Archive for the ‘Communism’ Category

Get ‘Em While They’re Young Current Affairs – Current Affairs

Whatever misdeed I committed in a previous life must have been a doozy indeed, because a certain cruel editor of a particular leftist magazine, lets call it Contemporary Episodes, has once more sent me a fever dream in a box. On my desk is a package containing copies of the Heroes of Liberty library, a series of right-wing books for kids 7-12 years of age. I have a childrens book on Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one on conservative pundit Thomas Sowell, and finally U.S. president Ronald Reagan.

The box of books is on my desk because of a very slightly critical review I wrote in 2020 for this magazine of a publishing project called The Tuttle Twins, which is a series of kids books that teach a variety of libertarian lessons, like that some workers are more valuable than others and that governments suppress free markets. My review of this political propaganda for kids of pre-critical thinking age was extremely gently critical, concluding that the series was a hideous fraud and an ugly twisted farce. My good-natured ribbing led to it being covered by some of the big, well-funded libertarian propaganda entities and right-wing think tanks, including the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the CATO Institute. This coverage largely consisted of gloating that the mean review made for good ad copy and that more copies of the books had been sold as a result. Typical for the right, the response was to brag about their economic power rather than respond to any of the substantive arguments I made.

I am now, then, this magazines designated book reviewer for the niche but apparently burgeoning subgenre of reactionary childrens literature. And so let us proceed to the present offering: Heroes of Liberty. These new books have the characteristic giant size and conspicuous thinness of books for kids still learning how to read and enjoy it. Theyre sturdy, with pretty colors and pleasing art design.

They are also the dark bile of the infected toe of the Devil himself. Lacking even the dark sincerity that came from the dedication of the writer of the dreadful Tuttle Twins series, these books are pure synthetic propaganda made to appease the demand of a Sheldon Adelson or a Charles Koch that the children get more naked conservative propaganda in their diets. So lets have a look at the effort to make some really young Republicans.

Lets start with Justice Barrett. Barrett, of course, is most popularly known for her recent receptiveness to striking down major portions of the Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion for the first trimester of pregnancy. Striking down the ruling would activate various trigger laws and related acts enacted in a majority of U.S. states that ban the practice, drastically restricting access to family planning and reproductive health care for millions of womenespecially women without the money to travel to a blue state for the procedure. Access to abortion remains widely popular in the U.S., but our limited level of democracy means this need not shape policy.

The Heroes of Liberty book does not trouble its juvenile reader with such unpleasantness. We learn that Barrett works in the Supreme Court, in a big, white, majestic building, and Amy has a very sharp mind. She also has a very big heart: shes the mother of seven children, two of whom she adopted because they had no home of their own. We get her life storybig Catholic family, good student, oldest kid driving the little ones around in a LeSabre. Great humanizing detail.

The art in this book is truly abhorrent, the worst in the books I read. Its a really weird watercolor-y software-generated look with Munchian flowing colors next to photorealistic renderings of peoples faces. The artist credit doesnt specify a medium, but Id guess an illustration program named MigraineSoft.

Barrett goes to Notre Dame and learns about our Constitution which gives us freedom and democratic government, with a fun Supreme Court to make sure that our laws and our government follow the Constitution. Barrett gets married, has kids, and adopts a Haitian child who was very quiet and rarely got enough to eat. She was too weak to sit up or even to cry. This is followed by an illustration of a TV-ready moment showing her taking the child from their hellish country. The couple wanted to collect more orphans, but they couldnt. The government of Haiti had made everything so complicated: there were too many offices and too many officials who created so much red tape. In the end, the government would not let him go.

But then, great news! The catastrophic Haitian earthquake of 2010 strikes, and the government has a change of heart. Amys eyes welled with tears. Notably, the orphanage where the Barretts adoptee, John Peter, lived was typical of many in Haiti, as the New York Times observed, as many werent literal orphanstheir parents simply couldnt afford to care for them. Notably, the U.S. overthrew the government of Haiti three times in the 20th century.

Barretts career takes off as she becomes a federal judge. She would get up early in the morning to work quietly at her desk while everyone else was still asleep. This way, she would have time to spend with her family later in the day. We learn the criminal justice system will put criminals in jail yet gives everyone a chance to try and prove his innocence. Barrett clerks for a jolly-looking man with impish eyes, a Justice Scalia who believes our laws should follow the Constitution precisely. Amy liked Justice Scalia a lot. She loved his big rolling laugh and his sense of humor. And his boyish charm while upholding sodomy laws and overturning the main part of the Voting Rights Act!

Barrett gets confirmed, and everyone is impressed that shes speaking without notes at her hearing. Barrett learned that as a justice she would have to put aside her own feelings. This is called being impartial. When you are a judge, your job is not to impose your own thoughts or views on someone else. It is to make sure that the law is followed and the Constitution is upheld.

The book concludes that her children are lucky to have her as a mother, and we are lucky to have her as a Supreme Court justice. Great kids stuff here, no way Star Wars can compete with this. Just a story about a lady who is smart and nice and becomes powerful and its our lucky day. Bet your life that one day a kid will read this book without realizing they exist because Barrett helped take away their moms ability to pick a family size.

Next, Thomas Sowell: A Self-Made Man. Readers familiar with the nonstop nightmare hellscape of U.S. media may recognize Sowell as a prominent Black conservative pundit, a libertarian with Ivy League credentials, an economics PhD from the conservative stronghold of the University of Chicago, dozens of books, and a nationally syndicated opinion column. He spent decades at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, a conservative think tank where he was the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy (readers will be familiar with my intergalactically best-selling book Capitalism vs. Freedom on the Friedmans and their bad ideas). Sowell was as regular a guest on Rush Limbaugh and Fox News as the phrase Black conservative intellectual makes you think he would be.

Thomas Sowell started out in life at a huge disadvantage. He was raised by his great aunt in a poor town in the South. Growing up, he never got the chance to know his mother and father. And he often had no money for new shoes or even for bus fare. But Thomas Sowell succeeded because wherever he went, and whatever he did, he never accepted anything he didnt think he deserved. He wanted nothing unearned and asked for nobodys pity. Thomas Sowell was determined to make it on his own. And he did.

Get it? Black people who dont take welfare succeed! Meaning they become nationally-known minority supporters of taking away income support and benefits from poor people, often disproportionately minorities. This is the real dark message of the whole reactionary kids publishing project: Take it from me, kid with no critical thinking skills, if you dont ask or expect anything like welfare or healthcare from the rich and powerful of society, and instead get a degree in defending them and then work in what is basically a parallel unaccredited university system of think thanks, you can be rich and go on big-time right-wing media and, as a nonwhite person, speak utterly conventional conservative platitudes and be a stupendous smash hit that brings down the house every time. Sure, the working class will slow-glide into misery and fascism while the ice caps melt, but by then youve had quite the career!

We get many pages on Sowells humble beginnings, with no water or power, in the days of Jim Crow laws in the South. These laws separated Americans based on color. It was unfair. There is no suggestion that this condition had anything to do with right-wing conservatism. (The book does not, for instance, mention that the leading conservative intellectual of the 20th century, William F. Buckley, spent these years defending Southern segregationism.) Sowell learns to read at a young age. His aunts partner takes him to church and presents him to the congregation, where the partner declares he is stepping down from his church duties to help raise Sowell, illustrated with a glowing scene before a gigantic cross.

The family moves to New York City, where teachers are alleged to have wanted Sowell to repeat the third grade, and because its a right-wing indoctrination book, the teachers are depicted as a bullying crowd of sneering freaks. Fortunately the principal, who is handsome, takes young Thomass side after he proves he can do fourth-grade math. Thomas stands up to bullies, moves out, takes part-time jobs, and when he loses his job, the book notes that he was sure about one thing, though: the answer wasnt begging or asking for favors. He would solve his own problems by himself, thank you very much. He cuts back on food until he gets a new job, with the clear implication: Kids, if you lose your job in some recession wave of million-person layoffs, solve the problem yourself ! Eat less! Eat day-old bread! That is literally what is depicted.

We get page after page of Sowell working with eyes downcast, and when he struggles, He didnt dwell on the past or blame Aunt Molly, their poverty, his teachers, or American society. He takes night classes, attends Harvard, and teaches economics at Cornell as an esteemed professor. He helps a Black international student through college by tutoring her rather than giving a mercy grade, and returned to the question of undeserved favors in his many books. He insisted that in the long run, they just dont help people improve their lives. If you give people something they didnt earn, they wouldnt learn how to earn it themselves.

Conspicuously, Barrett and Reagan are both portrayed as mainly responsible for their successful life trajectories, due to their hoary, clichd conservative values of Family and Work Ethic. But its just part of the story, as in most Western individual narrativesonly Sowells book foregrounds his self-madeness. Could it be because hes the Black one and the Right has a miles-long paranoid legacy of disparaging the work ethic of the Black population originally imported for slave labor? No, it could not.

One consolation in this monumentally evil celebration of knowing your place and conforming to the system is the art. Illustrator Carl Pearces work here is by far the best in the books I reviewed, with really lovely composition, and incredible feeling in the faces and playful charm in the children. Its a conservative book, so the teacher characters are evil, but their funny evil faces are fun to look at. Pearce does a ton of fine work here, especially considering the script hes working from. Just an impressive talent. Carl, draw for Current Affairs!

The books all end with a fun facts section, and Sowells includes this: Hes known for his witty observations. He once said: Its amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites. Hope you werent eating while reading that cheeky zinger, ho ho!

For his years of valuable service to the U.S. right wing, Sowell had his brushes with real power, too. He was offered the position of Secretary of Labor and, later, Educationterrible things to contemplate by president Ronald Reagan. His book is my last to read on this parade of disgrace.

Finally, Ronald Reagan. Leftist writers are known to have a habit of trying to be cool and neutral when discussing his administration and legacy, only to eventually crack and explode into ranty towering condemnations. Im sure that wont happen this time!

Ronald Reagan: Its Morning in America is a marquee selection for the series and longer than the others, as Saint Ronald is a mainstream conservative icon, often voted the greatest U.S. president. His administration has the real legacy of moving the worlds most important country firmly into todays neoliberal era of deregulated corporations, lower taxes on the rich, and crushed labor unions. Get ready, folks.

Ronald Reagan was one of Americas toughest presidents. That is why he was able to lead the free world to victory in the Cold War. The Cold War was a contest between two visions: freedom and communism. The United States led the free world. The fate of the world hung in the balance. But Ronald Reagan was not afraid. He called the communist bloc an Evil Empire, which is exactly what it was.

But the first story is of President Reagan being deeply moved by the story of Reginald Andrews, an unemployed Black man who saved a blind person who fell on subway tracks. Reagan called a meatpacking plant where Andrews had recently interviewed for a job. He put in a good word for Mr. Andrews. Mr. Andrews was overjoyed when he got the job. He had eight children to feed. It was December. Christmas was just a few days away.

Its an oddly-placed effort to whitewash Reagans racial record, which included fighting doggedly for years against sanctions on South Africas cruel apartheid regime. Reagan also doggedly resisted the creation of a national holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., resistance which continued until veto-proof Congressional majorities forced his hand.

Then its off to the mans life story. Salesman father, moves a lot, blows a ball game (aw!). Daddy drinks, little Ronald has to drag him in the front door one night, and, like a lot of children of dysfunctional families, he goes to Hollywood. Long before he became president, Americans all over the country came to know his warm and friendly voice, his big gleaming smile, and that twinkle in his eye when he delivered a punch line. But he worried about communism in particular. It posed a major threat to the American way of life.

In America, our government should protect our freedom, not run our lives for us. It should be up to each person to decide what is best for him or her, like which billionaires warehouse empire to work for. But the rotten Communists think the government knows better and that it should control every aspect of peoples lives. In communist countries, governments also think that people should believe in communism and not in God. There are people in America who believe in communism, too, and they want the government to have more control of our lives. Reagan thought they were dangerous. He decided to enter politics to oppose them.

This is a very healthy and even-handed portrayal of politics for young minds, and theyre right, socialists are dangerous. Youre in danger of socialists inflicting health coverage on you and negating your student loan debt. Youre in huge danger of a popular jobs program building clean energy. Look out! The real danger here is keeping kids from being seduced by our cool sexy ideas.

We see Reagans days as governor of California as he suppresses a hippie demonstration which in reality was about Israel-Palestine, but in the book is just because the demonstrators wont leave a public park. The signs in the illustration literally all say Our Park and We will not surrender this park, rather than, for example, Israel commits crimes against humanity. Some of the kids are even supporters of communism, and in the story they erupted in riots, attacking innocent cops. Reagan sends in the National Guard, who are shown helping the police while surrounded by mysterious clouds of something that is not commented upon.

Reagan gets elected and, when asked what his policy on the Cold War would be, he answered like a tough guy from the movies. His policy, he said, was simple: We win. They lose. Reagans speech writers did pitch at a level that feels natural in a kids book, Ill say that. Then, of course, we get the failed assassination attempt, which gets page after page of dramatic portrayal, but with no twist ending, sadly.

We then get the childs version of the end of the Cold War, because Reagan was bravely unsatisfied with the containment strategy that kept the USSR encircled by allies and bases, and he had a very smart plan. Since our free system incentivizes people to work harder and makes us much richer than the communists were, we could win by means of economic power to develop large, advanced, and expensive defense technologies which the Soviets couldnt afford. Ha, we out-waste-spended them! No mention of Russia also being poor because it hosted World War II. The Berlin Wall falls and the Soviet Union disintegrates.

The book concludes with Reagan shown next to Mount Rushmore, the Capitol, the Constitution, a Western landscape, a gigantic American flag, and a soaring eagle, declaring Ronald Reagan believed in God, family, and patriotism. He believed in personal liberty, democracy, and the free market. The government should never try to do for people what they ought to do for themselves. We should all be free to choose our own path in life. It concludes: as Ronald Reagan liked to remind us, its always morning in America.

Of course, the day that dawned with the Reagan Revolution was one of increasingly powerful billionaires, giant crash-prone banks, a labor movement smashed to smithereens, active denial of AIDS for years, a drug war that incarcerated millions of people (a disproportionate number of them Black people), years of austerity cuts to school lunches and public programs, steadily rising global temperatures, and U.S. support for blood-soaked dictators from Zia-ul-Haq to Saddam Hussein. It remains to be seen whether humanity can overcome his calamitous legacy of classes, crashes, and climate change. Reagan and his supporters belong to historys darkest pages, even if those pages are oversized and filled with pictures for kids.

The Heroes of Liberty series is growing, with a new book out this month on John Wayne, continuing the TV cowboy theme begun with Reagan, I guess. But the existing books are enough to draw the conclusion that the Heroes of Liberty series is an abhorrent enterprise to pack the minds of unsuspecting kids with excremental political brainwashing and to prejudice them against any progressive program of social uplift, from universal health care to closing the racial wealth gap. These godforsaken junior texts are the product of a leviathan of hyper-reactionary dark money and an online ad-buying conservative echo chamber striving to take the candy of social democracy away from the babies of the next generation. For years to come, in Americas bookstores, these books will be a lurking threat in the childrens section, like a creep in a raincoat.

I wash my brains of it!

See original here:
Get 'Em While They're Young Current Affairs - Current Affairs

Nehru set the foundation for Indo-Soviet friendship but never let it cloud his judgement – The Hindu

Ahead of his death anniversary next week, a look at how Nehru paved the way for an independent socialism in India

Ahead of his death anniversary next week, a look at how Nehru paved the way for an independent socialism in India

Soviet socialism, unlike the Chinese or other variants, compelled everyone to take a position owing to its universal claims, and Jawaharlal Nehru was no exception. His lasting response was that democracy with adult suffrage made the revolutionary seizure of power superfluous. This was his reply, not merely to the Soviet revolution but as much to the 19 thcentury ideal of the revolutionary coup dtat.

When he encountered Soviet communists in Europe in 1926-27, he complained, Personally I have the strongest objection to being led by the nose by the Russians or by anybody else. His four-day visit to Moscow in 1927 resulted in a booklet which has earned him in some circles the reputation of a fellow traveller. Such a person is a useful idiot, a non-communist apologist for the iniquities of communism.

This is curious since he found the country far from endearing. He was repelled by 1) the religious mentality; 2) the communist priesthood; 3) the ubiquitous propaganda; 4) the political dictatorship; 5) the unequal franchise where a worker enjoyed five votes to one for the peasant; 6) the devaluing of the individual citizen through group representation; and 7) outright class exclusions. He wrote admiringly of Lenin, but qualified it by describing him a fanatic; and after a visit to the mausoleum, he found that Even in death he is the dictator.

Nehru commented favourably on the Soviet prison system as reformatory rather than punitive. His polemical purpose was to contrast Soviet prisons with the barbarous British colonial ones with their handcuffs, fetters and other punishments. He followed this us up with another damning comment: it can be said without a shadow of doubt that to be in a Russian prison is far preferable than to be a worker in an Indian factory, whose lot is 10 to 11 hours of work a day and then to live in a crowded and dark and airless tenement, hardly fit for an animal.

His other positive observation concerned universal literacy, a Soviet success story in the 1920s, which historians have often noted. Again, it was set against the appalling British record in India. He took care not to be hostile, but he made clear that this was communism, a special world unto itself containing much that I do not like or admire.

He seemed uncritical only in his description of Nadezhda Krupskaya, that even a few minutes conversation with her discloses her charm. All reports said she was unattractive, slovenly and grimly austere. Nehru was a discriminating judge of feminine charms; but he seems to have lost it with Lenins widow.

His obsession with planning has often been ascribed to Soviet influence. But the idea of planning is an ancient socialist tradition dating to the 1830s, beginning with Henri de Saint-Simon, if he can be considered socialist, followed by Louis Blanc, and by the Fabians in Nehrus time. He had been attracted to the Fabians well before the Soviet revolution and his conversion to socialism in 1926-27. His early passion in the 1930s for planning, not only the material but also the spiritual life of the nation, owes something to these early socialists, especially Saint-Simon; but the Fabians would have been the proximate source of Nehrus ideas on the subject.

Non-alignment defined Nehru as much as planning did. Once again, he related it to socialism, not Soviet communism.

The European war economies then provided functioning models of planning. The German war economy masterminded by Walther Rathenau during World War I was the first example. Though capitalist, German centralised state monopolies provided Lenin a model for his early attempts at Soviet planning. During World War II, the British war economy was exemplary for its centralised efficiency. When Nehru launched his own planning exercises, he justified them more through the image of war than through socialism and the Soviet example.

He endlessly explained that war is conducted by planned effort, not by individual soldiers acting heroically on their own. He had the experience of the British war economy in mind, and if, as it seemed to him, it was possible for a rational and enlightened bureaucracy to rise to such heights, it should presumably be possible in India also in her war on poverty.

Soviet planning fascinated him for its extraordinary success in transforming a backward rural economy of the 1920s into a developed industrial economy in the 1930s capable of defeating the Nazi war machine. But the methods were barbarous and the human cost was hideous. He could not accept them for India; but then he did not face the prospect of total war either. In effect, his sources of inspiration for planning were the pre-Soviet socialist tradition, especially the Fabians, the non-socialist British war economy, and most of all, warfare itself.

Non-alignment defined Nehru as much as planning did. Once again, he related it to socialism, not Soviet communism. The logic of non-alignment was to retain and consolidate the independence so arduously won. It entailed being open to both sides in the Cold War but subordinate to neither. Since India was already totally exposed to the western world, non-alignment required exploring the communist, as also the entire decolonising world. This opening to the communist world has been blamed on his misguided socialism or the malign influence of V.K. Krishna Menon, all of which trivialise a considered strategic choice.

Nehru reasoned that his new state could not promote capitalism freely as that would lead back into the maw of imperialism, London and New York. Socialism would be the corrective.

But he could not endorse communism either, however sympathetic to or interested in the Soviet Union he may have been, as it demanded subservience to Moscow. Socialism was the corrective again. Nor could it be European socialism or social democracy owing to its complicity in imperialism. Hence, it was to be an independent socialism, a lonely road that India would tread. Such a socialism provided the ideological and intellectual backing to non-alignment. It was independent, not pro-Soviet.

While Nehru was indifferent or negative to Soviet theories and practices, he was distinctly positive to its geopolitical role. In the pre-War years, he noted that India and the Soviet Union had a common foe in imperialism. After the War, as he saw American supremacy replace the British with an even wider reach, he found the Soviet presence useful to contain the excesses of western dominance in the subcontinent. Without joining either side in the Cold War, he sought to soften the edges of the power blocs through his non-alignment as in his active diplomacy over Korea and Indo-China.

But the Soviet Union provided a vitally needed additional resource for diplomacy, economic development, and military supplies. He set the foundation for Indo-Soviet friendship as much as he did for good relations with America, but he never pursued either at the expense of the other as his critics and advisors on the left and right wanted him to do. More than anybody else in the political leadership, he maintained clarity on independence of choice, and never let Soviet friendship cloud his judgement.

The writer is the editor of Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru. This is the last in the essay series onNehru in theMagazine.

Go here to read the rest:
Nehru set the foundation for Indo-Soviet friendship but never let it cloud his judgement - The Hindu

Queen’s ‘utter astonishment’ after Yuri Gagarin ‘put hand on THIGH’ during communism rant – Express

The soviet astronaut, who was the first man in space, was sent on a worldwide tour in 1961 to promote communism. It was during this tour that he met the Queen, sitting down for breakfast with the monarch. Mr Gagarin's visit to the UK took place just three months after his historic flight into space.

The flight, which took place on 12 April 1961, lasted just 48 minutes.

Royal author Andrew Morton claimed that Mr Gagarin "dipped his hand to stroke her leg just above the knee", something which came to "the Queens utter astonishment".

Writing for the Daily Mail, he continued: "With admirable sang froid, she managed to keep a smile on her face as she sipped her coffee.

"Gagarin later explained that hed touched her leg in order to make sure she was real and not just an animated doll."

The astronaut, Mr Morton claimed, also admitted he was unsure as to which cutlery to use.

The Queen reportedly responded: "My dear Mr Gagarin, I was brought up in this palace but believe me, I still dont know in which order I should use all these forks and knives."

Royal protocol guides against touching members of the Royal Family unnecessarily.

But Mr Gagarin is not the only public figure to accidentally breach royal protocol.

LIVE UPDATES:Royal Family LIVE: Harry and Meghan face 'make or break' moment

"Everyone else has to, it doesn't matter who you are, even royals remove sunglasses when they meet royals."

Former US President Donald Trump has also made a number of blunders when meeting the Queen.

In June 2019, like Mr Gagarin, the Republican leader appeared to touch the Queen's back.

The incident, which took place during a state banquet, saw Mr Trump put his hand on her back as she rose from her seat.

And in 2009, Michelle Obama broke protocol by hugging the Queen.

In her memoir, Becoming, Ms Obama explained that she "did what's instinctive to me any time I feel connected to a new person."

See the original post here:
Queen's 'utter astonishment' after Yuri Gagarin 'put hand on THIGH' during communism rant - Express

When will real-life problems truly matter? | Letters to the editor – South Florida Sun Sentinel

[RELATED: Gov. Ron DeSantis designates Nov. 7th as 'Victims of Communism Day' in Florida]

A day devoted to victims of Communism in Florida? Really?

Of all the pressing matters our state faces, we do not need a special day thats an obvious political ploy to capture votes.

I have just had to pay an increase of more than 20% on my homeowners insurance. But I guess I can breathe easier, knowing that hot-button topics like abortion, critical race theory and being gay have been addressed by our current state administration.

When will the needs of citizens take precedence over the politics of retaining power?

Robert Hazelcorn, Cooper City

[RELATED: DeSantis signs 'Victims of Communism Day' into law for public schools]

I have read no dissent from this move by Floridas governor. How can Ron DeSantis compel students to learn about the victims of Communism most of whom are in foreign countries yet forbid students to learn about the victims of Jim Crow?

Where is the outrage?

Fred Gamble, Kerrville, TX

[RELATED: The Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe raises a question: Are more precedents next?]

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alitos draft opinion stated that the Constitution makes no reference to abortion, therefore women have no such right.

But nowhere in our Constitution does it state that any crazy person may own a gun; that corporations are people; or that government can take a persons private property and give it to another private person or business.

Nowhere does it say that money for public schools may be given to religious or private schools or that campaign contributions to political parties are equivalent to free speech.

Where in the Constitution does it say states have the authority to diminish the peoples right to vote?

Where does it say that nominees to the Supreme Court can lie to members of Congress at their confirmation hearings and get away with it? Justice Alito has made a very strong case for term limits on the court. The power of lifetime employment can easily be abused as we are witnessing now.

Mel Rubinstein, Fort Lauderdale

The term pro-life is so hypocritical.

It is well-established that many conservatives favor the death penalty, but not a womans right to choose what happens to her own body. By their reasoning, all life must be preserved. So how can they morally condone ending a life that has been independently sustained for many years? Isnt life itself sacred? A womans right to choose what happens to her own body saves two lives in the long run.

Barbra Nightingale, Hollywood

Reading your front-page May 7 news article, headlined Papers stand by textbook story, reminded me of Chico Marxs famous quote in the movie Duck Soup: Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?

If history is any indicator, my vote goes to the newspapers of record rather than the DeSantis administration, the Florida Department of Education and the Moms for Liberty group whose name means anything but.

Norman Berkowitz, Boynton Beach

[RELATED: When DeSantis stifles dissent, it makes us all victims | Editorial ]

Great editorial.

Thank you for standing against DeSantis self-promotion. Unfortunately, all of these new laws by DeSantis are restricting Floridas people and families and is sadly creating thousands of jobs for lawyers to argue all these questionable laws for years to come. Thanks for being a great newspaper!

Richard Alcott, Fort Lauderdale

See original here:
When will real-life problems truly matter? | Letters to the editor - South Florida Sun Sentinel

Kapital: Sparks of Revolution Review Communist City-Building? – Wccftech

GAME INFO

Kapital: Sparks of Revolution28th April, 2022

Platform PC

Publisher 1C Entertainment

Developer Lapovich Team

Kapital: Sparks of Revolution is purportedly a game about class struggle, set in the backdrop of a ruined capital city in an unnamed country after a war. A great war, one could say. I'd say it's meant to be Belarus - or some other eastern-European country - post World War One. I wouldn't be surprised either since the developer, Lapovich Team, is Belarusian. It's also possible the game has told me what the setting is, and while I couldn't swear to it, my subconscious could be yelling out the correct answer.

Either way, it's not important. You're starting from the beginning, just with the advantage of knowing where the technology will go. The aim is a simple one, keep your resources balanced and keep the three social classes happy. These three classes are the Workers, the Bourgeois, and the Nobles. So far, so 1917 Russia.

Tencent Acquires 1C Entertainment; Polish Group to Be Rebranded

Let's talk about classes. The sad reality is that even in a supposed communist state, class systems still exist. Communism, if it worked as it is on paper, would no doubt be the ideal way to live. Everybody would be equal, and nobody would be left wanting. Universal healthcare and social welfare is, factually, a good thing. The states to have claimed themselves as communists never were, and the current "Communist" state, run by the Chinese Communist Party, is not communist. No country has ever been communist, and no country ever will be. This is something that Kapital: Sparks of Revolution sort of gets across, or I saw this while playing the game.

The name isn't missed on me, clearly pointing toward Karl Marx's work, Capital (Das Kapital, in his native tongue). This blunt nature is visible throughout the campaign, which is essentially the sandbox but gives you some specific orders on the way and forces you down particular paths. For example, having your the train - your source of grain - getting hijacked, pushing you to research a specific technology and then sending folks off to rescue it.

Another difference is the text-based dialogue with these specific missions and progression beats. You've got a character representing each of the three classes, with extra characters representing the healthcare system, the secret police, etc. Most of the time, you find the working-class representative having a go at the nobles, with some quips at the Bourgeois. Other times, you'll find a former soldier pushing you to take as many authoritarian choices as possible. It's all but showing you, possibly without meaning to, why Communism will never work and why humanity is screwed: people are self-serving and have far too many vested interests.

So why have I spoken about all that, only loosely linking it into Kapital: Sparks of Revolution? I've already dropped you that hint; the campaign and the sandbox are essentially the same. They use the same map; it's just that you get to change a few starting aspects on the sandbox and have a bit more freedom in which direction you want to go in the progression of your city, all while managing the balance of your people.

Kings Bounty II Goes Gold Gets First Gameplay Trailer & PC Specs

Managing this balance will not be new to people who have played other city-building simulators before. You've been balancing population happiness repeatedly in the past, just with different labels (Residential, Commercial and Industrial in Cities: Skylines, for example). Here in Kapital: Sparks of Revolution, you're doing the same, and for the most part - if you've got the resources - you'll not struggle. Then again, I'm saying that, but one of my games ended in a mass riot. The nobles were the ones rioting; the bunch of needy gits that they are, wanted me to clear up the hundreds of corpses on the street, having all died of starvation.

My capital sounds more like a Belarusian city the more I talk about it. I've got the great famine of Russia of 1920-21 (Belarus was a part of it back then) on my mind. You have some tools for improving happiness, such as places for drink, ones for food and some shops. The workers go to one particular type; the bourgeois and nobles got to the other. Then it's just a case of making sure you have the resources. You can use the printing press and spend a great deal of money for a +10 boost, a bit of propaganda.

Also, make sure to have an efficient police force to solve crimes. You can interfere and determine which investigations they'll focus on, too. Maybe I should have focused on the case of the dead Noble? Possibly not, because you're also competing with corruption in every single government building, even the bloody hospital. It's an interesting tweak that reduces the efficiency of the particular facility based on the corruption level. You can only go on a corruption purge for one building, and it's got a fair cooldown. That and I often forget to go on a corruption purge.

You've always got more on top of your need to balance an ever-growing population, one growing even when people are dropping like flies and their corpses littering the street. You've also got to keep up with your research of more advanced buildings, ensure your workers are in the warehouses building up your resources and remember to enact new acts. It's in line with other city-builders, just not as detailed as the more extensive ones.

I can't say that aesthetically, admittedly. Kapital: Sparks of revolution is a good looking game, having that bit of extra colour that makes it pop when the populous lob Molotov Cocktails at your palace window. The designs of structures show good attention to detail, but the little things such as the people add to the effect.

The best I can honestly say about Kapital: Sparks of Revolution is that it's got the features you'd find in any good city builder. It's even got something extra thanks to the corruption system, but it doesn't have that depth to propel it to greatness. It doesn't help that there's only one map. The on-the-nose dialogue in the campaign is just that, but understandable if only to push the setting, not that it has as much impact as I think it would like to have.

All things considered, I can recommend Kapital: Sparks of Revolution as a perfectly serviceable city builder. If you like that sort of game, you'll have a decent amount of time with it, and sometimes that's more than enough.

6

Kapital: Sparks of Revolution is a perfectly serviceable city building game that attempts to add class struggle and other aspects such as state corruption and intervention into the mix. While it doesn't achieve everything it set out to do, the ideas are there and offer something interesting to play. Where it added some of these interesting ideas, it has also sadly skimped on other core areas; there is only one map, and the balance isn't great with the game constantly threatening to overwhelm you. All things considered, I'd still recommend it for fans of the genre, just with the knowledge that it isn't the most detailed and better options exist.

Originally posted here:
Kapital: Sparks of Revolution Review Communist City-Building? - Wccftech