Fiksi & Puisi

Identity Politics Loses Its Power

Black Lives Matter’s persuasive power and influence climaxed in 2020, in the reckoning that followed the murder of George Floyd. It was a time of rare consensus, when some two-thirds of Americans expressed support for the cause, according to the Pew Research Center. But by last year, only half of Americans continued to support BLM, and less than a quarter did so strongly. “A majority of Americans say the increased focus on issues of race and racial inequality in the past three years hasn’t led to changes that have improved the lives of Black people,” Pew found. Now BLM is weighing in on the candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris. One might assume, based on the group’s foundational emphasis on identity politics, that its support for a liberal Black woman would be full-throated. Instead, I was surprised to see it release a statement last week that was strikingly critical of the Democratic Party’s decision to elevate Harris without a primary. Black Lives Matter’s persuasive power and influence climaxed in 2020, in the reckoning that followed the murder of George Floyd. It was a time of rare consensus, when some two-thirds of Americans expressed support for the cause, according to the Pew Research Center. But by last year, only half of Americans continued to support BLM, and less than a quarter did so strongly. “A majority of Americans say the increased focus on issues of race and racial inequality in the past three years hasn’t led to changes that have improved the lives of Black people,” Pew found. Now BLM is weighing in on the candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris. One might assume, based on the group’s foundational emphasis on identity politics, that its support for a liberal Black woman would be full-throated. Instead, I was surprised to see it release a statement last week that was strikingly critical of the Democratic Party’s decision to elevate Harris without a primary. Black Lives Matter’s persuasive power and influence climaxed in 2020, in the reckoning that followed the murder of George Floyd. It was a time of rare consensus, when some two-thirds of Americans expressed support for the cause, according to the Pew Research Center. But by last year, only half of Americans continued to support BLM, and less than a quarter did so strongly. “A majority of Americans say the increased focus on issues of race and racial inequality in the past three years hasn’t led to changes that have improved the lives of Black people,” Pew found. Now BLM is weighing in on the candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris. One might assume, based on the group’s foundational emphasis on identity politics, that its support for a liberal Black woman would be full-throated. Instead, I was surprised to see it release a statement last week that was strikingly critical of the Democratic Party’s decision to elevate Harris without a primary.Black Lives Matter’s persuasive power and influence climaxed in 2020, in the reckoning that followed the murder of George Floyd. It was a time of rare consensus, when some two-thirds of Americans expressed support for the cause, according to the Pew Research Center. But by last year, only half of Americans continued to support BLM, and less than a quarter did so strongly. “A majority of Americans say the increased focus on issues of race and racial inequality in the past three years hasn’t led to changes that have improved the lives of Black people,” Pew found. Now BLM is weighing in on the candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris. One might assume, based on the group’s foundational emphasis on identity politics, that its support for a liberal Black woman would be full-throated. Instead, I was surprised to see it release a statement last week that was strikingly critical of the Democratic Party’s decision to elevate Harris without a primary. Black Lives Matter’s persuasive power and influence climaxed in 2020, in the reckoning that followed the murder of George Floyd. It was a time of rare consensus, when some two-thirds of Americans expressed support for the cause, according to the Pew Research Center. But by last year, only half of Americans continued to support BLM, and less than a quarter did so strongly. “A majority of Americans say the increased focus on issues of race and racial inequality in the past three years hasn’t led to changes that have improved the lives of Black people,” Pew found. Now BLM is weighing in on the candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris. One might assume, based on the group’s foundational emphasis on identity politics, that its support for a liberal Black woman would be full-throated. Instead, I was surprised to see it release a statement last week that was strikingly critical of the Democratic Party’s decision to elevate Harris without a primary.

Fiksi & Puisi

The Myth of Female Unelectability

Prhaps nothing has been more damaging to women running for office than the idea that voters simply won’t pick female candidates. There’s just one problem: It isn’t true. After Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election, many people, including some of her top staffers and the unsuccessful Democratic nominee herself, concluded that she had been penalized for her gender. Even two years after the election, Jennifer Palmieri, her former communications director, argued that “I think that a man would have survived” the barriers Clinton faced, such as the scandal over her emails. Clinton continues to push this idea, saying as recently as May that some voters—women voters—had held her to an impossible standard and taken a chance on Donald Trump because he’s a man. Prhaps nothing has been more damaging to women running for office than the idea that voters simply won’t pick female candidates. There’s just one problem: It isn’t true. After Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election, many people, including some of her top staffers and the unsuccessful Democratic nominee herself, concluded that she had been penalized for her gender. Even two years after the election, Jennifer Palmieri, her former communications director, argued that “I think that a man would have survived” the barriers Clinton faced, such as the scandal over her emails. Clinton continues to push this idea, saying as recently as May that some voters—women voters—had held her to an impossible standard and taken a chance on Donald Trump because he’s a man. Prhaps nothing has been more damaging to women running for office than the idea that voters simply won’t pick female candidates. There’s just one problem: It isn’t true. After Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election, many people, including some of her top staffers and the unsuccessful Democratic nominee herself, concluded that she had been penalized for her gender. Even two years after the election, Jennifer Palmieri, her former communications director, argued that “I think that a man would have survived” the barriers Clinton faced, such as the scandal over her emails. Clinton continues to push this idea, saying as recently as May that some voters—women voters—had held her to an impossible standard and taken a chance on Donald Trump because he’s a man. Prhaps nothing has been more damaging to women running for office than the idea that voters simply won’t pick female candidates. There’s just one problem: It isn’t true. After Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election, many people, including some of her top staffers and the unsuccessful Democratic nominee herself, concluded that she had been penalized for her gender. Even two years after the election, Jennifer Palmieri, her former communications director, argued that “I think that a man would have survived” the barriers Clinton faced, such as the scandal over her emails. Clinton continues to push this idea, saying as recently as May that some voters—women voters—had held her to an impossible standard and taken a chance on Donald Trump because he’s a man.Prhaps nothing has been more damaging to women running for office than the idea that voters simply won’t pick female candidates. There’s just one problem: It isn’t true. After Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election, many people, including some of her top staffers and the unsuccessful Democratic nominee herself, concluded that she had been penalized for her gender. Even two years after the election, Jennifer Palmieri, her former communications director, argued that “I think that a man would have survived” the barriers Clinton faced, such as the scandal over her emails. Clinton continues to push this idea, saying as recently as May that some voters—women voters—had held her to an impossible standard and taken a chance on Donald Trump because he’s a man.

Fiksi & Puisi

Life on Mars

The idea that Mars, like the earth, might be the home of living beings has held our imagination since the turn of the century, when Percival Lowell thought he saw hundreds of canals crisscrossing the face of the planet, and took them as proof that Mars was inhabited. Lowell was wrong. The canals never existed, as Mariner 9 photographs finally proved five years ago. But even though his evidence was mistaken, Lowell's conclusion may yet be vindicated: the Viking landers have returned an impressive array of biochemical data which seems to show that some form of life really does exist on Mars. The results of the Viking life-detection experiments have been more positive than most people expected. Dr. Robert Jastrow, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says, "Short of seeing something wiggling on the end of a pin, the case for life on Mars is now as complete as the Viking experiments could make it." But no one wants to make predictions about Martian life which might be proved wrong by later evidence; scientific reputations could too easily be damaged in the process. So the Viking scientists have been extremely cautious in interpreting the results of their biology experiments. And the official NASA position straddles the fence. As Viking scientist Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University puts it, "We have clues up to the eyebrows, but no conclusive explanations of what we're seeing." The idea that Mars, like the earth, might be the home of living beings has held our imagination since the turn of the century, when Percival Lowell thought he saw hundreds of canals crisscrossing the face of the planet, and took them as proof that Mars was inhabited. Lowell was wrong. The canals never existed, as Mariner 9 photographs finally proved five years ago. But even though his evidence was mistaken, Lowell's conclusion may yet be vindicated: the Viking landers have returned an impressive array of biochemical data which seems to show that some form of life really does exist on Mars. The results of the Viking life-detection experiments have been more positive than most people expected. Dr. Robert Jastrow, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says, "Short of seeing something wiggling on the end of a pin, the case for life on Mars is now as complete as the Viking experiments could make it." But no one wants to make predictions about Martian life which might be proved wrong by later evidence; scientific reputations could too easily be damaged in the process. So the Viking scientists have been extremely cautious in interpreting the results of their biology experiments. And the official NASA position straddles the fence. As Viking scientist Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University puts it, "We have clues up to the eyebrows, but no conclusive explanations of what we're seeing."The idea that Mars, like the earth, might be the home of living beings has held our imagination since the turn of the century, when Percival Lowell thought he saw hundreds of canals crisscrossing the face of the planet, and took them as proof that Mars was inhabited. Lowell was wrong. The canals never existed, as Mariner 9 photographs finally proved five years ago. But even though his evidence was mistaken, Lowell's conclusion may yet be vindicated: the Viking landers have returned an impressive array of biochemical data which seems to show that some form of life really does exist on Mars. The results of the Viking life-detection experiments have been more positive than most people expected. Dr. Robert Jastrow, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says, "Short of seeing something wiggling on the end of a pin, the case for life on Mars is now as complete as the Viking experiments could make it." But no one wants to make predictions about Martian life which might be proved wrong by later evidence; scientific reputations could too easily be damaged in the process. So the Viking scientists have been extremely cautious in interpreting the results of their biology experiments. And the official NASA position straddles the fence. As Viking scientist Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University puts it, "We have clues up to the eyebrows, but no conclusive explanations of what we're seeing."The idea that Mars, like the earth, might be the home of living beings has held our imagination since the turn of the century, when Percival Lowell thought he saw hundreds of canals crisscrossing the face of the planet, and took them as proof that Mars was inhabited. Lowell was wrong. The canals never existed, as Mariner 9 photographs finally proved five years ago. But even though his evidence was mistaken, Lowell's conclusion may yet be vindicated: the Viking landers have returned an impressive array of biochemical data which seems to show that some form of life really does exist on Mars. The results of the Viking life-detection experiments have been more positive than most people expected. Dr. Robert Jastrow, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says, "Short of seeing something wiggling on the end of a pin, the case for life on Mars is now as complete as the Viking experiments could make it." But no one wants to make predictions about Martian life which might be proved wrong by later evidence; scientific reputations could too easily be damaged in the process. So the Viking scientists have been extremely cautious in interpreting the results of their biology experiments. And the official NASA position straddles the fence. As Viking scientist Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University puts it, "We have clues up to the eyebrows, but no conclusive explanations of what we're seeing."

Fiksi & Puisi

California’s Fire-Insurance Crisis Just Got Real

Susie Lawing moved to Cohasset, a small community located in the forested canyons above the city of Chico, California, in the 1970s. After she and her husband divorced, Lawing stayed, presiding over 26 acres of lush family compound. Loved ones built homes of their own on the property, and they began hosting weddings and retreats. Lawing started to grow her own food. All of that is now gone, she told me. Two weeks ago, the Park Fire ripped through the property. Lawing, now 81, lost everything. She did not have insurance. Lawing lives modestly on Social Security benefits, supplemented by renting out her home and selling essential oils, and simply could not afford the $12,000 a year—$1,000 a month—home-insurance policy she was quoted for a state-backed policy, the last resort for many homeowners. Paying that would have doubled her monthly expenses. “There was no way I could afford that,” she told me. “What do you do? You just let it go.” Susie Lawing moved to Cohasset, a small community located in the forested canyons above the city of Chico, California, in the 1970s. After she and her husband divorced, Lawing stayed, presiding over 26 acres of lush family compound. Loved ones built homes of their own on the property, and they began hosting weddings and retreats. Lawing started to grow her own food. All of that is now gone, she told me. Two weeks ago, the Park Fire ripped through the property. Lawing, now 81, lost everything. She did not have insurance. Lawing lives modestly on Social Security benefits, supplemented by renting out her home and selling essential oils, and simply could not afford the $12,000 a year—$1,000 a month—home-insurance policy she was quoted for a state-backed policy, the last resort for many homeowners. Paying that would have doubled her monthly expenses. “There was no way I could afford that,” she told me. “What do you do? You just let it go.”