Mediaboss Marketing

The historian and scholar who hosted a lecture at the Alabama Department of Archives and History on LGBTQ+ history responded to Republican lawmakers threats to defund ADAH by calling their actions fascist.

The individual who said that is Dr. Maigen Sullivan, co-founder of the Invisible Histories Project. Sullivan specified that she isnt calling anyone a fascist, but, that the calls to restrict historical discussion of marginalized communities are fascist.

Restricting marginalized history is textbook fascism, Sullivan told APR. As a historian 100 percent, you cant get any clearer that erasing and prohibiting marginalized history in public spaces is fascism.

Sullivan noted that the first book burning that occurred in Nazi Germany, was for a sexuality clinic that focused on Trans and Queer studies.

Sullivans comments come after Sen. Chris Elliott, R-Josephine, said that he has a proposal to strip back a $5 million supplemental appropriation to ADAH because of the lecture that Sullivan gave. The lecture was not funded by ADAH, only hosted in their building.

My issue is, the underlying issue is sex, Elliott said as reported by Alabama Daily News. And I just dont know that we need to have that conversation with our children right now. Its just not stuff we ought to be talking about at Archives and History.

However, Sullivan stated that the discussion was not targeted towards children and there were not any children in attendance to the best of her recollection. Sullivan also said that the talk was not explicitly or overtly about sex it still does mention sex which she thinks we should not shy away from.

However, it is about sex I dont think we should shy away from that, Sullivan said. Just as much as genealogy, or were talking about the heir to the throne, children or marriage or anything is about sex, because that is who we are as people. This event was also not for children. It was an archive. I mean, how many kids do you know go to a lunch and learn at an archive?

Sullivan also said much of this outrage was manufactured for political points to rile up voters in a culture war but was dangerous because of the continued hate targeted towards queer people.

You can watch the presentation on YouTube here.

Read more:
A historian calls Republican threats to defund Alabama Archives ... - Alabama Political Reporter

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question youd like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com.

Why does it have to be Democrat vs. Republican in elections? Why cant it be Republican vs. Republican or Democrat vs. Democrat? Gianna, age 13, Phoenix, Arizona

Americans are used to having a lot of choices. What to wear today? What to eat? What to read?

Yet in so many elections when picking a president, state governor or mayor we seem to have only two choices: Vote for the Democrat or the Republican.

Why does the United States have a two-party political system?

As a political scientist who studies political parties particularly the Libertarian Party I can tell you there are other options.

Political scientists like me have a simple explanation for the United States two-party system: Duvergers law, named after French political scientist Maurice Duverger. It states that only two major parties will emerge whenever elections follow a set of rules known as single-winner plurality voting.

Single-winner means only one candidate can win a given election. Plurality voting means whoever gets the most votes wins. Under this system, a party is most likely to win if it runs (or nominates) only one candidate rather than allowing party supporters to split their votes among multiple candidates.

Many voters who prefer an independent or minor-party candidate might decide that it would be more practical to choose among the major-party candidates who have better odds of winning the election. Thus, even when more than two candidates appear on a ballot, voters often believe that they only have two choices: the Republican or Democrat.

Think of it this way: Suppose a teacher threw a class party and agreed to order whatever food the students wanted. There are just two rules: The teacher will order only one food item for the whole class (single-winner), and whichever food gets the most votes wins (plurality vote). Rather than 10 pizza lovers splitting their vote with six for cheese and four for pepperoni leaving seven ice cream fans to scoop up the victory they can unite behind one pizza flavor and win.

The same logic explains why the U.S. has a two-party system. When there can be only one winner, and the winner is whoever gets the most votes, people with similar but not identical preferences have good reason to find common ground and work together or else theyll lose. They must try to build a coalition of voters that is bigger than any other. In turn, that groups opponents will try to counter by enlarging their own coalition.

Thus, the rules for voting dictate that we end up with two large parties competing to be big enough to win the next election. While other options exist, many voters decide to pick between the only two that can win.

While a Democrat or Republican wins most elections in the United States, that doesnt mean voters can only have two choices. Consider these three points.

First, the U.S. Constitution does not allow for only two political parties. In fact, the Constitution says nothing at all about parties. Many of the Founding Fathers were skeptical of such factions, fearing that they would divide the American people and serve the interests of ambitious politicians. Yet many of those same visionaries soon helped to form the first political parties, after realizing the importance of coordinating with like-minded people to win elections and advance a common policy agenda. With a few brief exceptions, the United States has had a two-party system ever since.

Second, plenty of candidates run for office every year as something other than a Republican or Democrat. These include independents who are not affiliated with any party or minor-party nominees for instance, from the Libertarian or Green Party. Its just that these candidates typically do not garner many votes and rarely win an election.

Take the nations third-largest political party, the Libertarian Party. As my research shows, Libertarians generally agree with the Republican Party on economic issues and the Democratic Party on social issues. This makes the Libertarian Party appealing to some voters who consider themselves fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Third, in states such as California that have a top-two primary system, elections sometimes come down to two candidates from the same party. This process begins with an open primary in which voters may choose among multiple candidates from various parties at the same time. The top two vote-getters go on to the general election months later even if they are both Democrats or Republicans.

Other states, such as Maine and Alaska, use ranked-choice voting. This system allows voters to rank all candidates Democratic, Republican, independent or minor party from their favorite to least favorite on the same ballot. The winner is whichever candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, either at first or after eliminating the last-place finisher and reallocating that candidates voters to their second-choice candidates.

So voters often do have more options than simply Democrat vs. Republican. The problem is that people feel as if only one party or the other has a chance to win and cast their votes accordingly. It all comes down to the rules for running elections. If you want more choices, youll have to change those rules.

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question youd like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit adults, let us know what youre wondering, too. We wont be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

Visit link:
Why do voters have to pick a Republican or a Democrat in the US? - The Conversation Indonesia

FIRST ON FOX: A top Republican in Utah has wasted no time fundraising as he explores the possibility of running for a seat in the U.S. Senate that's currently held by GOP Sen. Mitt Romney.

Utah House Speaker Brad Wilson, who launched an exploratory committee in April to consider running for the seat in the Senate, told Fox News Digital he has raised more than $2.2 million.

Partnered with a personal contribution of $1.2 million, Wilson has raised $1,018,586 from various donors in the last three months with 94% of those donations coming from Utah residents. Though he isn't likely to declare his official decision until sometime this fall, Wilson currently has more than $2.1 million cash on hand.

"We launched our exploratory committee in Utah earlier in April of this year to try to determine the level of support for my candidacy," Wilson told Fox News Digital. "What we've heard over that period of time is what we thought we would hear. We've heard that what Utahns are interested in [and] want is they want to have a strong, conservative leader and a fighter back in D.C. to represent Utah."

'ENOUGH IS ENOUGH': UTAH MAYOR ANNOUNCES BID TO TAKE ROMNEY'S SENATE SEAT

Discussing his committee's efforts, which he insisted have "gone exceptionally well" in recent weeks, Wilson said voters in the Beehive State are hoping to see D.C. become "a lot more like Utah instead of the other way around."

READ ON THE FOX NEWS APP

Asked about the fundraising total and what that says about the likelihood of his candidacy in the race, Wilson said, "I think it's a reflection of not just me, but to all those that have been supportive. We have broken records. We've raised over $1,000,000 of other people's money from all across the state. And 94% of that money comes from within the state of Utah. I mean, it's remarkable."

Highlighting his accomplishments in office, Wilson said, "My main focus has been, every day, to get up and make sure we're doing everything to maintain and improve the quality of life for Utahns."

Story continues

"We've had the biggest tax cut in Utah history this year," he said. "We've cut Utahn's taxes over $1,000,000,000 in the last five years, and we've made massive investments in outdoor recreation infrastructure, transportation infrastructure. Utah, in almost every metric, is the best managed state in the country, and what we keep hearing is that that's what Utahns would like us to export to D.C. those skills and that expertise."

Wilson wouldn't specify the reasons he would be a better senator than Romney, but noted that he and his team are "putting ourselves and my potential candidacy in a position to win."

"You know, raising over $1 million and 94% of that coming from the state of Utah sends a strong message, regardless of who's running for the Senate," he added. "I am a good reflection of what people in the state are looking for."

UTAH REPUBLICAN MOVES TOWARD RUNNING FOR US SENATE SEAT HELD BY ROMNEY

Romney who was the GOP nominee in the 2012 presidential election and lost to former President Obama filed FEC paperwork last month in a possible first step toward running for re-election, but he has yet to make a final decision.

Wilson, a businessman who has represented Utah's 15th District in the state House since January 2011, said he and his team have been working to meet "individuals from every corner of the state" as he touted the "exciting" grassroots support he has received.

Asked about concerns from voters and what they've told him as he traveled the state, Wilson said, "One is they would like to have a lot less of D.C. in their lives, and the other thing is they are still reeling from the massive amount of inflation that's been caused by what a lot of us believe [is] the reckless spending that's happened in D.C."

"They're looking for leaders to help prevent those kinds of things from happening again," he added.

Wilson, a graduate from Weber State University, said he is "likely" to announce his candidacy in the race later this year.

"My guess is that we'll be making a decision sometime this fall, depending on how things continue to progress. But the overwhelming support and momentum that we've built makes me very optimistic at this point ... that it's something that we're likely to do," he said.

Should he jump into the race, Wilson will already face at least one Republican who will be vying for the seat currently held by Romney.

Riverton Mayor Trent Staggs a Republican who gained notoriety in 2020 for his opposition to mask mandates amid the coronavirus pandemic announced in May that he would make a run for the Senate seat held by Romney.

Picking up support from the Utah Fraternal Order of Police, the largest police union in the state, Wilson was the first candidate to pose a challenge to Romney.

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

When asked why he believes Romney may not be an effective leader for the state, Staggs told Fox News Digital, "Unfortunately, Mitt Romney has let personal beefs get in the way of good governance. From not standing with Mike Lee against raising the debt ceiling to voting for the $1.7 trillion omnibus, he has helped drive us deeper in debt."

Romney has gone on the record saying that if he runs, he has no doubt he would be successfully re-elected. He defeated Democrat Jenny Wilson with more than 62% of the vote in 2018.

"I'm convinced that if I run, I win. But that's a decision I'll make," Romney said of a potential re-election bid.

Fox News' Timothy H.J. Nerozzi and Aubrie Spady contributed to this report.

Read more:
Utah Republican raises more than $2 million as he explores 'likely' bid to take Romney's Senate seat - Yahoo News

Singularly and obstinately, Senator Tommy Tuberville, Republican of Alabama, has refused to vote for promotion of senior military leaders, including the Joint Chief of Staff, and most immediately for the highest-ranking Marine General. His reason has nothing to do with the nominations. It is because he does not like the Biden Administrations rule that military coffers will be used to pay for a member of the military or their family member who must travel out of state for an abortion. He alleges that this stand-off will not harm our military, national defense or security. He offers no evidence for that position. It is bold-faced blackmail. He knows it, and evidently his constituents know and like it. That is the real reason why he is doing it. Military leadership unanimously disagrees. Former Joint Chief of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, under the Trump Administration has publicly denounced the action in the name of combat readiness and national security.

Earlier this week, a Trump-appointed federal judge, Judge Terry A. Doughty of Louisiana, issued an order on First Amendment grounds that restricts government interaction with social media sites on matters of disinformation. While some of the evidence does suggest overreach on the part of the Biden Administrations 2022 election efforts, this opinion paints a broad stroke, and probably violates the First Amendment on the side of the government too. Exceptions do include, according to The New York Times, that the government could still notify the platforms about posts detailing crimes, national security threats or foreign attempts to influence elections. All of those specifics fall under the rubric of cybersecurity, as does mis/disinformation. Does this judge have working knowledge of cybersecurity? Me thinks not. Like Senator Tuberville, he would prioritize his politics over the health and security of our country. Hunter Bidens computer is more important than lies about election fraud?

Most Popular

For those who are not familiar with my reasons for running for Congress in a 2018 and 2020 Republican District, allow me to briefly retell the story. It was during the 2016 presidential campaign. Candidate Trump invited Russia to invade our servicers, supposedly to find Hillary Clintons emails. It may have been a joke, but it was not funny. I was eating a pizza in my new condominium in Feeding Hills, Massachusetts and I threw my dinner at the TV set, creating a little mess on the carpet. You can do better than that, Tracy, I said to myself. I revered my father, his four brothers and two brothers-in-law, who fought in World War II, as well as two cousins, one on each side of the family, who went to Vietnam. Maybe that reverence contributed to my sincere interest in cybersecurity. It is, after all, essentially national security. Frivolity about something so important, and so contemporarily in flux, was not becoming to a candidate from a major political party. Given what we came to know about his idolization of Putin, it was also boldly self-serving. I thought it was my turn to step up.

My parents were Republicans. My mother was very politically minded. She hated the Kennedys and I dont think ever voted for a Democrat. English-Irish ethnically, she loved Patrick Buchanan and, I suspect, would have been an ardent supporter of Trump. My father was more practically minded. He voted for Mario Cuomo, believed in choice, and would not have appreciated the grifter aspect of the previous president. He might have voted for him in 2016, but I dont think he would have in 2020. Dont ask me how I turned out so different. Race had something to do with it. I never once, even as a child, aligned with my parents prejudice. I credit my Catholic upbringing. Some of my middle school teachers were pro-civil rights and anti-Vietnam War, but it goes back earlier than that. The spirit of love, hope and charity struck a chord in me.

Something has shifted from those years when my parents were all about supporting our countrys national defense. Memorial Day was a very big deal in my family. My mother was rabidly anti-Communist. They both supported the war in Vietnam and voted enthusiastically for Nixon. Even as I began to translate my feelings as more in line with the Democratic politics, national security remained common ground between us. I was 12 when the United States invaded Cambodia, and I would say that is when I became more aware of the issue and against our foreign policy on that front. But still, I believed strongly in our military and have always advocated for robust national security.

What is wrong with the Republican Party? It has become so unprincipled, Machiavellian and ignorant. Applied to national security, these three traits are a disaster for the United States. I am particularly concerned about the two developments this week, Senator Tubervilles grandstand is based on polling in his state without a care for our countrys international fate. Naively, he acts as if our opponents on a global scale dont watch such antics with their own self-interest. This decision about mis/disinformation is from a judge who punches way above his weight. It is ignorant of cybersecurity and its connection to national security. Trump, of course, remains a potent threat. He will continue to run so long as the money comes in to pay his many lawyers bills and feed his ego. But what comes with it, given his predilection for autocrats, bodes very ill for our standing on the world stage. Other Republicans dont speak out. Elected officials run into elevators to avoid journalists. They shirk their responsibility embedded in the oath of office to defend the United States against threats both domestic and foreign. It is as if they live in an alternative reality.

Richard Hofstadter identified a paranoid style of American politics in the 1960s. His student, Christopher Lasch, called out the narcissism of American society in the 1970s and

My little blog post, like my run for Congress, is not going to change a damned thing. If I learned one thing from that experience it is that, try as I might, I cant fix big economic, social or political problems. But if you are reading this post, I must allow myself some degree of influence, and so here it is: Republicans voters in particular, and all voters in general, demand more of your representatives on matters of national securityrecognizing that cybersecurity is key to that landscape. As frustrated as many of us get, steer away from demonization of the other party. Remember that we are all people. My historians diagnosis, as critical as it is of Republicans, is nonetheless an attempt at giving our differences a human face. That which is human can be addressed: Manichean notions of pure good and real evil cannot. Moreover, in a democracy, the electorate has the responsibility to demand that our representatives keep us safe. That is the first order of government. Republicans as a group are not doing their job with antics such as Tuberville

Read the original post:
The Republican Party Has a Histrionic Personality Disorder - Inside Higher Ed

William Barr, probably the most notable defector, went from leading an egregiously politicized Justice Department acting essentially as Mr. Trumps personal attorney to denouncing his former bosss criminal and unethical behavior in a string of interviews. Chris Christie, now in a quest for the White House himself, is reprimanding as unfit for office the man he once obsequiously praised as he sought a cabinet appointment.

Clearly, more Republicans who, reluctantly or not, embraced or tolerated Mr. Trumps misdeeds need to finally break their silence with the same fervor they exhibited to support him.

Any effort by members of his own party, however belated, that discredits the former president and short-circuits his hopes of re-election would be an indispensable contribution to the best interests of the majority of Americans.

Roger Hirschberg South Burlington, Vt.

To the Editor:

Finally, someone with stature addresses the elephant in the room. Liz Cheney sacrificed her congressional seat for principle. Why dont the seasoned Republicans who likely will never seek office or an appointed political post again, and have nothing to lose, show some courage?

I think of: Olympia Snowe, Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, George Pataki, John Danforth, Pete Wilson, Elizabeth Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Phil Scott, Christine Todd Whitman, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chuck Hagel, Nancy Kassebaum, John Ashcroft, Dan Coats, William Cohen, Alfonse DAmato, Jeff Flake, Bill Frist, Alan Simpson, Ted Olson, William Weld and a host of others.

See the original post here:
Opinion | Can the Republican Party Reverse Course? - The New York Times