text:
Category Archives: Constitution
Banished Illusions: They Screwed the People and the Country
22 Thursday Jul 2021
Posted by pnoetx in Constitution, Corruption, Election Fraud
Adam Schiff, Biden Inc. Hunter Biden, Big Tech, Brett Kavanaugh, Capitol Police, COVID, Darryl Cooper, DNC, Donald Trump, Election Fraud, Insurrection, James Comey, John Brennan, MartyrMade, Pay-For-Play, Propaganda, Tyler O'Neil, Voting Procedures
There's no shortage of nincompoops buying into the legitimacy of the Biden presidency and the bullshit narrative about "an insurrection" at the U.S. Capitol building on January 6th. I'm sure they're quite content in their ignorance — they refuse to even consider the evidence available regarding the lack of ballot integrity in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Texas, and elsewhere, and they continue to pretend the January 6th debacle was a real threat to our democracy, rather than a largely peaceful group of wide-eyed goofballs who were mostly waved through the barricades by the Capitol Police.
One of the best summaries I've read about the attitudes of those who feel disenfranchised by the 2020 election is this series of tweets by the of the MartyrMade podcast, Darryl Cooper. His tweets are also discussed here by Tyler O'Neil. It is Cooper's "general theory" on the perspective of "Boomer tier" Trump supporters, as he calls them. Last year's fraudulent election was only the culmination of events going back to the investigation of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. The whole thread is interesting, but you must get past a little "soft cover" at the start that might have been intended to distract the speech police at Twitter. I'll try to summarize here:
The intelligence community spied on the Trump campaign in 2016, and that's a major transgression! The DNC was involved too, actually paying for fabricated evidence. James Comey falsely denied any knowledge of that fact. John Brennan and Adam Schiff also lied shamelessly in this affair.
By the time Trump supporters realized all the noise was fake, they naively expected justice to be served. But no, and so their faith in certain institutions was shaken.
The gaslighting continued, and the whole thing consumed energy and had a chilling effect on participation in the Trump Administration. This was an active kind of subversion crossing "all institutional boundaries".
The participation of the press was the poison icing on the cake. The press is now viewed by much of the country as a propaganda arm of "The Regime".
Many aren't sure whether the election was fixed, but if it was, they know they'd be lied to about it.
Voting procedures in many jurisdictions were changed using COVID as a pretext.
The press smoke-screened the Biden, Inc. scandals, including evidence of pay-for-play and incredibly lurid information on Hunter Biden's laptop. Instead, the press played-up gossip about Trump.
Trump people rightly felt betrayed by the very institutions they've always trusted, but they voted in record numbers, and we're not convinced all were counted.
"But when the four critical swing states went dark at midnight, they knew."
Conspiracy theories abounded, but media and tech shut down discussion of real anomalies. Had the election gone Trump's way, they would have cried foul!
The courts were handcuffed by fear of political violence and retribution.
I agree with substantially all of Cooper's thread. Our experience since Donald Trump became an active politician has been disillusioning in several respects: it has shown how flimsy our constitutional rights and our republic are when the wrong actors come to dominate certain institutions. It also shows how malleable are the "facts" that we are asked to accept by these actors. We are seemingly helpless to defend the rule of law, the Constitution, and social norms when an intransigent minority decides it can simply ignore them. This is how tyranny is borne.
Election integrity is not an outlandish objective. Neither is demanding fair treatment of diverse viewpoints from social media, Big Tech, and educational institutions. And neither is it outlandish to demand safe communities and adequate police protection; that our borders be enforced; that our public health officials speak honestly about risks; and that we should never, under any circumstances, be judged, punished, or rewarded based on the color of our skin. These are just a few of the things we must demand, and never take "no" for an answer.
State Compact Aims To Subvert Electoral College
Posted by pnoetx in Constitution, Voting Rights
Alexander Hamilton, Carroll Andrew Morse, Congressional Term Limits, Constitution, Elections Clause, Electoral College, Fourteenth Amendment, George W. Bush, Justin Yang, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, Norman R. Williams, State Powers, Supreme Court, U.S. Term Limits Inc v Thornton, Virginia v Tennessee, Voting Rights
The map shows the number of electoral votes by state, one vote per square. The states colored green are participants in a gambit that would, if successful, vitiate the Electoral College (EC). They hope to execute an end-run around Article V of the Constitution, which otherwise would require an amendment to replace the EC with the national popular vote. Such an amendment is highly unlikely to win approval, as I noted last week. The green states are members of the so-called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVC). This group of 13 states plus the District of Columbia would pledge their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, but only if and when enough states join the Compact to enable it to carry an election.
The big question is whether an electoral action by the NPVC would be constitutional. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits states from entering treaties or compacts with other states without the approval of Congress. However, supporters of the NPV such as Justin Yang focus on an 1893 Supreme Court decision (Virginia v. Tennessee) that found congressional approval is unnecessary as long as a compact does not infringe on federal powers. NPVC advocates go on to assert that elsewhere, in Article II, Section 1, state legislatures are empowered to allocate electoral votes "in any way they want", as Yang puts it.
There are strong reasons to doubt the NPVC's interpretation, however. Carroll Andrew Morse raises a basic constitutional issue: the NPVC amounts to a denial of voting rights to the citizens of a Compact member-state. It is obviously true that a member-state's voters would contribute to the national vote totals. Nevertheless, awarding state electors to the winner of the national vote, regardless of the in-state outcome, certainly could deprive state residents of their preference. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that a state's denial of voting rights to any citizen or group of citizens would require the state to relinquish its representation in the legislature by a proportionate amount. That is a harsh remedy that the voters of any state should consider when weighing the benefits of membership in the NPVC.
This BYU Law Review article by Norman R. Williams covers some other areas of contention. It provides a review of some constitutional provisions bearing on the legality of interstate compacts as well as excellent background on the EC and its history. Some brief thoughts on the issue from Williams also appear in the Harvard Law Review here. According to Williams:
"… the states' power to regulate the manner of presidential elections is far more limited than the proponents of the NPVC contend. In fact, just as the U.S. Supreme Court has narrowly interpreted the states' power to regulate congressional elections to prevent states from destabilizing the constitutional structure, so too should it deny states the power to undermine the stability of the presidential election process."
Williams cites a 1995 Supreme Court decision (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton) limiting state power over questions such as congressional term limits. The ruling stated that state-regulated limits create additional qualifications for holding office that are not authorized under the Elections Clause in Article I, Section 4. Williams contends that the process of choosing electors is analogous to other provisions regarding state powers, so it should be subject to the same limitations. He also says that if the Court followed the same method of reasoning as in Thornton, which focused on the founders intent as well as subsequent developments, it would reject the actions of the NPVC as unconstitutional.
Williams also argues that the NPVC may interfere with the rights of voters in other, non-Compact states. He says the history of Article II is inconsistent with an interpretation that the founders would have intended to allow states to exercise such broad, extra-state powers in electing a president:
"If a group of states can agree to pledge their presidential electors on the basis of the national vote, then they must likewise be able to agree to pledge their electors to a candidate only from those states, only from one political party, or only in accordance with the wishes of a designated committee of 'presidential experts.' In short, any interstate compact regarding the manner in which presidential electors are selected threatens to exclude the wishes of voters in nonsignatory states, and, therefore, it seems inconceivable that a Constitution that specifies how the President is to be elected and that lays out a process for amending its requirements would permit a group of states to alter so fundamental a part of our constitutional structure."
Williams concludes with a quote from the Court's decision in the Thornton case:
"As the Court admonished in Thornton, change, if it is to be undertaken, 'must come not by legislation adopted either by Congress or by an individual State, but rather—as have other important changes in the electoral process—through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V.'"
Any legal challenge to the NPVC will have to wait until it is effective, that is, when and if it ever exercises 270 electoral votes. It now has a total of 189 electoral votes. The most recent addition was New Mexico, and a proposed ballot measure in Ohio could bring total Compact electors to 207. Fans of the NPVC hope that Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin might join as well, though none of those is imminent. But if they did it would bring another 46 electoral votes to the Compact. Apparently Pennsylvania has rejected membership for now.
Almost all of the states already in the NPVC are solidly "blue", having voted for the Democrat in presidential elections, at least over recent cycles. Of course, that means the Compact might quickly disintegrate if a Republican is expected to win the popular vote. Right now, however, Colorado and New Mexico are the only states that might qualify as swing states, and even those are a stretch. Some of the other states in which the NPVC is under debate are legitimate swing states, and legislation enabling the change will be risky for many lawmakers in those states. Ballot measures might be more preferable to the NPVC due to the possibility of limited turnout. We'll see how it goes.
If states with 270 or more electors vote as a block, it diminishes the importance of each state's voters, who might well disagree with the national popular vote in the future if not already. For example, members of the NPVC, including California, would have had to cast their electoral votes for George W. Bush in 2004, despite the desires expressed by their citizens at the polls. Voters at-large in any non-Compact state have more leverage over the outcome of a presidential election than if they follow the national popular vote. Alexander Hamilton would not have approved of the NPVC; he wrote that a state's electors should not be influenced by parties outside the state. That was the intent of the founders.
Court challenges would undoubtedly follow any exercise of votes through the NPVC. Presumably that would occur only in the event of another conflict between the national popular vote and the EC, as constituted prior to the adoption of the NPVC. That would occur only if at least one Compact state had an in-state popular vote conflicting with the national vote. There is almost no doubt that such a dispute would make its way to the Supreme Court. Thus, a presidential election might someday be undecided until a final ruling is passed down by the high court. I strongly suspect that the NPVC would be found unconstitutional.
The Excellent Electoral College
Posted by pnoetx in Constitution, Democracy
Athenian Democracy, Athens, Bernie Sanders, Beto O'Rourke, Constitutional convention, Donald Trump, Edward Conway, Electoral College, Elizabeth Warren, Jon Gabriel, Quora, Tyranny of the Majority
So lacking is the average American's knowledge of civics that they often react in shock to the suggestion that the United States was never intended to be a pure democracy. But unchecked democracy is not a system that can be counted upon to maintain stability, something the founders knew when they fashioned the country as a constitutional republic. This point bears emphasis given the recent calls to abolish the Electoral College (EC) by such Democrat luminaries as Elizabeth Warren and Beto O'Rourke. Others, like Socialist-cum-Democrat Bernie Sanders, say they want to "assess" the EC.
Jon Gabriel describes the EC as one of a series of stabilizing checks and balances embedded in our system of government. It served the purpose of balancing interests across diverse regional economies and sub-cultures:
"By distributing our presidential choice among 51 individual elections, nominees must appeal to a wide variety of voters with a wide variety of interests. Farmers in Wisconsin are important, as are retirees in Florida, factory workers in Pennsylvania, and shopkeepers in Arizona. White Evangelicals need to be courted in Charlotte, as do Latino Catholics in Mesa.
If the Electoral College were abandoned, party frontrunners would camp out exclusively in urban areas. The pancake breakfasts in Des Moines and Denver would be replaced with mammoth rallies in Los Angeles and New York City."
So diverse were these interests in the late 1700s that it's reasonable to assume that the Constitutional Convention would have failed without the creation of the EC. Today, no less, our country would be unlikely to survive the EC's elimination. Why, for example, would voters in Missouri wish to allow the preferences of east and west coast voters to dominate federal policy-making?
Gabriel provides some interesting history giving emphasis to the notion of a tyranny of the majority under pure democracy:
"The world's first democracy was ancient Athens, which allowed around 30,000 free adult male citizens to choose their leaders. They made up less than 15 percent of the population, but it was the most egalitarian political innovation to date.
Athen's unbridled democracy, however, led to the very extremes that sowed its decline and defeat at the hands of enemies. This note from Edward Conway on Quora is instructive (his is the third commentary at the link; most of the others are helpful, but his is most succinct):
"… ancient Athenian democracy was purely a matter of votes: if you wanted to win a court case, or pass a law, or tax a group, or go to war, or massacre a large number of people, the only check was whether you could convince a majority of the citizens to vote in your favor. While there were means of checking individual people (see: Ostracon), this did nothing to check the power of the crowds, as it only removed one focus of this power.
Thus Athenian democracy never moved beyond the initial 'UNLIMITED POWER!' stage. Anyone who could convince the crowd to follow them had unchecked authority until they lost control of the crowd.
This led, predictably, to excesses: 'Let's attack Sparta!', 'Let's invade Sicily!', 'Let's ostracize our best general!', etc."
It's interesting that the Athenian military was staffed by plebeians who found imperialistic actions to be profitable. Naturally, they voted to devote more resources to military incursions… until they were defeated. Allowing a large faction to vote on their own pay, and the taxes on others necessary to pay for it, can be a glaring defect of democracy. We see manifestations of the same phenomenon today in congressional pay raises and expansion of federal benefits for large segments of the population who pay no taxes.
Back to Gabriel:
As the saying goes, democracy is four wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. The Founders looked to Athens less as a political model than an object lesson in what not to do.
James Madison said that democracies are 'incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.'
The EC was a stroke of political genius: It allowed the delegates at the Constitutional Convention to reach a consensus, something that would probably be just as difficult to accomplish today as it was then. The EC transforms one federal election into 51 local elections, reducing the feasibility of tampering by the party in power at the federal level. It also reduces the incentive for electoral fraud in a national race because a greater margin of victory within a state cannot gain the votes of additional electors.
The noise regarding the EC is coming from just one side of the political aisle: Donald Trump's electoral victory in 2016, and his reasonably good prospects for reelection in 2020, have inflamed the passions of Democrats, who are now grasping at any and all ways in which they might tilt the playing field their way. Relative to electoral votes, popular votes are heavily concentrated in the coastal "blue" states. Such a change in the rules of the game would certainly stand to benefit Democrats. Therefore, the debate looks suspiciously like it has nothing to do with "good governance" and electoral integrity, and everything to do with raw politics.
It's useful to remember that the EC was an essential incentive for gaining the buy-in of smaller states to join the Union. It remains vitally important to states whose interests would likely be neglected if presidential politics was dominated by the coastal states. Fortunately, the founders invested the EC with durability: rescinding it would require a constitutional amendment. That could happen if two-thirds of the state legislatures agree to convene a constitutional convention. Or, it could be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, then ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. Ain't gonna happen.
Stumbling Into the Hamilton Safe Space
Posted by pnoetx in Constitution, Progressivism
Alexander Hamilton, Brandon Dixon, Donald Trump, Fourth Wall, Hamilton The Musical, Mike Pence, Reese Waters, Sanctuary Cities, St. Patrick's Day, Steven Van Zant, Tendentious Art, The E-Street Band, Thomas Jefferson
An incident at the curtain call of Friday night's performance of Hamilton, The Musical in New York has attracted more attention than it deserves, or perhaps it's attracted attention for the wrong reasons. Vice President-Elect Mike Pence attended the show, and the word spread to the cast. One of the actors, Brandon Dixon, read a message to Pence from the stage which had been written by the show's producers. By that time, Pence's Secret Service detail was ushering him out of The Richard Rogers Theater, apparently the usual protocol, but one of the producers said Pence stopped to listen. Here is the message that Dixon read, according to this Twitter link:
"You know, we have a guest in the audience this evening — Vice President-elect Pence, I see you walking out but I hope you hear just a few more moments. There's nothing to boo, ladies and gentlemen, There's nothing to boo. We're all here sharing a story of love. We have a message for you, sir, we hope that you will hear us out. And I encourage everyone to pull out you phones and tweet and post because this message needs to be spread far and wide.
Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us here at 'Hamilton: An American Musical.' We really do. We, sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us. All of us.
Thank you truly for seeing this show. this wonderful American story told by a diverse group of men, women of different colors, creeds and orientations."
Donald Trump overreacted to the situation, tweeting that Dixon and the cast should apologize to Pence. This is typical Trump, making a bigger story of something that could have passed with less controversy. Pence, left to his own devices, would have let it pass. He said later that he was not offended. And I'm sure the cast of Hamilton was under no illusion that Pence would accept their advice on anything.
Dixon's message itself was respectful, more or less, though it was not "a conversation", as he later claimed. It was a lecture. It seemed designed to show Pence up, but Pence listened politely. Less "respectful" were audience members who greeted Pence with boos as he entered the theater (there were cheers as well), and when Dixon mentioned his name at the curtain call. At least Dixon admonished them. However, there are reports, which I've been unable to confirm, that some of the show's actors directed their lines at Pence. If true, such a confrontational delivery broke the "fourth wall" for purposes that do not elevate the show. On something of a light note, someone suggested that the incident might prompt Trump to build a "fourth wall". Heh! No, Dixon's lecture did not break the fourth wall — he read the statement after the show had ended.
Some artists thought the Hamilton cast went too far. Here is Steven Van Zant, guitarist for The E-Street Band and an avowed progressive who, for what it's worth, happens to agree with Trump that the cast should apologize to Pence:
"When artists perform the venue becomes your home. The audience are your guests. It is nothing short of the same bullying tactic we rightly have criticized Trump for in the past. It's taking unfair advantage of someone who thought they were a protected guest in your home. You don't single out an audience member and embarrass him from the stage. [This was] a terrible precedent to set."
I have a number of friends and acquaintances in my city's theatre community. Their opinion is divided, but a clear majority are defending the cast of Hamilton. They stress that theatre has always been a vehicle for social commentary and social change. There is certainly an extent to which that's true, and Hamilton is nothing if not a social statement. Of course, the lecture was not part of the show, but for what it's worth, my view is that such commentary is more successful as art, and more likely to provoke sincere thought, when it is weaved into the art or story in subtle ways. I also believe that approach is truer to the history of theatrical social commentary. Personally, I don't like tendentious art, and I've always felt that artists who make their political views too explicit cheapen their work. But that's just me. One theatre friend thought that Dixon (and the producers) had crossed a line, using the curtain call to get on a soapbox to instruct a single member of the audience as to the proper interpretation of the art he had just witnessed.
Another theatre friend commented that theater should educate, entertain and edify, a view that probably gives the average playwright credit for more knowledge than they deserve. As it happens, there are several historical distortions in the book of Hamilton, which I covered in this post on Sacred Cow Chips about five months ago. While the show is a smashing success as entertainment, it contains some unadulterated propaganda about Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, the meaning of the Constitution, and certain events that took place around the time of our nation's founding. It is a failure at educating.
Incidentally, Brandon Dixon is not quite the virtuous SJW that many would have us believe. His Twitter history shows a rather aggressive attitude toward women, and white women in particular:
"St. Patty's day weekend is like Christmas for black dudes who like white chicks. Happy holidays boys.
@reesewaters
#seasonsgreetings"
Evidentally, Brandon fancies himself quite the stallion, a sure sign of his deep respect for women.
The incident at The Richard Rogers is most interesting to me because it reveals an irony: the extent to which the writer, producers and actors of Hamilton lack an understanding of our system of government and individual rights. The president (and especially the vice president) do not hold the power to strip individuals of their rights. Granted, the GOP will have a slight majority in Congress and on the Supreme Court, but that does not mean that Trump will be unrestrained. The divisions of power and the constitutional checks and balances promulgated by the likes of Jefferson and Hamilton will serve to protect the rights of diverse Americans. And in two years, control of either the Senate or the House of Representatives might swing back to Democrats.
The Hamilton cast has an insufficient grasp of another fact: one person's constitutional rights can come into conflict with the rights of others. If they so infringe, it is not enough to assert that you must have the freedom to exercise your rights. You can try, but these are matters for the courts to decide, and those decisions usually hinge on possible accommodations and whether the government has a "compelling interest" in protecting one right at the expense of another.
One other note to the Hamilton cast: while illegal immigrants share in many of the individual rights protected under the Constitution, they do not share fully in all of those rights. In particular, Trump might not need congressional support or help from the courts to enforce existing immigration law. If it's any reassurance, he seems to have moderated his position on illegals, focusing his rhetoric on "sanctuary cities" and illegals having criminal records.
Perhaps the "elite" Broadway theatre kids of Hamilton can be forgiven if they have the wrong impression about executive power after watching Barack Obama over the last eight years. Hamilton would not have approved. Thankfully, what can be done with "a pen and a phone" can probably be undone with "a pen and a phone". Now get back out there and have fun, kids!
Post-Election Thoughts: The Electoral College
Posted by pnoetx in Constitution, Populism
Duverger's Law, Electoral College, Hillary Clinton, Majoritarian, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, New Jersey Plan, Proportional Representation, Sean Rosenthal, Shlomo Slomin, The Federalist Papers, Three-Fifths Compromise, Tyranny of the Majority, Virginia Plan
Among the targets of disillusioned Hillary Clinton voters is the much-maligned electoral college. The EC is misunderstood by most voters, from what can be judged on social media. Few seem to have any idea why it exists. Donald Trump condemned the EC during the recent campaign, echoing a typically populist attitude, yet it actually worked in his favor. And most are happy to accept the EC's results when it works in their favor, but otherwise the EC strikes them as nonsensical.
Here's how it works: a state's electoral votes are equal to the total number of seats it has in Congress: two senators plus the number of congressional districts in the state. Therefore, a state's relative influence in the college is larger with fewer congressional districts (which are a function of population and land area). For example, suppose that each congressional district has a population of 1,000,000 (The actual average is closer to 750,000). A state with one congressional district gets three electors for its one million inhabitants. A state with two congressional districts gets four electors, or two votes per million inhabitants. A state with a ten congressional districts gets 12 electors, or 1.2 per million inhabitants. Therefore, voters in small states have more leverage on the outcome of presidential elections than voters in large states. Does that make sense as a mechanism for selecting the nation's chief executive?
The Constitutional Convention
The purpose of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 was to forge an agreement between the individual states regarding a system of governance. This 1986 article by Shlomo Slomin in The Journal of American History provides an excellent account of the lengthy discussions that took place at the convention over how to select the chief executive. It was perhaps the lengthiest debate at the convention, as documented by Slomin. In the effort to create a durable union, a major concern was that a majority of voters were concentrated in states with interests, both economic and social, that differed from the interests of small states. One fear was that the executive would always be selected from one of the large states.
The first proposals involved selection of the president by legislative bodies (a position which endured until late in the summer):
"Whereas the Virginia Plan provided for a popularly elected legislature with the representation of each state proportional to the size of its population, the New Jersey Plan proposed that the legislature remain …the representative body of the states, with each state entitled to one vote…. In effect, therefore, at the very outset of the convention, the large and small states were at loggerheads over the method of selecting an executive no less than they were over the composition of the legislature."
Obviously, the New Jersey Plan was much more extreme in its departure from proportional representation than the final, agreed-upon EC. (Note that New Jersey was relatively small at the time.) The problem was finally referred to a committee late in the summer, which presented its plan a few days later. Each state legislature would choose electors, who would in turn elect the president. States would have the option of turning over the choice of electors to their voters. To paraphrase Slomin slightly, it removed the decision from Congress for selection of a president in favor of an independent, ad hoc body. The EC had a single purpose, would not meet at one central location, and would immediately disband, so there was little chance of corruption or "cabal" influences. In terms of votes, it was an exact replica of Congress. Originally, each elector was to vote for two individuals, but could vote for only one from their own state.
"The delegates, it appears, were pleased with the Electoral College scheme, which so successfully blended all the necessary elements to ensure a safe and equitable process for electing a president and which reserved considerable influence for the states."
The Constitution embodies other provisions that ensured a balance of power, all of which helped to bring disparate interests together into one federalist union. This includes the fact that we have two senators in Congress from each state. Alexander Hamilton wrote favorably of the EC in the Federalist Papers. The method of electing a president was subject to the same balancing of interests.
The founders had other reasons to think the EC was advisable. One was that it was impossible for many citizens, especially those in less populous regions, to truly "know" the presidential candidates. State electors, it was hoped, would relieve the citizenry of an impossible duty to perform a final vetting process. That rationale, however, might not be very compelling in the era of modern communication and social media.
Another concern that arose was the appeasement of the southern, slave states. The issue of slavery was a lightning rod, but the northern states offered another "sweetener" to the south: the so called "three-fifths rule", whereby three-fifths of the slave population would be counted in the total for allocating legislative representation. Even with that rather ugly adjustment, the southern states were generally less "populous", but not as a rule. After all, Virginia was by far the largest state at the time of the convention. Certainly, the EC was an extra inducement to those states to approve the Constitution, but slavery had less to do with it than some have asserted, as the popular vote was never a serious contender for passage at the convention.
Fragile Democracy
It's long been known that unrestrained democracy and majority rule can have negative consequences, including severe instability, without safeguards. The EC represents one such safeguard, functioning as a protection against a tyranny of the majority. If you've ever dealt with so much as a neighborhood association, you know that it's a real phenomenon. Slomin found little evidence that the tarnished history of absolute majoritarianism was of any influence at the convention, but the founders were aware of it. The fact that legislative solutions to the electoral problem were widely accepted from the start of the convention probably reflected their awareness. Here is John Adams on the subject:
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
In any case, the possibility of a union in which large states were dominant was obviously an issue for small states, and delegates from large states recognized the potential imbalance and the threat it presented to the success of the convention.
Today's Imbalance
Today, only nine states account for over half of the U.S. population. (Fifteen states account for over two-thirds.) Ten states accounted for more than half of the presidential vote count in 2012, which suggests that voter turnout in 2012 was slightly lower, on average, in the most heavily-populated states. Suppose we were to do it all over: if, for example, densely-populated states have interests that do not align with rural states, and if the latter are considered economically or culturally important, then the EC can be viewed as a worthwhile concession to offer in exchange for participation.
The Interstate Compact
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a group of states that will pledge their electors to the winner of the national vote, but only when enough states join to total 270 electors. The compact now has ten member states plus DC, for a total of 165 electoral votes. These states are solidly "blue", having voted for the Democrat in elections over many cycles. There are two states, with 36 electoral votes, in which legislation to join the compact is pending: Pennsylvania, which was carried by Donald Trump in last week's election, and Michigan, which appears to have been carried by Trump. Something tells me the compact legislation will be risky for most legislators in those two states, but we'll see. The voters of any state, under some circumstances, can have more leverage over the outcome of a presidential election when its electors are pledged to the winner of the in-state vote, rather than following the national popular vote. This can occur any time a majority of a state's voters happen to disagree with a thin national majority.
If states with 270 or more electors vote as a block, it diminishes the importance of each state's voters, who might well disagree with the national popular vote in the future, if not already. The members of the compact, including California, would have had to vote for George W. Bush in 2004, despite the desires expressed by their citizens at the polls. Hamilton would not have approved of the compact; he wrote that a state's electors should not be influenced by parties outside the state. Unfortunately, that rule was not clearly set forth in the Constitution.
Accidental Genius
Sean Rosenthal just articulated a powerful defense of the EC appearing at FEE.org. He notes that the founding founders expected a fractured political landscape, with many parties vying for public office. They were wrong in that regard, he believes, because they agreed to two-year terms in the House of Representatives. Rosenthal cites Duvergers's Law, combined with "first-past-the-post" voting for representatives, for the devolution to a two-party system in the U.S.: voters tend to avoid candidates who might help elect their least-favorite candidate.
Given the existence of a system dominated by two-parties, the EC ensures stability by working against a concentration of power. Rosenthal reminds us that the EC transforms one federal election into 51 local elections. That reduces the chance of tampering by the party in power at the federal level. It also reduces the incentive for electoral fraud at the local level, since a greater margin of victory cannot gain the votes of additional electors. Rosenthal believes that these benefits would be powerful even if the number of each state's electors was reduced by two, which would then cause the EC to approximate the results of the popular vote. As I noted earlier, the founders seemed to think that the EC would promote stability, and that belief was not conditional on the number of major presidential contenders.
Other Notes On the EC
Another approach to the pledging of electors is used by Maine and Nebraska. They allow congressional districts to use their single vote independently, based upon the popular vote in the district. Certainly this is the most empowering approach for an individual district's voters. I'm sure many voters in down-state Illinois would love it!
There are plausible criticisms of the EC, such as discouraging voter turnout in non-"swing" states, and of course the disadvantaging of third-party candidates. On the other hand, some have argued that the EC can help the interests of minority voters by encouraging candidates to focus on winning their votes. And relatively small states like Mississippi have a proportionately large minority population, so the EC should help to advance their interests.
The Electoral Collage is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and was a crucial device in achieving an acceptance of the document by all the states. The delegates to the convention might have been able to overcome objections to proportional representation without the EC, but other, less desirable, concessions probably would have been necessary. Our country might look very different today without it. The EC certainly inures to the benefit of voters in smaller states who differ in their views from majority opinions. If we had to hold the convention all over again, some form of the EC would probably be necessary to achieve consensus, and obviously that has nothing to do with slavery. The EC is consistent with the federalist approach to governance, which is instrumental to maintaining the stability of the Republic. And voters can change their minds: even voters in large states might one day find themselves in a national minority. The Electoral College is undoubtedly a better way to protect the interests of those voters in the long-run than the Interstate Compact. It will probably survive the latest challenge, as it has survived many others in the past.
Hamilton, Jefferson & Miranda's Propaganda
Posted by pnoetx in Constitution, Slavery
13th Amendment, Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, Bank of the United States, Ben Affleck, Central Bank, Charles Kessler, Commerce Clause, Corwin Amendment, Declaration of Independence, Hamilton on Broadway, James Madison, James Monroe, King George, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Manumission, Maria Reynolds, Michelle DuRoss, Necessary and Proper Clause, Raymond Burr, Ron Chernow, Spencer Kornhaber, State's Rights, The Atlantic, The Federalist Papers, Thomas Jefferson, Three-Fifths Compromise, Warren Meyer, Yeoman Farmer
I know too well to take any history I get from the theatre with a grain of salt! Nevertheless, I'd really like to see Hamilton on Broadway. It's a hugely successful musical by Lin-Manuel Miranda about the life of Alexander Hamilton, one of our nation's founding fathers, inspired by the book Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow. I've heard much of the show's music, infused with R&B and rap/hip-hop; it's more appealing to me than I'd ever have expected of rap. The show has been nominated for a record 16 Tony Awards (the ceremony is tonight), and of course it's a very hot ticket. The last time I checked, the cheapest seats available were about $650 each for the last row in the house, and that was about 45 days out! With a party of four, that's a cool $2,600 for an evening of theatre. I think we'll wait for the touring production to roll through the midwest next year.
In Hamilton, all of the founding fathers are cast as people of color, a controversial decision that led to a recent uproar over a casting notice encouraging non-white performers to audition for leads. The casting of the founding fathers is an interesting artistic decision. One writer, Spencer Kornhaber in The Atlantic, says that the "colorblind" casting:
"… is part of the play's message that Alexander Hamilton's journey from destitute immigrant to influential statesman is universal and replicable…."
That's admirable, as far as it goes. I believe Kornhaber comes closer to Miranda's true motivation for the casting decision a paragraph later:
"… movements like Black Lives Matter, and renewed calls for the consideration of reparations, are built on the idea that 'all' remains an unfulfilled promise—and that fulfillment can only come by focusing on helping the specific populations that suffer greatest from America's many inequalities rooted in oppression. … While Hamilton does not explicitly take a side, the simple fact of its casting suggests which way it probably leans."
In broad strokes, the following is true about the drafting of the U.S. Constitution and arguments over its adoption: Alexander Hamilton favored provisions that tipped power in favor of the central government at the expense of the states, while Thomas Jefferson favored more stringent limits on central powers and strong states' rights, or federalism as it is commonly known. It's also true that over the years, Hamilton's constitutional legacy tended to receive little emphasis in historical narratives relative to Jefferson's. In the musical, Hamilton is portrayed as a hero to those who would benefit from a powerful and benevolent central government, particularly slaves, while Jefferson is portrayed in less flattering terms. Miranda's casting implies that the relative emphasis on federal power versus states rights would surely have been reversed had the founding fathers been people of color.
A friend of mine saw the show before it became quite so hot. His kids are "theatre kids", as mine were up to a certain age. I have great respect for my friend's intellect and I am sympathetic to his political orientation, which I'd describe as libertarian with strong Randian influences. Here is his brief review of Hamilton:
"I loved Hamilton — it was a great night of theater. I even like the music — which is rap/hip-hop style that I haven't found enjoyable, at least until now. My biggest concern about the play is its portrayal of Jefferson and Madison, who don't come off well. Jefferson is a party boy more interested in partying in Paris than in seriously running a new nation. Both are portrayed as instigators in digging up dirt on Hamilton to use against him politically. Yes, they would have benefited from Hamilton's womanizing scandals, but did they actively seek out that kind of trash? The play says yes…
And of course the play takes the position, I'd argue, that nothing Jefferson writes or says can be taken seriously because he is a slaveholder….the Bank of the U.S. is regarded by the play as a wonderful creation, thanks to Hamilton."
I've read a number of accounts confirming Miranda's treatment of Jefferson in the show, and the influence it apparently has on viewers without much background in political thought, American history, and the U.S. Constitution. I've lost the link, but one writer quoted his teenage daughter as saying "That Jefferson, he's the WORST!"
There are a number of historical inaccuracies in Miranda's book of Hamilton. An important fact contradicting the show's vilification of Jefferson is that he, Madison and Aaron Burr:
"…did not approach Hamilton about his affair [as represented in the show], it was actually James Monroe and Frederick Muhlenberg in 1792. Monroe was a close friend of Jefferson's and shared the information of Hamilton's affair with him. In 1796, journalist James Callendar broke the story of Hamilton's infidelity. Hamilton blamed Monroe, and the altercation nearly ended in a duel. "
In no way did Chernow implicate Jefferson as a participant in blackmail against Hamilton over the affair with an "emotionally unstable" Maria Reynolds. That is entirely Miranda's invention. His fictionalized Jefferson is a conniving devil, a disgraceful misrepresentation.
Let's get one other thing out of the way: it is not reasonable to condemn individuals or their actions of 220 years ago outside the context of general attitudes and practices of that period. That's not to condone those attitudes and practices, however. Last year, I quoted Warren Meyer on this point:
"Meyer mentions the recent incident involving Ben Affleck, who asked the host of a PBS documentary to omit any mention of a slave-owning Affleck ancestor:
'So an ancestor held opinions about slavery we all would find horrifying today. But given the times, I can bet that pretty much every relative of Affleck's of that era, slaveholder or no, held opinions (say about women) that we would likely find offensive today.'"
By all accounts, Chernow's book about Hamilton is an excellent biography, but not without its faults. Charles Kessler states that Chernow relies on other biographies rather than original source material, and that Chernow misrepresents the attitudes of Jefferson and James Madison on commerce; like Hamilton, they viewed it as a "civilizing influence of the highest order". I'm the first to vouch for the importance of well-functioning capital markets, but apparently Chernow is under the mistaken impression that capitalism itself is intricately tied to powerful banks, particularly central banks like the Federal Reserve! And Chernow exaggerates the difference in the views of Jefferson and Hamilton on the Constitution itself. Here is Kessler:
"A huge gulf remains between Hamilton's loyalty to what he called a 'limited Constitution' and today's 'living Constitution,' which seems capable of justifying virtually any activity that the federal government sees fit to undertake."
Both Jefferson and Hamilton recognized that abolition would have represented a huge obstacle to forming a new nation. And there was the related problem, recognized by both men, of whether and how to compensate slave owners in the event of abolition. It should go without saying that a failure to reach an agreement between the colonies at the Constitutional Convention would not have led to abolition of slavery by other means. The contrary is implicit in any argument that the constitutional compromise was wholly unjust. It might have been hoped that forming a union would establish a framework within which dialogue on the issue could continue, though ultimately, a fractured union and a war was necessary to finally emancipate the slaves.
Yes, Jefferson held slaves and had a strong economic interest in keeping them. In his circle of wealthy landowners, slavery was considered a normal part of life. However, Jefferson also publicly advocated various plans to free slaves, one as early as 1779. Here is a clause from Jefferson's rough draft of the Declaration of Independence, before it was revised by other members of the Committee of Five and by Congress, in reference to "his present majesty", King George:
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of [the] Christian king of Great Britain, determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce …."
While the clause was explicitly critical of trade in slaves, as distinct from ownership, it reveals the thinking of a man who was very progressive for his time. As for outright abolition, it is easy today to be critical of Jefferson's proposals, which called for gradualism and, later, even deportation of freed slaves to Santo Domingo. Those proposals were based in part on fear shared by many authorities of an economic crisis and civil disorder if slaves were freed en masse. Jefferson certainly did not view slaves as equals to white men, but that was not unusual in those times; he did call for training them in certain skills as a condition of granting them freedom.
Hamilton's record on slavery is not quite as heroic as Miranda's musical would have you believe. He was highly ambitious and something of a social climber, so he was reluctant to air his views publicly regarding abolition. He married into a prominent New York slaveholding family, and there are records of his role in returning slaves captured by the British to their previous owners. From historian Michelle DuRoss (linked above):
"… when the issue of slavery came into conflict with his personal ambitions, his belief in property rights, or his belief of what would promote America's interests, Hamilton chose those goals over opposing slavery. In the instances where Hamilton supported granting freedom to blacks, his primary motive was based more on practical concerns rather than an ideological view of slavery as immoral."
Hamilton's is known to have advocated manumission: freeing slaves who agreed to serve in the fight against the British. That position was a practical matter, as it would help in the war effort, and it might have played on the patriotic instincts of slaveowners who would otherwise insist on compensation. His mentor, George Washington, himself a reluctant slave owner, undoubtedly saw the practical value of manumission.
Hamilton's real constitutional legacy came in two parts: first was his strong support for the Constitution during the ratification process and his (anonymous) contributions to The Federalist Papers. Later came his relatively broad interpretation of provisions granting certain powers to the federal government: the power to issue currency, the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper clause". He also proposed a few ideas that were never adopted, such as lifetime terms in office for the president and members of the Senate. He did not propose any constitutional provision for the abolition of slavery or for granting full constitutional rights to slaves.
Hamilton was a major proponent of establishing a so-called national bank, known as the Bank of the United States when it was chartered in 1793. This allowed the new country to issue currency and was used as a way to eliminate war debts that were, by then, greatly diminished in value. Hamilton's central bank meant great rewards to any investor who held the debt, especially those who had purchased the debt at a steep discount. Unfortunately, this was tantamount to monetizing government debt, or paying off debt by imposing an inflation tax (which reached 72% in the bank's first five years of operation). The establishment of the bank also removed a major restraint on the growth of the federal government. Moreover, Hamilton was a protectionist, advocating tariffs on foreign goods and subsidies to domestic producers. It is little wonder that some have called him the "father of crony capitalism".
Jefferson was quite possibly a bon vibrant in the best sense of the term, as opposed to the "party boy" depicted by Miranda. He was a man of great intellect, capable and actively conversant in philosophy, science and the practical arts. He wrote the Declaration of Independence, itself a forceful testimonial to natural rights. His constitutional legacy was powerful if indirect: he was a mentor to James Madison, who wrote the first draft of the Constitution. Jefferson was an advocate of majoritarian rule but also sought to protect individual rights against a tyranny of the majority. To that end, he advocated government limited in function to the protection of rights. In short, he was a classical liberal.
There were certainly contradictions between Jefferson's philosophy and actions. Slaveholding was one, as already noted, but that was not unusual among southern aristocrats of the time, and Jefferson at least recognized the ethical dilemma and publicly offered policy solutions. But as a slaveholder, he made an odd spokesperson for the interests of the "yeoman farmer", an agrarian individualist in the popular mind and a myth that persists to this day. Jefferson also advocated protectionist policies, such as an embargo on U.S. exports starting in 1807.
Yes, there were abolitionists at the time of our nation's founding. Both Hamilton and Jefferson were quite sympathetic to the principle of abolition, but both recognized the practical difficulty of pushing it forward without endangering the founding of the nation, and both had personal and probably selfish reasons to avoid fighting that battle. The musical Hamilton glosses over this reality in the case of Hamilton himself, and at the same time condemns Jefferson. Miranda might just as well condemn Abraham Lincoln for his initial support of the original 13th (Corwin) Amendment in the early 1860s, which was never ratified. Ultimately, in 1865, a different 13th Amendment was ratified, accomplishing what would have been evident from the original text of the Constitution but for the so-called "three-fifths compromise". That provision essentially counted a slave as 3/5s of a "free person" for purposes of apportioning representation and taxes, an idea originally proposed by Madison and revived by Alexander Hamilton himself!
I will still see the musical Hamilton when I get an opportunity. Lin-Manuel Miranda is a man of great talent, but he has misrepresented crucial facts about the Founders of the nation. Those interested in the truth, including those who teach our children, should not take it seriously as an account of history.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Celery Seed is the dried fruit of the Apium graveolens which is related, but not identical, to the vegetable celery plant. The tiny brown seeds have a celery-like flavor and aroma.
Used in pickling, vegetables, salad dressings, breads, soups, and tomato items. Celery seed is used in celery salt, bouquet garni, pickling and curry spice blends, and the ethnic cuisines of Germany, Italy, Russia, and the Orient.
The principal sources of Celery Seed are India and China but France also produces a small quantity. Indian and Chinese Celery Seed are similar in appearance while the French variety is slightly darker. Indian Celery Seed has the strongest flavor and the French type is milder. Indian seed, because of its color and taste, is considered the premium seed. Chinese seed is smaller and has a slightly milder flavor.
Celery actually dates back to "smallage," a wild, bitter marsh plant. The ancient Greeks and Romans used Celery for its medicinal purposes and there was a popular belief that it was an aphrodisiac. In the Middle Ages, Italian farmers began to cultivate "smallage." Once begun, this cultivation steadily improved the quality of the Celery and it has become a popular item. It is difficult to say when the seeds were first used as a spice. It was not until the early 19th Century that Celery Seeds began appearing in American cookbooks, usually in pickling recipes.


The Kendall Area Arts and Culture Organization hosted its holiday fair last weekend at the Kendall Community Hall.
This content is for County Line Monthly and County Line Yearly members only.
As part of its remodeling and expansion project, the Kendall Public Library has installed a replica of the Kendall State Bank vault door in the newly opened section, which is in an adjoining building and which housed the bank in the early 20th century.
On Palm Sunday, St. Paul's Lutheran Church in Wilton honored Florence Dougherty, who ended her 55-year stint as the church's janitor earlier this month.
Addressing damages from the August 2018 floods, the Wilton Village Board agreed Monday to hire Badger Environmental & Earthworks for $56,460 to repair a water main on Highway 71, near the eastern boundary of the village.
Angela Funk will serve as the new Brookwood Senior/Junior High School principal, replacing Brad Pettit, who will retire at the end of the school year after 16 years with the Norwalk-Ontario-Wilton School District.
This year's Spring Fling at the Kickapoo Valley Reserve will feature everything from a petting zoo to talks on bald eagles and seed saving.
Ontario residents gathered at two community conversations Thursday to mull over possibilties for the Ontario Community Hall, which sustained severe damages in the August 2018 floods.
Kendall will host a public discussion on Glenwood Park repair efforts at 6 p.m. Wednesday, April 24.
The old Ontario Elementary School and the 4.8 acres that surround it now are back in village ownership, the Ontario Village Board announced at its meeting Monday.
Back by popular demand! It's time to celebrate spring and new beginnings.
Firefighters responded to a blaze Saturday at Tom and Joanne Reardon's home on Newton Street in Kendall.
Most local village-board races were uncontested Tuesday, but the exception was Norwalk, where voters overturned the incumbents, bringing a mostly new slate to the village board.
Were measles, mumps and rubella good for the Baby Boomers?
What is United Co-op's interest in our communities?
The County Line is Proudly powered by Atomic News Tools.


text:
This is an archived issue of Belletrista. If you are looking for the current issue, you can find it here
New & Notable|
Donate|
Reviews --> REVIEWS HOME <-- THE LONG-SHINING WATERS DILEMMAS OF DEOKIE THE TOPLESS TOWER WITNESS THE NIGHT THE BOOK OF HAPPENSTANCE DOC: A NOVEL DARK DESIRES AND THE OTHERS FIVE BELLS THE SELECTED STORIES OF MERCÈ RODO... THE HOTTEST DISHES OF THE TARTAR CUISINE LIKE BEES TO HONEY AMERICA PACIFICA THE FOLDED EARTH BIG GIRL SMALL
Hesperus Press, paperback, 9781843918554
THE TOPLESS TOWER
by Silvina Ocampo
Translated from the Spanish by James Womack
Reviewed by Tim Jones
Little Leandro, nine, having displeased a gentleman visitor who may be the Devil, finds himself a prisoner in the tower which gives this story its title. He discovers a room set up with all the requisites a painter could need. He begins to paint.
Hoping to paint his mother, but lacking the skill to render her correctly, he instead paints other things, some welcome, others not. He finds that the things he paints can come out of their paintings and join him in the tower. He tries to paint his way out of captivity and back to his mother.
That's a short synopsis of a short book—a novella of 15,000 or so words, attractively presented by Hesperus Press and smoothly translated from the original Spanish, as best I can judge, by James Womack.
The author, Silvina Ocampo, has had the misfortune to be remembered more for the famous members of her circle than for her own writing. Her sister, Victoria Ocampo, was a major figure of Argentine letters: writer, critic, and editor of the renowned literary magazine Sur. Silvina Ocampo's husband, Adolfo Bioy Casares, was a considerable author in his own right, and is himself best known for his frequent collaborations with Jorge Luis Borges, a figure large enough to cast a long shadow over many contemporaries.
But Silvina Ocampo's own achievement does not deserve to be forgotten. She published several volumes each of short stories and poetry, won the Argentine National Prize for Poetry in 1962, and became well known in particular for her children's stories.
With its nine-year-old protagonist, industriously underlining words he does understand, The Topless Tower may look like a children's story, but it seems to me more like a story about a child told for adults' benefit. If I had to pick a theme, though—a dangerous exercise, bringing to mind the terrors of sixth-form English essays—it would be that of creativity in general and painting in particular. Leandro's ability to influence the world he is trapped in and his chance of escape both come from painting, and the chief obstacle to the realization of his desires is his inability to put down on canvas what he sees in his mind's eye.
Having set up its scenario briskly, The Topless Tower unfolds with the slightly addled logic of a daydream. Perhaps the very end of the story is a little heavy-handed in Leandro's recounting of the lessons he has learned; apart from that, if you are prepared to allow a little magic in your realism, there is a great deal of enjoyment to be had from this fleet-footed story, with its young love, its faithful dog, its easily offended Devil, and its plucky young hero who paints his way out of a tight corner.
Save this page as a pdf
[Copyright/Privacy/Terms of Service]


text:
24 hours in Stockholm, Sweden
One of the great things about travelling in Europe is the cheap flights available between the cities there. Renee and I bought some ridiculously cheap flights to spend a weekend in Stockholm in August.
We arrived late on a Friday night from Bergen and flew back to London on the Sunday afternoon which basically left us with just 24 hours in Stockholm to explore, but which proved enough time to see all the sights with a planned route and some prioritising.
The World Triathlon Championships were taking place around Stockholm the same weekend and with the costs of accommodation high we stayed in a Airbnb in Södermalm.
Our 24 hours in Stockholm
At 10am on Saturday we loaded up on Bagels and coffee for breakfast at The Bagel in the middle of Södermalm. I went with the 'New York' which was the classic Salmon, Cream Cheese and Capers.
At 10:40am we set off on foot towards downtown Stockholm through quiet streets of apartments, through a park and then past shops, pubs and restaurants.
At 11am we reached Monteliusvägen on the Northern Shore of Södermalm, a footpath set upon steep cliffs which serves as an impressive viewpoint to sit and observe the city from. From here we could see the old city, the downtown area, a church and the Royal Palace which were all places of interest in Stockholm we wanted to see later.
View from Monteliusvägen
Looking back at Monteliusvägen
We found our way down the steep streets to reach the bridge below to cross the water into the city and look back at where we'd been before taking a shortcut through a metro station to Gamla Stan, the old town.
Gamla Stan featured the narrow paved streets you strike in the older parts of the classic European cities and locals going about their Saturday mornings as well as tourists looking around.
At 11:30am we reached Stortorget, a small, historical public square which is the location of the Noble Museum, Stock Exchange, a Well and some beautiful buildings which are apparently still privately resided in.
As we continued on we encountered a crowd of tourists centered around a tiny statue at the back of a church. Intrigued, we wandered in and tried to eavesdrop on the tour guide but unfortunately he wasn't speaking English). It was so small and so popular that it was impossible to take a photo of the statue without other tourists in it.
We Googled why this was a thing and learnt that the sculpture is nicknamed 'Järnpojke' or the 'Iron Boy'. It is only 15cm high and each day people leave small gifts beside him (mostly coins) which is said to bring good luck, as does rubbing his head.
Leaving the old town district we passed The Royal Palace but didn't stop because it was busy and obstructed as the triathlon transition area, and headed down to the waterfront and began to walk around it.
View from below the Palace on Stockholm's waterfront including the National Museum and Grand Hotel
At around midday we passed the beautiful Grand Hotel. Had they had a bar with a view we would gladly have stopped and watched the world go by with a glass of Rose, but as they didn't we kept on walking, taking in more of the waterfront, the stunning buildings and the occasional green park. I was fast getting the feeling Stockholm would be a lovely city to live in.
At 12:45pm we'd made it to Queens Church and had a look around inside and out.
At this stage Renee and I were fairly exhausted and after debating the merits of whether to have lunch or a glass of wine first, we decided to head back to The Soap Bar which we'd seen earlier and have a drink in the sun.
The barman told us that we were in for a great night if we chose to come back in after 10pm as everyone in Sweden gets paid on the 25th of the month and that the clubs in Stockholm are heaving on the Saturday night after payday.
At 2pm after struggling to find something reasonably priced for lunch we had a quick bite at an Irish cafe. We wanted to keep walking around the waterfront in the sunshine to the museum.
By now it was a beautifully sunny Saturday afternoon and there were a lot of people out and about by the water, enjoying the late Summer sunshine.
By 3pm we were amongst Stockholm's museums.If you just want an idea of what the Nordic Museum is like without paying the entrance fee and spending hours looking at the exhibitions you can get a sticker to visit the gift shop. And if you're an ABBA fan then the ABBA Museum is a must – note that you need to book online before you go.
Nordic Museum exterior
When we were done we started the long walk back to our accommodation in Södermalm, 70 minutes away, grabbing cinnamon rolls and bottles of water for sustenance. The people in the city were relaxing as late afternoon turned into evening.
Just after 9pm We had a late dinner at Grannen in Södermalm and their zucchini dish (with well deserved glass of wine) was quite possibly the best thing I had eaten in weeks. I need to try to create it at home. Having walked over 10km we decided we were too exhausted to go back into the city and head out on the town, instead choosing to chill out and relax with a couple of drinks.
By 10am on Sunday we were off on our way to the airport via Metro and bus. Stockholm done in a day and ticked off our bucket lists.
Have you been to Stockholm? Do you think 24 hours in Stockholm or any other city is enough to explore?
Filed Under: Europe, Travel Tagged With: Stockholm, Sweden
Discover Scotland: a loch, a castle & a distillery
Currently // The aftermath of a multi-month adventure
24 hours in Lucerne, Switzerland
48 hours in Luxembourg
Stortoget square looks awesome! Cant wait for that! (im going in may)
sarahkennerley@gmail.com says
Have the best time Jess! May would be a great month to visit Stockholm I reckon
Erin Gustafson says
I love the quick tour of Stockholm! We were there for a weekend a couple years ago, but spent most of the time on a lacrosse field watching our son, so had about as much time as you to explore! I loved that view of the city from the edge of Södermalm – what a fun neighborhood to explore! Welcome to FarawayFiles – thanks for sharing!
Glad you got to see a bit of Stockholm as well as the Lacrosse field Erin! Södermalm was a really cool neighbourhood plus I discovered the art of Fika which I am keen to make a thing now I'm back in Wellington.
Clare Thomson says
You did so much in such a short space of time! I've often walked until I dropped in new cities so I can totally relate to this. I especially love your photos of Stockholm. Thanks for sharing on #FarawayFiles
Thanks Clare! H I'm sure many can relate to the massive amount of walking to see everything you want to in a city with only a short amount of time.aha yeah
AmyMacWorld says
I spent a long weekend in Stockholm in the winter–I would love to go back in the summer and actually see the sun!!
Ah I bet! You must have had some short days in terms of daylight hours!
Anjali-This Splendid Shambles says
Love this! I ended up spending less than 24-hours in Stockholm when I was there, but it was definitely worth it! Beautiful photos! 🙂
Thanks Anjali! Definitely worth it right – a beautiful city with a lot going for it.


text:
Sony SRS-XB12 Speaker Review
By John Panoryios, Vanessa McCuaig, Yannick Khong
This speaker was replaced by the Sony SRS-XB13
The Sony SRS-XB12 is a Bluetooth speaker that's easy to take with you on-the-go. Thanks to its sturdy, well-built design and excellent battery performance, it can easily handle long days outdoors. Although it has to downmix stereo content into mono to play this content, it also has a wide soundstage. However, like most small speakers, it lacks low-bass, and it doesn't have an EQ for you to tweak its sound. It also doesn't get very loud, but there's minimal compression at max volume, so your audio sounds clean.
The Sony SRS-XB12 is acceptable for music. It has a balanced mid-range for reproducing vocals and lead instruments clearly. However, it lacks low-bass, and the upper harmonics of vocals and lead instruments can sound a little bright. It also lacks an EQ, which is disappointing if you want to tweak its sound. Although it can't get very loud, there are minimal compression artifacts at max volume.
Wide and large soundstage.
Few compression artifacts at max volume.
Doesn't get very loud.
The Sony SRS-XB12 is disappointing for videos and movies. It lacks low-bass, so action-packed sound effects don't sound as immersive, and it doesn't get very loud. However, there are minimal compression artifacts at max volume, which ensures clean and pure audio reproduction at a high volume. It also has low latency on Android and iOS, which is great for streaming videos.
Low audio latency on Android and iOS.
The Sony SRS-XB12 is decent for podcasts. It can reproduce voices clearly, although it can sound a little bright, and it's portable enough to easily move it to different rooms of your home. It also has outstanding directivity so your podcast sounds clear from all angles. However, it doesn't get very loud. It also can't be paired with more than one device at a time.
The Sony SRS-XB12 is poor for voice assistants. It just uses the voice assistant from your paired smartphone, but it doesn't have any built-in features. Also, as part of our methodology, we use recorded voice commands to test the speaker. However, this speaker didn't respond. While it responded to normal speaking voices, this isn't part of our testing process.
The Sony SRS-XB12 is alright for outdoor use. It's well-built, has a carrying strap to make it easier to take with you on-the-go, and has an IP67 rating for dust and water resistance, although we don't currently test for this. It also has an excellent battery performance, which is great for long days outside. However, its sound profile really lacks low-bass, and it doesn't get very loud.
Updated Jan 27, 2021: Early access published.
The Sony XB12 has a cylindrical look that's somewhat similar in shape to the Ultimate Ears WONDERBOOM 2. The speaker is located on the top, and there's a detachable carrying strap so you can take it with you on-the-go. This speaker also comes in several colors.
30 in³ (485 cm³)
This speaker is very portable. It's very lightweight and has a detachable carrying strap that makes it easy to take with you on the go. It's also battery-operated, so you can take it outdoors.
The Sony XB12 has a very good build quality. It's mostly made of plastic, which has a nice smooth finish but is prone to collecting fingerprint markings. There's a metal grille on its top side to protect its driver as well as a small cover to hide the AUX and micro-USB ports. Overall, it feels sturdy and even has an IP67 rating for dust and water resistance, although we don't currently test for this.
The Sony XB12 has very good controls. All the controls are located near the bottom of the speaker. In addition to playing and pausing your audio, the play button allows you to answer or end calls. Pressing this button twice also skips the track forward while pressing it three times skips the track backward. The power button doubles as a Bluetooth pairing button when long-pressed, and there's an 'ADD' button if you want to connect a second speaker unit for stereo or double mode sound, which allows both speakers to play the same audio at the same time. There are lights for the power, charge, and add buttons, and a chime plays when you're connected via Bluetooth. However, there's no cue when adjusting the volume level.
Sony SRS-XB12 speaker
119.9 Hz
The Sony SRS-XB12's frequency response accuracy is sub-par. It lacks a lot of low-bass and struggles to produce a boomy sound. While the mid-range is fairly well-balanced, which results in clear and accurate vocals and lead instruments, the treble range is a bit uneven. The upper harmonics of vocals and lead instruments sound bright, while sibilants like cymbals are slightly dull. If you're looking for a very similar speaker that can produce a deeper bass, check out the next generation of this speaker, the Sony SRS-XB13. Unfortunately, unlike the Anker Soundcore 3, it doesn't have an EQ to help tweak its sound.
The Sony SRS-XB12 has a good soundstage. Although it has to downmix stereo content into mono, which doesn't sound as immersive, its directivity is large, so your audio should be heard clearly from any angle. For a small and portable speaker that can play stereo content without downmixing it to mono, check out the Bang & Olufsen Beosound Explore.
This speaker has alright dynamics. It doesn't get very loud, so it's not suitable for large rooms or parties. However, there are only minimal compression artifacts at max volume, resulting in clean and clear audio. For a speaker that gets louder, check out the Alpine Corporation Solar Bluetooth Rock Speaker.
The Sony XB12's battery performance is excellent. It's advertised to have around 16 hours of continuous battery life. However, we measured over 13 hours. That said, battery performance can vary according to usage, so your experience may vary. The speaker also turns off after approximately 15 minutes if it isn't playing audio. If you want a speaker with an even longer battery life, check out the Limitless Innovations TikiTunes.
Yes (Requires Smartphone)
This speaker has terrible voice assistant capabilities. It uses voice assistants from paired smartphones, but it doesn't have any built-in capabilities. As part of our methodology, we use recorded voice commands to test the speaker. However, it didn't respond to these commands, even when there wasn't any ambient noise. While it responded to normal speaking voices, this isn't part of our testing process.
No App
The Sony SRS-XB12 doesn't have a companion app.
This speaker has an AUX port, so you can connect a smartphone or other device to the speaker using a wired connection.
The Sony SRS-XB12 has great Bluetooth connectivity. While you can't connect it to more than one device at a time, its latency on iOS and Android is quite low, which is great if you like to stream video. Some apps compensate for latency, though, so your experience may vary.
The Sony SRS-XB12 Mini Bluetooth Speaker comes in several color variants: 'Black', 'Blue', 'Green', 'Pink', 'Red', Gray', and 'Yellow'. We tested the Black variant, and you can see its label here. We expect all color variants to perform similarly to our model.
If you come across another variant, please let us know in the discussions, and we'll update our review.
The Sony XB12 is a small speaker that's easy to take with you outdoors. Although it has a similar look to the Ultimate Ears WONDERBOOM 2, it only has a speaker on its top side and has to downmix stereo content into mono to play it. Even though it doesn't get that loud, it has very few compression artifacts at max volume. However, like many smaller speakers like the Sony SRS-XB01, it lacks low-bass. Check out our recommendations for the best Bluetooth speakers and the best cheap speakers.
The Sony SRS-XB13 is a slightly better speaker than the Sony SRS-XB12, though they're very similar. The XB13 can produce deeper bass and has a better-balanced sound profile than the XB12. That said, the XB12 comes with an AUX port you can use to wire your devices to the speaker. It can also get slightly louder with slightly fewer compression artifacts at max volume.
The Sony SRS-XB12 is a better speaker than the JBL GO 3. The Sony has a slightly better-balanced sound profile and a wider soundstage. It also has longer-lasting continuous battery life, and can it can utilize your smartphone's voice assistant. However, the JBL is better built, and some users may prefer its smaller design.
The Sony SRS-XB12 is a better speaker than the JBL Clip 4 overall. The Sony has less compression present at max volume, so your audio sounds cleaner at louder volume levels. It supports voice assistants through your smartphone. It can also last over 13 hours from a single charge, though this can depend on your usage, and your experience may differ. That said, the JBL can produce a more extended low-bass. It also comes with a built-in hook you can use to clip it to your bag.
The Ultimate Ears WONDERBOOM 2 is a better speaker than the Sony SRS-XB12. The Ultimate Ears is better-built and has a more balanced sound profile. Its soundstage is better as it can play stereo content and it can get much louder. However, the Sony supports voice assistants via your smartphone.
The Sony SRS-XB12 and the JBL Flip 5 are similar speakers. The Sony has better directivity, resulting in a wider-sounding soundstage. It has little compression present at max volume, so your audio sounds clean at louder volumes. It also supports voice assistants through your smartphone and has a longer-lasting battery life, though the latter can vary depending on your usage. The JBL can produce a more extended low-bass and can get louder than the Sony. You can connect it to other PartyBoost-compatible to play the same audio across a larger space or create a stereo pair.
The Sony SRS-XB12 is a better speaker than the Anker Soundcore 2. The Sony is better-built, has a more neutral sound profile, and its soundstage seems wider. It also has lower audio latency on Android and iOS. However, the Anker has a slightly better battery performance.
The Sony SRS-XB12 is a slightly better speaker than the Bose SoundLink Micro. The Sony can get a little louder but with fewer compression artifacts at max volume. It has a significantly better battery performance too. However, the Bose can reproduce slightly more low-bass. It also has a companion app.
The Sony SRS-XB23 is a slightly better speaker than the Sony SRS-XB12. The XB23 can get louder and can produce a more extended low-bass than the XB12. It comes with a graphic EQ, meaning that you can customize its sound to your liking. It can also play stereo content without downmixing it to mono, which is more immersive. That said, the XB12 is smaller, making it more portable. It also has less compression present at max volume, so your audio sounds cleaner at louder volumes.
Depending on your listening habits, you may prefer either the Sony SRS-XB12 or the Anker Soundcore 3. The Sony has better directivity, resulting in a natural and open-sounding soundstage. It has less compression at max volume, so your audio sounds cleaner during louder listening sessions. However, the Anker can produce a more extended low-bass with its 'Bass Up' feature enabled. You can customize its sound to your liking, thanks to the graphic EQ and presets featured in its companion app.
The Sony SRS-XB12 is a better speaker than the Sony SRS-XB01. The XB12 is better-built, and its default sound profile is more neutral with a more extended low-bass. It also has a better soundstage, and its graphic EQ allows for greater sound customization. However, the XB01 has longer battery life.
The Sony SRS-XB12 is a better overall speaker than the Alpine Corporation Solar Bluetooth Rock Speaker. The Sony is smaller, more portable, and better-built. It has a more neutral sound profile and a better soundstage performance. It also supports voice assistants from your paired smartphone, which is handy. However, the Alpine Corporation has an outdoor-friendly, rock-like design with a built-in solar panel, and it has a longer battery life and gets louder.
Limitless Innovations TikiTunes
The Sony SRS-XB12 is a better speaker than the Limitless Innovations TikiTunes. The Sony is better-built, and its sound profile is more neutral. It also has a better soundstage performance, and it can support voice assistants from your paired smartphone. That said, some listeners may prefer the TikiTunes' unique torch light design with LED lights and its long battery life.
The Bang & Olufsen Beosound Explore is a better speaker than the Sony SRS-XB12 overall. The Bang & Olufsen has a better-balanced sound profile and is more customizable thanks to its 'Beosonic' sound customization feature and its EQ presets available on its companion app. It can also play stereo content without downmixing it to mono, which is more immersive. That said, the Sony is smaller and lasts over 13 hours from a single charge, though this can depend on your usage, and your experience may vary. It also supports voice assistants through your smartphone, though its performance isn't very good.


I have 4 chrome 96 formula rims. Rims are MINT !! Tires are good,one is worn on the inside(I bought them that way). Im looking for trades. Things im lookong for are lt4 hot cam kit,or any good cam with springs and rockers. Nx mass air plate,good 26x11.5x15 slicks,rear end girdle. Im open to any trades aslong as I don't all ready have it. Let me know what u have.
Bumpski. Im open to any trades.


Silver exterior with a clean gray leather interior free of any rips, tears, or stains accented with a nice wood grain trim. Ice cold A/C blows strong for hot summer days! Power locks, power windows, power seats, and power mirrors. Memory seat settings for multiple drivers. Audio system with CD player, AM/FM radio so you can enjoy all of your favorite tunes! Sunroof equipped to let the sun and breeze in on those beautiful sunny days. This car is in beautiful shape and loaded with features! Contact me today to own it, wholesale cash prices to the public with no dealer fees.


text:
Do Blacks and Hispanics Get Along?
Yes, but Not Always, and Not about Everything
While blacks and Hispanics hold broadly favorable views of each other, Hispanics are less likely to say the two groups get along well. At the same time, African Americans are far more likely than Latinos to say blacks are frequently the victims of racial discrimination, according to a recent survey of racial and ethnic attitudes by the Pew Research Center.
The country's two largest and most powerful minority groups also disagree on other issues that strike close to the heart of many blacks and Hispanics, though these differences are generally modest. Notably, blacks are more likely to say the situation for African Americans is worse today than it was five or even 10 years ago. Nearly half of all blacks also say immigrants reduce job opportunities for blacks, while fewer than four-in-10 Hispanics agree.
The current round of Democratic presidential primaries has brought the issue of Hispanic-black relations onto center stage. Overwhelming majorities of blacks have supported Barack Obama, while Hillary Clinton has counted on majority support among Hispanics, coupled with her strong support from whites, to counter Obama's appeal among African American voters.
In the recent Florida Democratic primary, Clinton beat Obama among Hispanics by nearly 2-1 while Obama countered by winning blacks by better than 2-1. This race and ethnicity gap, apparent throughout the 2008 primary season, has led some to ask if the division reflects larger and more troubling tensions between the two groups.
The Pew survey suggests that the answer depends on the question that you ask. On many core issues, majorities or large pluralities of blacks and Hispanics share the same view. At the same time, the poll also pinpoints some areas of disagreement and potential conflict. The telephone survey was taken from Sept. 5 through Oct. 6, 2007 among a nationally-representative sample of 3,086 adults.
Hispanics More Likely to Say Groups Do Not Get Along
The survey found that overwhelming majorities of both blacks and Hispanics have favorable views of each other. Fully three-quarters of all blacks (77%) have a very or somewhat favorable view of Latinos, while 79% of Hispanics have a similarly positive view of blacks. (Three-quarters of all whites also have an approving view of Hispanics and a slightly larger percentage expressed a favorable opinion of blacks.)
But some differences begin to emerge when blacks and Hispanics are asked how well the two groups get along. A majority of blacks (70%), but a smaller share of Hispanics (57%), say the groups get along very or fairly well. At the same time, Hispanics are significantly more likely than blacks to say that inter-group relations are strained (30% vs. 18%). Whites are roughly equally divided, with nearly four-in-10 (39%) saying that blacks and Hispanics get along well, 32% saying they do not, while nearly as many express no opinion.
This "perception gap" on inter-group relations persists even when controlling for socio-economic status. For example, 63% of all better-educated Hispanics — those who had attended college — say blacks and Latinos get along well, compared with 73% of similarly educated blacks. That's a 10-point difference — little different than the overall 13-point gap between the two groups. Similar differences emerge in most age and income categories as well.
Does familiarity breed tolerance or contempt? It depends. Hispanics and blacks living in counties with relatively high concentrations of African Americans are somewhat more likely to say that blacks and Latinos get along well (65% Hispanics, 72% blacks) than are Hispanics and blacks living in low-density black counties (50% and 57% respectively), suggesting proximity is associated with greater acceptance. But there is no difference in perceptions of relations between blacks and Hispanics between who live in counties with relatively higher or lower concentrations of Latinos; in either case, about two-thirds of blacks and six-in-10 Hispanics think the two groups get along well.
Differences on Core Issues
On some issues key to both groups, strong differences emerge. For example, on the issue of racial discrimination, blacks acknowledge that some progress has been made. But majorities also say bias against blacks remains widespread in key areas of American life, notably in housing and employment. In contrast, most Hispanics reject the view that blacks frequently face discrimination in these areas, offering positions that tend to be much closer to the views of whites than to those of blacks.
For example, two-thirds of all African Americans say blacks are "almost always" or "frequently" discriminated against when they apply for a job, compared with 36% of Hispanics and 20% of whites. Similarly, blacks are about twice as likely as Hispanics to say that blacks face discrimination when buying a house or renting an apartment (65% vs. 36%), applying to college (43% vs. 22%) or dining at restaurants or shopping in retail stores (50% vs. 29%).
The different way that African Americans and Hispanics view the prevalence of racism is underscored when these four questions are analyzed together. About one-in-four (26%) blacks say discrimination "almost always" or "frequently" occurs in each of the four activities tested in the survey: applying for a job or admission to college, shopping or eating out, or seeking to buy or rent housing. Another 24% say blacks frequently encounter racism in three of the four areas. Only 19% report that racism is not frequently found in any of the four domains. In contrast, 45% of Hispanics (and 63% of whites) say blacks do not frequently encounter racism in any of the areas tested. By the same token, only 11% of Hispanics and 3% of whites believe that blacks often experience racism in all four areas.
Blacks and Hispanics also see the extent of black progress in somewhat different ways, with African Americans distinctly more negative about the advancement they have made as a group in recent years. Fewer than a third (31%) of all blacks but 44% of Hispanics say the situation of black people in the United States has improved in the past decade. By the same token, blacks are three times more likely than Hispanics to say that things have gotten worse (22% vs. 7%), with the remainder reporting no change.
Contrasting Views on Illegal Immigration, Integration
Hispanics also are significantly more likely than African Americans to view illegal immigration as a serious problem in their communities. Overall, more than four-in-10 Hispanics (44%) say illegal immigration is a big problem in their communities compared with 28% of blacks. Views of Latinos and blacks on the seriousness of the immigration problem are virtually identical in counties that have the smallest proportion of Hispanics. In these communities, only about one-in-five see illegal immigrants as a concern. But in counties with comparatively large Hispanic populations, there is an 11 percentage-point difference between Latinos and blacks (47% vs. 36%) and, significantly, these counties are home to about seven-in-10 Latinos.
Hispanics also are somewhat less enthusiastic than blacks about residential integration. Six-in-10 blacks compared with half of all Hispanics say they would like to see the country become more integrated in terms of minorities and whites living in the same neighborhoods. Among whites, 41% say they want more integration while 44% say current levels of integration are "about right," a view shared by 38% of Hispanics and 28% of blacks. (Since the question specifically asked for their views of "minorities and whites" living together, this finding may say more about how blacks and Hispanics feel about living among whites than how they feel about living near each other.)
On other questions about discrimination, Hispanics and blacks express similar views. For example, when asked if discrimination or personal shortcomings are the main reason why some blacks don't succeed, roughly similar majorities of blacks (53%) and Hispanics (59%) say blacks themselves are responsible, a view shared by 71% of all whites.
PublicationsOct 6, 2020
Amid National Reckoning, Americans Divided on Whether Increased Focus on Race Will Lead to Major Policy Change
PublicationsJul 7, 2020
A Century After Women Gained the Right To Vote, Majority of Americans See Work To Do on Gender Equality
Many Black and Asian Americans Say They Have Experienced Discrimination Amid the COVID-19 Outbreak
PublicationsJun 12, 2020
Amid Protests, Majorities Across Racial and Ethnic Groups Express Support for the Black Lives Matter Movement
PublicationsMay 8, 2019
Americans See Advantages and Challenges in Country's Growing Racial and Ethnic Diversity
Discrimination and Prejudice
Hispanic/Latino Identity


Everyone has words to live by – particular phrases that define who we are and guide how we handle any curveballs life throws at us.
For #foundfiction it's 'the best stories you find are the ones that find you'. This is the idea that literature is about a reader taking the outstretched hand of a writer they'll probably never meet, making a powerful bond through a story they didn't know they were looking for.
The concept behind #foundfiction is simple. Writers send in their stories, which are printed out, folded up, put in envelopes marked 'READ ME', and left in public spaces for someone to find. To date, there have been over 4,000 envelopes distributed across the world – throughout the UK and Europe, and as far as the US, Canada, Australia, Africa and Japan.
#foundfiction has also printed stories in Polish and French – and it has plans to broaden the languages it publishes even further by working with translators and welcoming short story writers worldwide.
Where are the stories left? Anywhere they're likely to be found and appreciated. Bookshops, cafés and train stations are where readers usually stumble upon these mysterious envelopes – but they've also turned up in the crevices of trees, at cash points and in mannequin hands in fashion stores. #foundfiction defines street literature.
Now, #foundfiction is welcoming Leeds writers to its growing global community. Aspiring novelists, poets and performers of all varieties are invited to the #foundfiction writing festival – an action-packed creative event at Leeds Central Library.
Three prominent writers reveal their creative secrets, discussing their how they approach writing and find inspiration.
Learn how to sharpen your writing skills in a series of quick-fire, immersive workshops. Practise how to write to rhythm, build empathy with your readers and bring out stories within stories. In these creative exercises, you'll get the chance to develop your writing and share your work with the rest of the group.
~ Writing Desk - where attendees will be invited to co-create a short story one line at a time. Let's produce a masterpiece together.
~ Writing's on the Wall - an incomplete sentence displayed on the wall. Fill in the blanks with post its, and try to come up with the most interesting sentence of the day. Hosted by Leeds poets Ogun and Adekola.
~ Micro Stories - around the Library will be micro stories bringing everyday objects and locations to life through literature. Find the most and win a prize!
~ Lit Bots - artificial intelligence is now advanced enough to create fiction. It's true! See how it works and programme it to write stories on your behalf. The future is now.
~ Tall Tales - write down your ideas for stories and hang them to a branch on a tree, inspired by Yoko Ono's Wishing Tree. Hosted by Bradford poet Sharena Lee Satti, who will help you develop your ideas.
~ No Distractions - are distractions hampering your creativity? Clear your mind at the No Distractions Centre, where you can put on noise cancelling headphones and a blindfold to create stories without interference from the outside world. Hosted by Lence.
~ Stories for Social Media - want to get your hands on some #foundfiction stories to distribute in your community? Buy envelopes to take home as a souvenir - they're for sale for a social media post on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
The event is going to be a carnival of creativity - with so many memorable and engaging activities that have never been staged before.


text:
Q: iptables redirect rule for udp not working I'm trying to create redirection for syslog UDP traffic from incoming IP:PORT to other port on same linux box.  Purpose for that is to route traffic comming to different IP addresses on server to services running on higher port numbers depending on destination address.
OS: RHEL 7.2
Rule:
iptables -A PREROUTING -t nat -p udp --dport 514 -d A.D.D.R -j REDIRECT --to-port 1514

for debugging i tested also:
iptables -A PREROUTING -t nat -p udp --dport 514 -d A.D.D.R -j LOG --log-prefix "SYSLOG_REDIRECT"

iptables -t nat -L -v -n

shows 0 for counter, no logs recorded
tcpdump shows traffic incoming on ingress port 514
destination IP address (A.D.D.R) is assigned to subinterface/alias interface enoXXXX:1
Does someone had similar case?

A: Your NAT rule seems to be correct and should do what you expected. However, there is one point to verify that I believe it is the reason why your UDP traffic is not redirected.
Redirecting UDP traffic can be more trickier than redirecting TCP. This is mainly because TCP is a connection-oriented protocol and UDP is connection-less.
NAT rules rely on connection tracking module which keeps track of the state of any "connection". In TCP case, it is clear what it means as there is special TCP packets to indicate new connections. In UDP, there is no connection establishment phase. The first packet your box will see it is considered as initiating a "connection" and the reply packet indicates that the "connection is established".
How about closing the connection? In TCP, it is also clear because TCP uses special flags to indication connection close. When seen, you box can make use of them and clear the connection state accordingly. However, you will never know when UDP "connection" is terminated. So, the connection track entry will not be cleared unless the timeout is reached (on my machine it is set to 180 seconds) without any UDP packet.
How this is related to your issue? When your box is continuously receiving UDP traffic for syslog, the UDP "connection" timeout will not expire and the connection state will be kept all the time. NAT rule will not be applied as long as there is a state in connection tracking table.
How to force new NAT rule? You can try to remove the connection tracking entry manually using the below command (don't use it without any other parameters as it will empty the whole table interrupting all your current connections). For more parameters, you can check the manual.
$ sudo conntrack -D

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange