in revolt /Sarah Wynter ;(from) U.S. PROStitutes Collective /Rachel West ;(from) Pages from a gender diary: basic divisions of feminism /Ann Snitow ;(from) Backlash /Susan Faludi.

Introduction: Demarcating the field of local media and journalism / Agnes Gulyas and David Baines -- Historicising the after-life, local newspapers in the United Kingdom and the 'art of prognosis' / Rachel Matthews -- A history of the local newspaper in Japan / Anthony S. Rausch -- Local news deserts in Brazil : historical and contemporary perspectives / Carlos Eduardo Lins da Silva and Angela Pimenta -- History of local media in Norway / Eli Skogerbø -- State of play : Local media, power and society in the Caribbean / Juliette Marie Storr -- 'Peopleization' of news : the development of the American television news format / Madeleine Liseblad -- The death of broadcast localism in the United States / Christopher Ali -- Developing local media policies in sub-state nations : the case of Catalonia / Mariola Tarrega and Josep Guimerà -- Local journalism in Australia : Policy debates / Kristy Hess and Lisa Waller -- The development of community broadcasting legislation in Kenya / Rose Kimani -- Local media policies in Poland : Key issues and debates / Sylwia Mecfal -- The impact of communication policies in local television models. The cases of Catalonia and Scotland / Aida Martori Muntsant -- Local journalism in the United States : Its publics, its problems, and its potentials / C.W. Anderson -- Remediating the local through localised news making : India's booming multi-lingual press as agent in political and social change / Ursula Rao -- De-professionalization and fragmentation : challenges for local journalism in Sweden / Gunnar Nygren -- Central and local media in Russia : between central control and local initiatives / Ilya Kiriya -- The return of party journalism in China and 'Janusian' content : the case of Newspaper X / Jingrong Tong -- Strategy over substance and national in focus? Local television coverage of politics and policy in the US / Erika Franklin Fowler -- From journal of record to the 24/7 news cycle : perspectives on the changing nature of court reporting in Australia / Margaret Simons and Jason Bosland -- Business and ownership of local media : an international perspective / Bill Reader and John Hatcher -- Local media owners as saviours in the Czech Republic : they save money, not journalism / Lenka Waschková Císarová -- What can we learn from independent family-owned local media groups? Case studies from the UK / Sarah O'Hara -- Local media in France : subsidized, heavily regulated and under pressure / Matthieu Lardeau -- 'I've started a hyperlocal, so now what?' / Marco van Kerkhoven -- The hyperlocal 'renaissance' in Australia and New Zealand / Scott Downman and Richard Murray -- At the crossroads of hobby, community work and media business : Nordic and Russian hyperlocal practitioners / Jaana Hujanen, Olga Dovbysh, Carina Tenor, Mikko Grönlund, Katja Lehtisaari and Carl-Gustav Lindén -- Not all doom and gloom : the story of American small market newspapers / Christopher Ali, Damian Radcliffe and Rosalind Donald -- Local journalism in Bulgaria : trends from the Worlds of Journalism study / Vera Slavtcheva-Petkova -- Specialised training of local journalists in armed conflict : the Colombian experience / Yennue Zárate Valderrama -- From community to commerce? Analytics, audience 'engagement' and how local newspapers are renegotiating news values in the age of pageview-driven journalism in the UK / James Morrison -- Two tier tweeting : how promotional and personalised use of Twitter is shaping journalistic practices in the UK / Lily Canter -- Centralised and digitally disrupted : an ethnographic view of local journalism in New Zealand / Helen Sissons -- Situating journalistic coverage : a practice theory approach to researching local community radio production in the United Kingdom / Josephine F. Coleman -- What does the audience experience as valuable local journalism? Approaching local news quality from a user's perspective / Irene Costera Meijer -- Local journalism and at-risk communities in the United States / Philip M. Napoli and Matthew Weber -- The emerging deficit : changing local journalism and its impact on communities in Australia / Margaret Simons, Andrea Carson, Denis Muller and Jennifer Martin -- Strength in numbers : building collaborative partnerships for data-driven community news / Jan Lauren Boyles -- Bottom-up hyperlocal media in Belgium : Facebook-groups as collaborative neighborhood awareness systems / Jonas De Meulenaere, Cédric Courtois and Koen Ponnet -- Local news repertoires in a transforming Swedish media landscape / Annika Bergström -- The what, the where, and the why of local news in the United States / Angela Lee -- Local media and disaster reporting in Japan / Florian Meissner and Jun Tsukada -- Public service journalism and engagement in US hyperlocal non-profits / Patrick Ferrucci -- Local public service media in Northern Ireland : the merit goods argument / Phil Ramsey and Philip McDermott -- Participation in local radio agricultural broadcasts and message adoption among rural farmers in Northern Ghana / Adam Tanko Zakariah -- Pacific Islanders' Talanoa values and public support point the way forward / Shailendra Singh -- Alternative journalism, alternative ethics? / Tony Harcup.

Inhaltsverzeichnis: The Trump Campaign (2015-2016) -- Chemistry and spin: Putin, Trump and other US candidates -- U.S. Presidential hopeful Trump says he and Putin would be pals -- What President Trump would mean for Russia -- Trump slams Obama, gives Putin an "A" for leadership -- Odd checks, asymmetrical balances -- Losing the Trump card -- From Hillary to Trump: What the Kremlin can expect from the candidates -- Who's afraid of Donald Trump? -- (Editorial): Antidemocracy -- White House and television: Who invented Donald Trump? -- Exceptional case -- Through the looking glass -- Trump as a mirror -- Hillary or Donald, it's all nuts -- Is Mr. Trump the next U.S. President? -- Breaking democracy's morals: The Trump phenomenon makes U.S. politics look more like those of Europe -- The America watchers -- Russia-U.S. relations after the election: "We will be ready for a new start" -- U.S. gives another reason to believe its democracy is deeply flawed -- Good-bye familiar America? U.S. foreign policy: A forecast until 2024 -- Trump card: A Donald Trump Fan Club watched the unthinkable unfold in Moscow -- Hey Trump, come on over! -- Actor's triumph: What to expect from the U.S. President-Elect -- Four years for white men -- Transatlantic backlash -- The U.S. has sneezed and now Russia will catch a cold -- In search of a Russian Trump -- Sergei Glazyev: "Ttrump needs help!" -- What next? forecasts of a new world order -- The shape of things to come -- Will Donald Trump abolish NATO? -- Two faces of American capitalism -- Will Trump tear up the nuclear deal with Iran? -- How will Russia respond to Trump? -- What will the Middle East look like under Putin and Trump? -- Europe turns toward Russia in major foreign policy change -- What are the implications of Israeli-U.S. conflict over U.N. resolution? -- Battle of ideas in Washington -- "There's no reset button. We're either going to get along or we're not" -- Trump changes horses -- Republican Party of regions -- Why Donald Trump is not a Putin agent -- The Crimea for lease: A Russian trail in settlement plans for Ukraine -- Russian lawyer tells State TV she met Trump Jr. to ask for "help" -- Kremlin not surprised by media reports on eavesdropping on Russian Ambassador to U.S. -- Senator blasts resignation of Trump's national security adviser over Russia contacts -- Rendezvous without hope for a reset -- Dancing with Washington -- Russian Ambassador Kislyak on meeting with Trump adviser Flynn: "There were no secrets" -- Spying on Uncle Sam -- One hack too far -- Attacks from Moscow: Did the U.S. believe in Russian hackers? -- America comes out on different sides of Russia -- Five-fake report -- Watergate for Trump -- A world without illusions, myths. "Dangerous but predictable": How Russia spooked the world with hackers and prostitutes -- Munich: Cold talk -- Seducing Europe -- Munich shows Western elite's total discombobulation -- NATO: Trump's burden -- The foundation of the West is shaken, its future uncertain -- The whole earth minus the U.S.: The consequences of America exiting the climate agreement -- How Trump is stealing Eastern Europe right from under Russia's nose -- The world comes to those who wait -- Macron displaces Merkel -- Moscow proposes Trump take a different view of Iran -- Will tomorrow come? -- Trump to halt plan to fight Islamic State with Russia -- U.S. strikes Syria: Trump is a president who no longer calls the shots -- Uncle Donald's show -- We have contact -- President Trump pushes for "Arab NATO" in the Middle East -- Trump appears in the East -- Top salesman -- Trial agreement -- Second nuclear century? -- Donald Trump's nuclear policy: First outlines -- We need an Iran deal with North Korea -- False calm: Why Russia prefers not to notice the nuclear crisis at its borders -- Short victorious war: U.S. President's magic wand to wave in a pinch -- Mutually assured distraction -- Nuclear deterrence: An eternal guarantee -- North Korea nuclear crisis: Why Russia's attempt to get involved in the big game is a bad idea -- Trumponomics -- No golden opportunity -- Russian matryoshka: How many demands for Trump can hide inside Putin? -- Ssergei Lavrov: "We are willing to work with the donald trump administration on the entire agenda" Honeymoon -- Kremlin and White House intent on eliminating negative balance -- "They tricked us": White House didn't expect Tass photographer to cover Trump-Lavrov meeting -- Lavrov briefed Putin on his meeting with Tump -- Opponents shake hands: Results of the first meeting between Putin and Trump -- Worse than under Obama: Why new U.S. sanctions have caused panic in Moscow -- Statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry -- How Putin expelled diplomats and hinted at cooperation with the U.S. -- After sanctions, there's no way back -- Sanctions -- "Trump is his own person.

Accent Discrimination -- Affordable Care Act and Undocumented Immigrants -- African Immigrants -- Afro-Caribbean immigrants -- Alien and Sedition Acts -- Alien land laws -- Amerasians -- American Jewish Committee -- Anglo-conformity -- Anti-Irish Riots of 1844 -- Arab American intergroup relations -- Arab American stereotypes -- Arab immigrants -- Ashkenazic and German Jewish immigrants -- Asian American education -- Asian American Legal Defense Fund -- Asian American literature -- Asian American stereotypes -- Asian American women -- Asian Indian immigrants -- Asian Indian immigrants and family customs -- Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance -- Assimilation theories -- Au pairs -- Bangladeshi immigrants in the United States -- Bilingual education -- Bilingual Education Act of 1968 -- Border Patrol, U.S. -- Bracero program -- Brain Drain -- British as dominant group -- Burlingame Treaty -- Cable Act -- California gold rush -- Cambodian immigrants -- Canadian immigrants -- Celtic Irish -- Censuses, U.S. -- Chicano movement -- Chinatowns -- Chinese American Citizens Alliance -- Chinese detentions in New York -- Chinese Exclusion Act -- Chinese exclusion cases -- Chinese immigrants -- Chinese immigrants and California's gold rush -- Chinese immigrants and family customs -- Chinese Six Companies -- Citizenship -- Clotilde slave ship -- Coast Guard, U.S. -- Coolies -- Cuban immigrants -- Cuban immigrants and African Americans -- Cuban refugee policy -- Cultural pluralism -- Demographics of immigration -- Deportation -- Discrimination -- Domestic Abuse as a Protected Category (Asylum) -- Dominican immigrants -- The DREAM Act -- Eastern European Jewish immigrants -- English-only and official English movements -- Ethnic enclaves -- Euro-Americans -- European immigrant literature -- European immigrants, 1790-1892 -- European immigrants, 1892-1943 -- E-Verify Employment Verification System -- Family businesses -- Farmworkers' unions -- Federal riot of 1799 -- Filipino immigrants -- Filipino immigrants and family customs -- Florida illegal-immigrant suit -- Garment industry -- Gay Lesbian Transgender Immigrants and Asylum Seekers -- Generational acculturation -- Gentlemen's Agreement -- German and Irish immigration of the 1840's -- German immigrants -- González rescue -- Green cards -- Gypsy immigrants -- H-1B Visa -- Haitian boat people -- Haitian immigrants -- Hansen effect -- Hawaiian and Pacific islander immigrants -- Head money cases -- Helsinki Watch report on U.S. refugee policy -- History of U.S. immigration -- Hmong immigrants -- Homeland Security Department: 2003 -- Hull-House -- Human Smuggling (or HumanTrafficking) -- Illegal aliens -- Immigrant advantage -- Immigrants in sports -- Immigration Act of 1917 -- Immigration Act of 1921 -- Immigration Act of 1924 -- Immigration Act of 1943 -- Immigration Act of 1990 -- Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 -- Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 -- Immigration and Naturalization Service -- Immigration and Naturalization Service V. Chadha -- Immigration ?Crisis? -- Immigration in Film -- Immigration Law -- Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 -- Indentured Servitude -- Indigenous Superordination -- International Adoptions -- Iranian Immigrants -- Irish Immigrants -- Irish Immigrants and African Americans -- Irish Immigrants and Discrimination -- Irish Stereotypes -- Israeli Immigrants -- Italian Immigrants -- Jamaican Immigrants -- Jamestown Colony -- Japanese American Citizens League -- Japanese American Internment -- Japanese Immigrants -- Japanese Peruvians -- Japanese Segregation in California Schools -- Jewish Immigrants -- Jewish Settlement of New York -- Jews and Arab Americans -- Justice and Immigration -- Know-Nothing Party -- Korean Immigrants -- Korean Immigrants and Family Customs -- Ku Klux Klan -- Laotian Immigrants -- Latinos -- Latinos and Employment -- Latinos and Family Customs -- Lau v. Nichols -- League of United Latin American Citizens -- Literature -- Little Havana -- Little Italies -- Little Tokyos -- Machine Politics -- Mail-Order Brides -- Mariel Boatlift -- Medical Examination of Immigrants and Refugees -- Melting Pot -- Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund -- Mexican Deportations during the Depression -- Middle Eastern Immigrant Families -- Migrant Superordination -- Migration -- Model Minorities -- Mongrelization -- Muslims -- Nativism -- Naturalization -- Naturalization Act of 1790 -- Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service -- Nigerian Immigrants -- Operation Wetback -- Ozawa v. United States -- Page Law -- Pakistani Immigrants -- Palmer Raids -- Picture Brides -- Plyler v. Doe -- Polish Immigrants -- Proposition 187 -- Proposition 227 -- Push and Pull Factors -- Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends -- Real ID Act -- Refugee Fatigue -- Refugee Relief Act of 1953 -- Refugees and Racial/Ethnic Relations -- Russian Immigrants -- Sacco and Vanzetti Trial -- Santería -- Scandinavian Immigrants -- Scotch-Irish immigrants -- The Secure Fence Act -- Sephardic Jews -- September 11 Terrorist Attacks -- Settlement House Movement -- Shadow Wolves (Native American INS Tracking Unit) -- Sikh Immigrants -- Southeast Asian Immigrants -- Soviet Jewish Immigrants -- Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act -- Taiwanese Immigrants -- Thai Garment Worker Enslavement -- Tibetan Immigrants -- Triangle Shirtwaist Company Fire -- Twice Migrants -- Unaccompanied Children as Immigrants -- Undocumented Workers -- Universal Negro Improvement Association -- Vietnamese Immigrants -- Visas -- War Brides -- War Brides Act -- West Indian Immigrants -- White Ethnics -- Women Immigrants -- Wong Kim Ark Case -- Xenophobia -- "Yellow Peril" Campaign -- Zadvydas v. Davis -- U.S. State Briefs -- Bibliography -- Time Line of U.S. Immigration History -- Immigration Statistics -- Legal Permanent Residents -- Refugees and Asylees -- Naturalizations -- Nonimmigrant Admissions -- Enforcement Actions.

This book is about political conflict in the First Austrian Republic, in a region which can be aptly described as having been a focal point of social and political antagonism in the times under consideration. Its main subject, the somewhat nebulous phenomenon of political radicalism, was studied from a closer viewpoint and pinpointed in a representative selection of events. It was not only incidents of greater national significance, such as the outcome of the Schattendorf trial, the so-called Pfrimer Putsch or the deconstruction of democracy, that had contributed to the already tense atmosphere on the local front. Day to day scuffles, paramilitary parades, inflammatory speeches and street rallies triggered off a spiral of violence. This book focuses on the question of how and to what extent political parties and movements were able to influence the life and thought of so many people and made some of them become irreconcilable enemies. A glance behind the scenes of those inglorious times shall hopefully enable a far better understanding of what impact political interaction had on the region in question. After an introduction into the methodology and theory, followed by a brief summary of the political and economic situation in Austria after the First World War, the book continues with a description and history of the Upper Styrian industrial region. The major part of this study, however, deals with the origins and development of the most important regional political parties and movements and how political radicalism manifested itself in daily affairs. In this section, political leaders and other people who played a role in confrontation come to the fore and election results are presented and analysed, showing a substantial drift to the right by 1932. The growth of political radicalism during the First Republic can be seen in four phases, starting prior to 1927 and coming to a head in the 1931 Pfrimer Putsch and the uprisings of1934. According to Botz, acts of political violence were committed by individuals or groups in organised or random gatherings, demonstrations and skirmishes in guest houses and in the street. This atmosphere of unrest was aggravated further by acts of sabotage and terror carried out mainly by followers of the upcoming Nazi party. The struggle for ultimate national power can be seen as a battle between left and right ideologies against a background of national defeat, economic recession and increasing pressure exerted by certain other European states, all of which had specific interest in Austria. Finally, the issues and problems presented in this book are discussed and analysed in a conclusion. The dimensions of political radicalism are clearly defined and put into a regional context. As a consequence, the political interaction of conflicting parties, which can be traced on all social and political levels, becomes tangible. However, due to the lack of comparative regional studies, the question as to whether or not political radicalism was inherent to this particular region cannot be satisfactorily answered. - Dieses Buch befasst sich mit den politischen Auseinandersetzungen der Ersten Republik Österreichs in einer Region, die wohl als Kristallisationspunkt sozialer und politischer Gegensätze bezeichnet werden kann. Das Phänomen der "Radikalisierung des politischen Klimas" wurde aus einer kleinräumigen Perspektive betrachtet und anhand ausgewählter Ereignisse konkretisiert. Zur Verschärfung des ohnehin gespannten politischen Klimas in der obersteirischen Industrieregion trugen signifikante überregionale Ereignisse wie der Ausgang des Schattendorfer Prozesses, der so genannte Pfrimer-Putsch oder die sukzessive Ausschaltung der Demokratie bei. Hetzreden, Aufmärsche und Demonstrationen, die vor Ort die Stimmung aufheizten, lösten eine Spirale der Gewalt aus. In diesem Zusammenhang wurde der Frage nachgegangen, wie und in welchem Maße politische Parteien und Bewegungen das Leben und Denken so vieler Menschen beeinflussten oder dominierten und einige zu unversöhnlichen Gegnern machten. Ein Blick hinter die Kulissen dieser so unglücklichen Zeit soll eine verstärkte Einsicht in die Auswirkungen politischer Interaktion ermöglichen. Nach einer Erörterung der Methodik, der theoretischen Grundlagen und der politischen und wirtschaftlichen Ausgangslage in Österreich wird die obersteirische Industrieregion rund um Leoben vorgestellt. Als Schwerpunkt dieses Buches können die Abschnitte gelten, die sich mit der Tätigkeit der wichtigsten politischen Parteien und Bewegungen sowie der Radikalisierung des politischen Alltags in der Region beschäftigen. Anfänge und Entwicklung der politischen Landschaft werden unter die Lupe genommen und prägende Persönlichkeiten in ihrem lokalen Wirkungskreis dargestellt, ausgesuchte Wahlergebnisse präsentiert und analysiert. Die politische Radikalisierung läuft in mehreren zeitlichen Phasen ab und kann an exemplarischen politisch motivierten Zusammenstöße festgemacht werden. Dazu gehören sowohl Gewalttaten, die von Einzelpersonen oder Gruppen auf der Straße, bei Versammlungen in Vereinslokalen oder Wirtshäusern begangen werden, sowie die von der NSDAP vielfach ausgeübten Sabotage- und Terrorakte, als auch überregionale Ereignisse wie die Aufstandsbewegungen des Jahres 1934. Der Kampf um die Macht im Staate zwischen den Anhängern grundverschiedener Weltanschauungen spielt sich vor dem Hintergrund eines verlorenen Krieges und dessen Folgen, der wirtschaftlichen Stagnation und des zunehmenden Druckes durch außenpolitische Machenschaften ab. In den Schlussbetrachtungen werden die Grundprobleme der Region nochmals aufgerollt und analysiert. Die Dimensionen der politischen Radikalisierung können klar aufgezeigt und in einen konkreten regionalen Kontext gestellt werden. Die politische Interaktion der Konfliktparteien der Ersten Republik wird somit auf allen Ebenen nachvollziehbar. Dennoch kann die Frage nach dem Zusammenhang zwischen dieser spezifischen Region und der aufkommenden Radikalisierung ohne komparative Studien nicht hinreichend beantwortet werden.

In light of Iran and Israel's recent retaliatory strikes, media focus has now turned to concerns of potential regional escalation and the awaited aid package from the U.S. House of Representatives. Gaza and the war there appear to have moved off to sidebar status as a result.It shouldn't remain there for long. While the world's gaze has been turned, the death toll of 50 to 100 Gazans a day since the Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate in Syria only underscores the ongoing severity of the situation. Since the April 1 attack, the Israeli onslaught on Gaza has bred: revelations that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) created "kill zones" in Gaza in which anyone can be shot; the deaths of seven international aid workers, who were killed in a targeted attack by the Israeli military; a mass grave found after the Israeli withdrawal from al-Shifa hospital that held at least fifteen bodies after the two week siege on the hospital; the deaths of at least 13 people after a strike targeted Al-Maghazi refugee camp in central Gaza; and news that all of Gaza City's water wells had stopped functioning, according to Gaza's Government Media Office. In the U.S., grassroots efforts to halt arms sales to Israel have not ceased either. The uncommitted national campaign in the Democratic presidential primary has brought in nearly half a million dollars to finance the effort, which aims to push the Biden administration towards a ceasefire in Gaza. The movement started in Michigan's democratic presidential primary, where more than 100,000 voters cast ballots for "uncommitted" — sending a signal to the president's reelection campaign that he is out of step with his likely voters on the war in Gaza. Since then, other states — such as Minnesota, Washington and Wisconsin — picked up the idea and rapidly organized to turn out people who wanted to send Biden a message. On Tax Day this year, protests took place across the country to raise awareness about Israel's war in Gaza. In Israel, massive protests continue in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, reflecting a significant challenge to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's increasingly embattled leadership. Demonstrators are furious with the prime minister and his government for failing to secure the release of all hostages taken during the events of October 7. Despite the release of 105 individuals during a temporary truce last year, 130 hostages remain either deceased or in captivity with Hamas and other militant groups. Banners at the protests demand Netanyahu's resignation and call for new nationwide elections.As of Friday, the House of Representatives was poised to advance the National Security Supplemental, including $16 billion in aid for Israel. In their negotiations with Republicans, Democratic leadership held the inclusion of Gaza aid in any package as a "red line." Despite this, there is still a large segment of the Democratic party that does not support sending offensive weapons to Israel without assurances that its use will not violate any U.S. laws or international laws related to war. House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gregory Meeks has so far declined to give his sign-off on a sale of F-15s to Israel. Additionally, in the midst of the procedural hurdles in passing the foreign aid packages out of the House, eight Democrats introduced an amendment that would restrict U.S. weapons transfers to Israel until a "full investigation" is completed into their use in Gaza. The amendment was blocked by the Rules Committee. This was just one of many amendments from Democrats that were critical of Israel's actions that were not ultimately made in order by the committee. The final vote of the Israel military aid bill, along with the others in the package, is slated for Saturday morning. Israel finds itself in a precarious position, also engaged in a separate conflict with Hezbollah on its northern border while pledging to respond to Iran's strikes last week. However, Israel is absolutely taking advantage of the world's diverted attention. Recent discussions between the Biden administration and Israeli officials suggest some form of approval for a ground invasion in Rafah is still to come. In the entirety of Gaza, from the dire famine in the north to the desperation of refugees now packed into the densely populated south, the upcoming days and weeks will be critical. It's essential to remember that at the root of both the Israeli and Iranian strikes lies the failure of Israel and Hamas to reach a ceasefire there. To this end, the world's attention should not waver.

What a breath of fresh air Republican Gov. Jeff Landry brought
to Louisiana with his first State of the State Address.

Over the past eight years, Democrat former Gov.
John Bel Edwards used these annual opportunities to harangue Louisianans,
telling them through a litany of bad policy preferences drawing his rhetorical
support that they had to shape up by doing this, that, or the other – and
whatever these things were, they were not appealing to our better instincts,
but delivered as orders from an overseer to his chattel with government-centric
options leading the way. Orwellian language abounded, with tax increases termed
as "revenue enhancements," increased spending as "investments," and depopulation,
declining job numbers, and more able-bodied adults sitting out the labor force as
markers of economic success.

By great contrast, Landry's maiden address
discussed how government was to facilitate individuals' abilities to enrich their
life prospects by reserving its activities to its proper sphere. While he didn't
go into details, he drew upon a governing philosophy alien to the liberal
populism of Edwards and his predecessors spanning nearly a previous century – keeping
the citizenry safe from deviant human behavior and the vagaries of nature (by
using evidence-based approaches), building and maintaining cost-effective and
value-driven infrastructure, providing economic incentives that lead to people making
choices for productive behavior that contributes to improving society's overall
well-being, and limiting redistribution of what government takes from producers
only to those whose physical circumstances or paucity of innate abilities or
whom have suffered genuine bad luck, who cannot contribute in that fashion.

Preferring to draw upon broader themes with strategic
use of data to support his views, he drew attention to three policy areas, all
of which exemplified his approach that in policy-making government should
empower people by not empowering itself. In elementary and secondary education,
which he identified as the prequel to economic improvement, noting how the
state ranks lowly (among the
bottom ten) while spending
more per pupil than many states, he advocated for a diminution of the
government monopoly model that narrows families' educational options, constrains
teachers, and encourages faddish orthodoxies at the expense of real learning.
He backed education savings accounts, where money follows the student, and
enhancing choice as the means by which to accomplish this transformation.

Landry also commented upon the state's stifling
approach to occupational licensing, calling upon streamlining and jettisoning unnecessary
rules. The state regulates
more jobs than any other state (as well as making it difficult to transfer
licenses from elsewhere) and according to one watchdog organization in overall
terms ranks sixth most onerous. And, he emphasized that the state's property
insurance struggles could be solved through lifting unnecessarily burdensome regulation.

However, Landry sees the degree of corrective
state policy as beyond statute. In addition to these policy preferences, he
also called upon the Legislature to establish parameters for a constitutional
convention next year, a document he sees as too protective of certain special interests
that needlessly complicates and constricts governing.

As well, Landry noted how some quarters – read leftists
and Democrats whose rearguard actions over the past two decades to preserve
liberal populism in governance have been breached in 2024's first two months with
the crevasse ever widening – complained that his policy changes, by executive
action and legislative agreement, supposedly moved too quickly, to which he had
an answer: when so far behind (implying that these forces had caused that), you
had to run faster to catch up.

Landry appears to have recognized from the moment
of his early general election win two important things about executive success:
move quickly and use a big majority, which he had at the polls and has in the
Legislature, to make big changes. Whatever momentum loss he may have experienced
from the first reapportionment special session that disgruntled some of his GOP
legislative allies by having to inflict a partisan loss upon their party, he
regained quickly in the second special session focusing on crime solutions. His
address presaged more big moves to come, and more heartburn for his ideological
opponents.

So that's it then. Earlier this week, Turkey's parliament voted to endorse Sweden's bid to join NATO. Sweden has been trying to accede to the alliance since 2022, and while all NATO members must approve before it can join, Hungary now remains the lone holdout. (Finland successfully joined NATO back in April 2023 and the Hungarian impasse over Sweden is likely to break soon too.)
Yet it's the vote by Turkey that especially stands out. It shows just how bipolar NATO has become—and why so many Americans in the national-interest-first age of Donald Trump have grown skeptical of the alliance.
NATO was founded in 1949 as a mutual security compact between the United States, Canada, and ten Western European countries. It came into being as a means of both pursuing a post-war consensus in Europe and countering Soviet aggression. Yet over time NATO has encroached eastward, gobbling up new nations and inching closer to the Russian border. This has led Russia to fear that NATO expansionism could threaten its own diplomatic relations and sovereignty within its global neighborhood.
Meanwhile, another trend has taken hold: NATO has become "the U.S. and all the rest." The NATO charter requires member states to spend at least 2% of their GDPs on defense yet only 10 out of 31 of them do: the United States, the United Kingdom, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Estonia. And while military buildups in Eastern Europe in response to Russian aggression are laudable, the U.S. is still far in the lead, having spent at least 3% of its GDP on defense for 21 years. Wealthy Canada spends just 1.2% of its GDP on defense.
To be in NATO is thus to be under the American security umbrella. And for many members, that's an opportunity to free-ride, to allow their own defenses to deteriorate because the most powerful military in the history of the world has their back.
Yet if most NATO members are thinking in cold fiscal terms, the U.S. can be far more idealistic in its approach. Countries are increasingly being inducted into NATO based less on what they can contribute than what values they espouse. So it was that in 2017, Montenegro joined NATO. Montenegro is a tiny Balkan nation with fewer people than Vermont and an armed forces of just over 2,300 active-duty members. But it was also another brick in the "pro-democracy" bloc and an opportunity to poke that dictator Vladimir Putin in the eyes. So in it went.
This is why Turkey agreeing to vote Sweden into NATO is so beautifully representative. As late as 2018, Swedish defense spending hovered around 1%, and while recent investments are projected to push it above the 2% threshold, we're hardly talking about a military powerhouse here. But having Sweden in NATO is an idealistic victory and a show of unity against Russia—it's the last Scandinavian nation not on the inside.
Turkey, meanwhile, is an altogether different story. Its government is authoritarian in all but name, has flirted with Islamism, and maintains strong relations with Russia. Turkey has also been a part of the alliance since 1951 when it emerged as an opponent of Soviet power. America today maintains an important airbase there with easy access to theaters in the Middle East. So Turkey stays in, largely for strategic reasons.
But then that just shows what a muddle NATO has become. Because which is it? Is it an alliance of like-minded democracies that seeks to defend liberal values? Or is it a cold-eyed bloc on the Risk board meant to counter threats from the East? The latter is truer to NATO's historical purpose while the former is more representative of our post-Soviet world. It's an identity crisis that doesn't seem easily untangled.
Turkey held out for months on allowing Sweden to join, complaining that the Swedes were going too easy on the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which Ankara (as well as the U.S. and EU) consider a terrorist group. Sweden helped break this impasse by cracking down on support for Kurdish terrorists back home. Yet there may be another reason why Turkey suddenly warmed to Sweden. The day after its parliament vote, President Joe Biden sent a letter to Congress demanding they approve an additional $20 billion in F-16 fighter jets for the Turkish military.
Maybe that's just the price we pay for the privilege of paying for Sweden. Idealism? Realism? Either way one thing remains clear: America will always foot the bill.

 A day or two ago, a column by Bret Stephens said a Harvard/Harris poll  "finds that 44 percent of Americans ages 25 to 34, and a whopping 67 percent of those ages 18 to 24, agree with the proposition that 'Jews as a class are oppressors.' . . . . The same generation that received the most instruction in the virtues of tolerance is now the most antisemitic in recent memory."  I've seen several other references to that poll since then.  The full question is "Do you think that Jews as a class are oppressors and should be treated as oppressors or is that a false ideology?"  Some people have observed that other recent surveys suggest much lower levels of anti-Semitism.  But then how do you explain the Harvard/Harris results?  I think that the key is in a question that comes just before "There is an ideology that white people are oppressors and nonwhite people and people of certain groups have been oppressed and as a result should be favored today at universities and for employment. Do you support or oppose this ideology?"    That's followed by a question on "Do you think this ideology is helpful or hurtful to our society?" and then the question about whether Jews are oppressors.  Comparing the percent agreeing that white people and Jews are oppressors by age:              Whites           Jews18-24      79%              67%25-34      49%              44%35-44      39%              36%45-54      33%              24%55-64      26%              15%65+         19%                9%Support for the statement that Jews are oppressors is consistently a little lower than support for the statement that white people are oppressors.  So the most plausible interpretation of the results for that question is that most people who agreed that white people are oppressors regard Jews as white people rather than "nonwhite people and people of certain groups."  In any case, if you accept the results for the question on Jews as evidence of widespread anti-Semitism among young people, you have to accept the results for the previous question as evidence of even more widespread "anti-whitism."  My interpretation of the results on the first question is that people treated it as about general recognition of racial injustice and/or support for affirmative action, although it's so badly worded that it's hard to be sure.  A couple of other points on the Harvard/Harris survey:1.  The general direction of the age differences is reasonable, but they seem implausibly large for many questions.  I suspect there's something wrong with either their sample (an online panel) or their weighting.2.  Many of the questions could serve as examples of things to avoid when writing survey questions.  And on anti-Semitism:1.  I think that, like other kinds of ethnic and religious prejudice, it is declining, and there's less of it in younger generations.2.  However, more than other kinds of prejudice, anti-Semitism tends to be elaborated into a comprehensive world-view.  That makes it more harmful than the numbers alone would suggest.3.  There is an anti-Semitism of the left.  People on the left used to be aware of this--"anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools" was a well-known expression in the early days of the German Social Democratic Party--but I think that recognition has faded, and leftists now often assume that anti-Semitism just involves people like Richard Spencer and isn't something they need to look out for on their side.  

A group of faculty at Penn have written A Vision for a New Future of the University of Pennsylvania at https://pennforward.com/.  They encourage signatures, even if you're not associated with Penn. I signed. Big picture: Universities stand at a crossroads. Do universities choose pursuit of knowledge, the robust open and uncomfortable debate that requires; excellence and meritocracy, even if as in the past that has meant admitting socially disfavored groups? Or do universities exist to advance, advocate for, and inculcate a particular political agenda? Choose.  Returning to the former will require structural changes, and founding documents are an important part of that rebuilding effort.  For example, Penn and Stanford are searching for new presidents. A joint statement by board and president that this document will guide rebuilding efforts could be quite useful in guiding that search and the new Presidents' house-cleaning. There is some danger in excerpting such a document, but here are a few tasty morsels: Principles:Penn's sole aim going forward will be to foster excellence in research and education.Specifics:Intellectual diversity and openness of thought.  The University of Pennsylvania's core mission is the pursuit, enhancement, and dissemination of knowledge and of the free exchange of ideas that is necessary to that goal.....Civil discourse.  The University of Pennsylvania ... acknowledges that no party possesses the moral authority to monopolize the truth or censor opponents and that incorrect hypotheses are rejected only by argument and persuasion, logic and evidence, not suppression or ad-hominen attacks. Political neutrality at the level of administration.  ... In their capacity as university representatives, administrators will abstain from commenting on societal and political events...The University must remain neutral to scientific investigation, respect the scientific method, and strive to include many and varied approaches in its research orientation.Admissions, hiring, promotion ... No factor such as gender, ethnicity, nationality, political views, sexual orientation, or religious associations shall be considered over merit in any decision related to the appointment, advancement, or reappointment of academic, administrative, or support staff at any level. Excellence in research, teaching, and service shall drive every appointment, advancement, reappointment, or hiring decision.no factor such as gender, ethnicity, nationality, political views, sexual orientation, or religious associations shall be considered in any decision related to student admission and aid. Faculty committed to academic excellence must have a supervisory role in the admission process of undergraduate, graduate, and professional students. Admission policies should prioritize the fair treatment of each individual applicant, and criteria must be objective, transparent, and clearly communicated to all community members. Faculty have outsourced admissions to bureaucrats. While the cats are away, the mice play. Faculty complain the students are dumb snowflakes. Well, read some files. And no more "bad personality" scores for asians. Education:A central goal of education is to train students to be critical thinkers, virtuous citizens, and ethical participants in free and open but civilized and respectful debate that produces, refines, and transmits knowledge. Competition:as Penn's competitors struggle to define their mission and lose their focus on this manner of excellence, Penn has a unique opportunity to emerge as a globally leading academic institution in an ever more competitive international landscape....An unconditional commitment to academic excellence will become Penn's key comparative advantage in the decades to come. As many other universities in Europe and the U.S. compromise their hiring decisions by including other non-academic criteria, Penn will be able to hire outstanding talent that otherwise would have been hard to attract. I have been puzzled that the self-immolation of (formerly) elite universities has not led to a dash for quality in the second ranks. There is a lot of great talent for sale cheap. But many second rank schools seem to have bought in to The Agenda even more strongly than the elite. I guess they used to copy the elite desire for research, and now they copy the elite desire for fashionable politics. Or perhaps donors government, alumni or whatever it is that universities compete for  also are more interested in the size of the DEI bureaucracy than the research accomplishments and teaching quality of the faculty or the competence of the students. Clearly, the writers of this document think in the long run competition will return to the production and dissemination of knowledge, and that universities that reform first will win.  

 There's been a lot of discussion of the evasive answers given by the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT to a question on whether a call for genocide against the Jewish people would violate their institution's code of conduct.  But one point that has rarely been mentioned is that there's no evidence that anyone at those universities, or any other university, has called for genocide against the Jewish people.  The premise of the question was that certain slogans , like "from the river to the sea," are equivalent to calls for genocide.   What do people who say "from the river to the sea" mean?  I think that the great majority would say they want a secular state encompassing what is now Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank in which Jews, Muslims, and people of other religions all are equal.  It's easy to see why this vision would be appealing, especially for Americans.  Of course, you could object that it's naive and unrealistic, but student politics (and let's face it, faculty politics too) often involves taking stands on principle with little regard to practicality.  There is a poll that bears on this issue--it has a question on whether Israel should "remain a Jewish state," "become a mixed state in which Palestinians have a major share of power," or "should no longer exist as an independent country."  Unfortunately, it's from 2002, but it's the only one I could find that asks about general vision for the future.  Overall, 42% said Israel should remain a Jewish state, 39% that it should become a mixed state, 6% that it should no longer exist, and 14% didn't know.  Some factors that were related to opinions (from now on, the base for the percentages excludes don't knows):1.  Religion--there were only 19 Jews in the sample, and all 19 said Israel should remain a Jewish state.  Among Protestants, 56% said it should remain a Jewish state, 37% that it should become a mixed state; Catholics favored a mixed state by 60%-34%.  People with no religion were in between.  2.  Race--blacks were more likely to say Israel should not exist (18%-6%).  Support for a mixed state was highest among Hispanics (53%).3.  Education--more educated people were more likely to say Israel should become a mixed state and less likely to say it should not exist, but the differences were not very big (50%-39%-11% among people without a high school degree, 47%-49%-5% among college graduates).  4.   Age--younger people were more likely to say that Israel should become a mixed state--support for that option fell from 54% among people aged 18-29 to 31% among people aged 65 and above.  5.  Party--Republicans were somewhat more likely to say Israel should remain a Jewish state, and Democrats more likely to favor the other two options.  But the highest support for a "mixed state" was among independents (57%, against 39% among both Democrats and Republicans).  Independents tend to have less political knowledge and interest, so I think this shows that the mixed position has an intuitive appeal.  These results raise a question of why political elites pretend the "mixed" position doesn't exist rather than trying to explain why it wouldn't work.  Of course, part of the answer is just the search for political advantage--discrediting an opinion is often more appealing than engaging with it.  Another is that it's a fringe position among political elites, so they don't realize that it's fairly popular among the public.  And finally, there's the "anti-elitist" mood that I've remarked on before:  people who (rightly) say that we should try to understand working-class Trump voters rather than just condemning them as racist will go straight to condemning college students, especially Ivy Leaguers, as anti-Semitic.  [Data from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research]

UPDATE 12/6/23, 5:30 p.m. : The Senate fails to approve the supplemental package by a vote of 49-51.President Joe Biden implored the Senate to vote in favor of his proposed supplemental package, saying that "history is going to judge harshly those who turn their back on freedom's cause," during remarks delivered in advance of an expected vote on the legislation later on Wednesday.The $106 billion spending bill includes funds for Israel and the Asia-Pacific, but Biden's nine-minute speech was almost entirely dedicated to the imperative of supporting Ukraine in their war effort. The supplemental contains approximately $61 billion in aid for Kyiv. "Congress needs to pass supplemental funding for Ukraine before they break for the holiday recess," Biden said. "It's as simple as that." His administration earlier this week urged Congressional leaders to pass this bill, telling them that the Pentagon was close to exhausting all of the funds that had been allocated to Kyiv. Biden spent much of his remarks criticizing members of the Republican Party who have soured on giving more aid to Ukraine, and who have insisted that Democrats acquiesce to their demands on border security policy in exchange for their support for the supplemental. "Extreme Republicans are playing chicken with our national security, holding Ukraine's funding hostage to their extreme partisan border policies," the president said, calling the cessation of U.S. support "the greatest gift [Russian President Vladimir Putin] could hope for." But Biden did not address many of the concerns that Republicans have raised about continuing aid to Ukraine, concerns that were reiterated in a statement that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) made earlier this week, which read, in part: "The Biden administration has failed to substantively address any of my conference's legitimate concerns about the lack of a clear strategy in Ukraine, a path to resolving the conflict, or a plan for adequately ensuring accountability for aid provided by American taxpayers.""Part of winning approval from Congressional doubters on Ukraine is to present a viable strategy for ending the war that amounts to more than Biden's vague 'as long as it takes' approach. Biden has not done that," George Beebe, director of Grand Strategy at the Quincy Institute tells RS. "He is not proposing any shift in America's strategy to account for the failure of Ukraine's counteroffensive to break through Russian defenses. Ukraine is simply not going to be able to drive all Russian forces off all Ukrainian land."Biden nonetheless appears determined to stay the course, saying that he is "not prepared to walk away."In Biden's telling, the failure to arm Ukraine would allow Putin to continue to march through Europe — raising the risk of direct confrontation between Washington and Moscow — while also emboldening other would-be aggressors elsewhere. "The entire world is watching," Biden said. Beebe, who has made the case for a shift to a "defensive strategy" for Ukraine, says that the administration's current approach is not sustainable, noting that both Ukraine's reserves of manpower and political patience in Washington and European capitals are dwindling. "We must couple this defensive strategy to a diplomatic offensive aimed at bringing about a stable armistice, because Ukraine is unlikely to weather a long war of attrition with much more populous and militarily capable Russia," Beebe tells RS. "Biden, however, appears to be ruling out any diplomatic compromise, insisting that Putin and Russia must be held accountable for their crimes. Biden's stay-the-course approach is a formula for failure." The Senate is slated to vote on the supplemental package on Wednesday, but the bill is expected to fail, given the lack of progress on border security negotiations. Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn't cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraft so that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2024. Happy Holidays!

The old aphorism that you never should quarrel with
somebody who buys ink by the barrel may become less and less valid with the
ascension of Republican Atty. Gen. Jeff
Landry to Louisiana governor next year.

Landry won outright the contest earlier this month
and has hit the ground running. Among the things he has begun preparing for is influencing
the new Legislature, set to have supermajorities of his party in both chambers,
in its selection of leadership with which he is comfortable. Already his
expressed preference for GOP state Sen. Cameron Henry appears
to have landed Henry the Senate presidency for next term.

But there's still a House speakership up for
grabs, with multiple reports that Landry hasn't stumped for a particular
individual but did provide input, accepted by the chamber's GOP, that it settle
upon one candidate and that the membership vote only for that candidate when
the time comes in early January. In fact, Landry's transition office released a
letter, signed by every Republican attempting to win that vote and Landry, agreeing
to that. This will prevent a scenario such as in 2020 when a
Republican-preferred Republican lost out to a Democrat-preferred Republican in
the speaker's contest, which diluted GOP efforts to enact a conservative agenda
over the course of the term.

This story was reported succinctly from The
Hayride website, known as a conservative opinion site whose articles also
contain news. Almost simultaneously, about 11 hours after the letter was
produced, a story on the subject appeared on the Louisiana
Illuminator site, ostensibly a news site but which injects left-wing
opinion into its designated news articles.

Except that story was much less complete and
accurate about the events reported by The Hayride, written by its publisher
Scott McKay. Julia O'Donoghue, who once covered state politics for the New
Orleans Times-Picayune before it was subsumed into the Baton Rouge
Advocate chain, authored that one, which only mentioned the apparent half-dozen
speaker candidates – actually a later addition to the piece, where the original
had mentioned only two – met with Landry, without any mention of an agreement
or what it constituted or who was involved.

It's obvious what happened – the Hayride scooped
the Illuminator because the speaker candidates kept O'Donoghue in the dark
while alerting McKay, whom Landry also contacted. Landry generally is a fan of
Hayride pieces for its analysis of Louisiana politics and the site is viewed
widely by GOP legislators. By contrast, Illuminator pieces often attempt to
criticize conservative issue preferences, sometimes being extremely selective
in the information and data reported to slant stories if not making inaccurate
assertions, to prop up a leftist agenda.

Landry's campaign frequently gave many media
outlets short shrift, particularly those it felt tending to inject bias against
him particularly and Republicans and conservatives generally. He and his campaign
generally ignored Illuminator attempts for information and sometimes stiffed
the Advocate and Gannett newspapers as well. He only participated in one
of several televised candidate forums organized by various media outlets and
interest groups, apparently without harming his campaigning.

This isn't that surprising as technology
increasingly gives candidates and government officials the ability to cut out
intermediaries like the media to go directly to voters and citizens, while
preserving them the option to reward favored outlets with in-depth news and
leaving others flailing. As the media environment has become harsher for
survival of traditional outlets with readership declines, having a politician
treating an outlet unfavorably has reversed the relationship. Instead of the
media being able to savage officials who were uncooperative, now officials can starve
the media of the information that grabs consumers with little penalty but which
causes difficulty for the media they ignore.

Of course, the two channels can intertwine. On
several occasions, Landry authored opinion pieces that appeared on The Hayride.
And officials have the ability to cooperate selectively, as demonstrated since the
election with Landry and other Republicans appearing more willing at least toanswer Illuminator inquiries.

Regardless, within weeks from now in Louisiana media
outlets that traditionally have shown hostility towards a conservative agenda,
whether confined to opinion pieces, may find their news gathering in the realm
of politics significantly more challenging and operating at a disadvantage to
outlets that have demonstrated more tolerance, if not affinity, for disseminating
news and opinion that put conservative issue preferences in a favorable light. Actual
reporting, not mere stenography of talking points released by leftist
interests, might become more common among Louisiana's media.

Looks like 1st Judicial District
Attorney James Stewart will
have to forgo any future George Soros bucks as he joined Republican Atty. Gen. Jeff Landry, Democrat 19th
Judicial District Attorney Hillar
Moore III, and several other district attorneys in defeating a gambit
backed by Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards.

This
week, these prosecutors reached a settlement
with the Louisiana
Board of Pardons and Committee on Parole over its prospective clemency
hearings concerning almost the entirety of Louisiana's death row. Contrary to
existing rules, the Board had scheduled to conduct reviews of 20 inmates under
capital sentences beginning Oct. 13 through Nov. 27, with perhaps more
afterwards. This prompted the suit from Landry and the DAs from all districts
with an inmate on the list, except for no party 4th DA Steve Tew, Republican 21st
DA Scott Perrilloux,
and 41st DA Democrat Jason Williams.

Edwards this spring had signaled, after years of strategic
obfuscation and caginess, that he opposed capital punishment. This dog whistle
activated anti-death penalty advocates to flood the Board with the requests. The
Board, after first refusing to breach its rules, acquiesced
to a request from Edwards to conduct the reviews, drawing upon an ambiguity
in the rules that allowed the governor to make such requests at any time, even
though Landry's office had opined that this exception was overridden by the scheduling
rules except in cases of imminent execution.

Whether the suit provided an excuse for the
Edwards-appointed board to rebuff him or it thought its legal position to hold
the hearings was untenable, it buckled. The settlement turns the hearings into
administrative reviews of records, with the actual clemency reviews occurring
no fewer than 60 days after but not before the last day of 2023. With Edwards'
term ending only days later, in effect that means only the first five inmate
reviews scheduled could occur and have rendered recommendations for clemency
before he leaves office.

Not that those five have any real chance of
garnering Board approval. They comprise probably the most heinous and notorious
crimes committed of all death row occupants. And it's highly unlikely that Edwards'
successor would grant clemency even if the Board advised so on any of the other
15. The agreement also limits consideration to just those 20.

In essence, the agreement checkmated the subversive
attempt by Edwards and special interests to moot Louisiana law allowing for
capital punishment. It also makes Stewart's membership in the "progressive prosecutors"
club rather tenuous.

Stewart won office in a special election in 2015
in part based upon at least giving lip service to that agenda, which argues
that typical, by-the-book prosecuting decisions lead to disproportionate
incarceration of nonwhites and the poor, so decisions about pretrial detainment
and charging or seeking indictments should deemphasize incarceration of, if not
pleading down or refusing to prosecute cases involving, disproportionately nonwhites
and the poor. Part of that is virulent opposition to capital punishment, as it
falls disproportionately on nonwhites and the poor.

Such rhetoric netted Stewart nearly $1 million
bucks in spending towards his initial election, much of it coming from Soros
initiatives to elect progressive prosecutors. But Stewart hasn't exactly gotten
with the program as far as the death penalty goes. Although in past statements acknowledging
great reluctance to ask for capital sentences, he never ruled it out completely
and did
seek it in one case although the jury couldn't agree on that sentence and
in another initially
did so but reversed that when he believed he couldn't get a jury to agree. And
he has continued to defend predecessors' cases resulting in such sentences,
with his joining the suit as the latest manifestation of that.

In his 2020 reelection, Soros money noticeably was
absent. Probably now with his latest support of existing capital sentences, it's
definitely off the table, although given he won reelection without difficulty
he doesn't seem to need it. And the fact he did win denotes, as far as the
voting public goes, it's satisfied with his position on the issue that now
disappoints and frustrates anti-capital punishment ideologues even as he
intermittently reminds the public that he still puts himself in the progressive
camp.

UPDATE: 9/28 11 p.m. EST: A similar amendment to the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, offered by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Jim McGovern (R-Mass.) was defeated on the floor on Thursday night. The amendment received more votes than original effort, with 178 members voting in favor. Ninety Republicans and 88 Democrats supported Thursday's measure. "Cluster bombs undermine our effort to promote human rights and dignity everywhere. ... Unexploded cluster munitions have maimed or killed countless civilians over the last few decades, including an outrageous number of children," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) during the floor debate. "We are still spending millions of dollars to clean up cluster munitions used in Southeast Asia decades ago. We cannot be complicit in their further spread.""We shouldn't be providing [cluster munitions] to any other country," added Rep. Massie. "And certainly not under the guise of 'world peace,' because they last for years and years in many cases." A bipartisan amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act which would have banned the transfer of cluster munitions introduced was defeated on the floor on Wednesday. The amendment, introduced by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), was rejected by a vote of 160 - 269. It was the latest in a series of Congressional efforts to reverse the Biden administration's July decision to provide Kyiv with the controversial weapon."These cluster bombs are indiscriminate," Gaetz said on the House floor Wednesday. "They've killed tens of thousands of people... and when this is all done, we'll be right back here on the floor appropriating money to de-mine the cluster bombs that we're now sending, which seems ludicrous to me."The effort on Wednesday was a bipartisan one, with 75 Democrats and 85 Republicans voting in favor of the measure. Twenty-six more Democratic members supported this amendment than did one introduced over the summer, which would have specifically barred the transfer of cluster bombs to Ukraine."Many of us have this idea of American exceptionalism, that America is set apart from the rest of the world. Well, that's certainly true when it comes to cluster munitions —and not in the way that we want. America is an outlier," said Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), the lead Democratic co-sponsor, during a debate over the amendment earlier on Wednesday. The United States is not among the 112 state parties that signed the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions. "These weapons maim and kill indiscriminately. (...) These bomblets are small, colorful, and interesting shapes, so to children they look like toys. So when kids find these unexploded bomblets found in trees, or in the water, or simply on the ground, and try to pick them up and play with them, they can lose a limb or their life in the blink of an eye," added Jacobs. ""The human cost is far too high to justify."Since World War II, cluster munitions have killed an estimated 56,500 to 86,500 civilians and they often detonate months or years after the conclusion of a conflict . The House first attempted a similar maneuver in July, when Jacobs and Rep. Ilhan Omar (R-Minn.) introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would have prevented the export of cluster munitions. The effort created some bipartisan momentum, but was eventually derailed after the House Rules Committee elected to block the bipartisan proposal in favor of a new amendment sponsored by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) that would only stop transfers to Ukraine. The last minute switch prompted speculation that supporters of transferring the munitions had put a "poison pill" into the amendment by making the controversial Greene the lead sponsor.Opposition to cluster munitions is one of the only places that the Biden administration has faced any pushback from its party over Ukraine policy. "The decision by the Biden administration to transfer cluster munitions to Ukraine was unnecessary and a sad mistake," said Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) during the debate on the floor. "Cluster ammunition into the battlefield in Ukraine undermines our moral authority. The legacy of cluster munitions is misery, death, and expensive clean up after generations of use."