A story of intersectional discontent: how youth protests reveal entrenched cultural norms in KenyaESubdenMon, 10/14/2024 - 11:30
14 October 2024
BlogGloria Nyambura KenyattaALIGNKenya
1118,
136
Protesters outside the Nation Centre on Kimathi Street in Nairobi, Kenya, June 2024.
This article is read by Eunice Wong, a Juilliard-trained actor, featured on Audible's list of Best Women Narrators. Her work is on the annual Best Audiobooks lists of the New York Times, Audible, AudioFile, & Library Journal. www.eunicewong.actor
What does equity have to do with city governments’ cultivation of dynamic capabilities?
When it comes to examining city governments’ cultivation of dynamic capabilities in relationship to improved outcomes, service delivery, and public value, equity matters. Here, equity may refer to the extent to which those improvements are distributed across geographical areas and populations and put in service of diminishing highly disproportionate resource and burden allocations.
Twenty years ago, my husband and I were at a party of grad students in Claremont, California, discussing the differences between Old Testament law and the New Covenant written on the hearts of man as described in the New Testament. At one point a male classmate jumped up, eyes wide with shock, saying “wait. WAIT…you guys actually believe this stuff? Like not ironically, not for the sake of the noble lie…. For real—you actually believe this?”
I remember nodding, and then laughing at the whole scene. His shock was genuine, and his comment carried no malice. He was an upper-class kid who had attended elite schools, and he had simply never met a young, devout intellectual before. The idea that a thinking person would openly, unabashedly believe in Christianity was shocking to him.
It’s difficult to remember now, but in the early 2000s young intellectuals on the Right did not dabble in religion. The dawn of a new millennium offered only two alternatives to the milquetoast, Clintonesque liberalism that had dominated the 1990s: libertarianism or George W. Bush’s evangelical “compassionate conservatism.” Tech bros or values voters.
Many times over the last several years, Donald Trump’s political opponents on the Right claimed he was a drag on the Republican Party’s political prospects. This argument was never very plausible. The reversals that congressional Republicans suffered over the last six years (such as losing the House and Senate by narrow margins) were well within the normal range of the vicissitudes of electoral politics. But whatever meager credibility such criticisms may have possessed has now been completely laid to rest by President Trump’s astonishing return to power, bringing with him Republican control of both houses of Congress—a feat accomplished in the face of unprecedented opposition from some of the most powerful forces in American political life. Trump has proven himself to be a potent political force and a boost to the fortunes of his party.
Trump, however, will only be around for four more years. If the American Right is to continue to succeed after he has left the scene, it will have to learn the secrets of his success. This means admitting that Trump’s impressive wins are the fruit not of mere luck, nor even of his extraordinary energy, but of his even more extraordinary political astuteness. As the pollster Patrick Ruffini remarked, simply but profoundly, in an election night X post: “Donald Trump understands what politics is about at a fundamental level.”
There are a number of dimensions to the current, ongoing constitutional crisis in the United States, all of which arise from actions taken by the Trump regime. There is the burgeoning conflict between the federal executive and federal judiciary which is likely headed to a showdown over the executive's compliance with judicial orders. There is the executive branch's usurpation of the powers of the federal legislative branch, Congress. Then, there is the breakdown of rule of law and ethics within the federal Department of Justice itself. There have been developments on all three fronts today.
The U.S. Constitution does not assign the federal attorney general independence from the chief executive, the U.S. President. In this, the federal structure conspicuously diverges from the many state constitutions that call for elected state attorneys general who have authority, separate and independent from state governors, to pursue litigation. This distinct authority – derived from state constitutions, statutes, and common law predating the American Revolution – prevents state governors from interfering with the legal judgment of the attorney general, who has paramount responsibility for representing the interests of the state and its people in court.
As Donald Trump was sworn in as president for the second time, he was surrounded by the men who deplatformed and silenced him four years ago. Google CEO Sundar Pichai banned Trump from YouTube and removed his app, Truth Social, from Google Play. Mark Zuckerberg sat flanked by Republican politicians despite banning Trump on Facebook and Instagram following the January 6 protest at the Capitol.
Whether it’s due to political opportunism or a real change of heart, the tech moguls’ now cozy relationship with Trump is one of necessity. It was easy to censor someone they thought would never become the most powerful man in the country again.
The question of how conservatives should respond to Big Tech’s sudden embrace of Trump is an important one. For too long, conservatives have insisted on purity tests for their allies. This is less about making sure your allies won’t turn on you and more a strange insistence that every convert must be a true believer. The problem is that the Left abandoned this notion a long time ago to their benefit.
Consider what Zuckerberg said when he was on Joe Rogan’s podcast. He’ll be introducing a community notes type of fact-checking system to all Meta platforms, which will significantly reduce the mainstream media’s power over Americans’ free expression via third-party fact-checkers.
Imagine that we’re disagreeing about whether I should drive the wrong way down a one-way street, and you say, “Don’t go that way—you could get in an accident!” And I say, “Oh, so no one has ever driven down a one-way street without getting into an accident?” You didn’t say anything about always or never. You’re talking in terms of likelihood and risk, about probability. I’m engaging in binary thinking.
On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss the bogus claims made by American officials about Australia flooding the US market with aluminium, the latest housing data (still no house for Elinor *sadface*) and Australia’s urban-rural divide.
This discussion was recorded on Thursday 13 February 2025 and things may have changed since recording.
This week, I was invited to share a little about my life with Long COVID over at Public Health Action Network. The result was an essay titled Fallout, a reference to the eerie feeling I have on the rare occasion I’m able to leave home: like I’ve tumbled, disoriented, out of a fallout shelter. In the essay, I shared that after walking 200 feet to the neighborhood market in early January, I triggered a miserable week of migraines and fatigue. For days after my oh-so-brief outing, I lay in bed with an eye mask on, doctors on speed dial and medications on rotation, unable to work.
Since last summer, I’ve described myself as homebound because I’ve been unable to leave my apartment without triggering symptoms this way. But over the last month, I’ve begun to ask myself: is it accurate to say I can’t leave home at all? Or would it be more accurate to say that I can’t leave home walking? After all, I do now have days where I sit up for several hours, working on this newsletter. Does that mean it would technically be possible for me to sit in a chair and go to the store? In other words, do I need to start thinking about getting a mobility aid, like a wheelchair?
La semana pasada, mientras recogía mi coche del mecánico, el señor sin mascarilla que me atendió detrás de una barrera de plexiglás, hizo un gesto acerca de mi mascarilla y me preguntó: “¿Estás enferma o estás tratando de no enfermarte?” Lo dijo con curiosidad amable, sin ridiculizar y sin las hostilidades que muchas veces enfrenta la gente que todavía usan las mascarillas en público. Respondí agradablemente que estaba tratando de no enfermarme.
Luego él señor compartió conmigo la siguiente información: otros en él taller lo habían estado presionando a quitar la barrera de plexiglás que apenas lo separaba de los clientes, pero él se negó. Uno de sus amigos se había muerto de “eso”; los mecánicos en el taller están constantemente enfermos con “eso”; y uno de los mecánicos perdió una de sus piernas debido a un coágulo de sangre después de estar entubado por tres meses con “eso”. Ni una sola vez usó la palabra “Covid”, pero los dos sabíamos de que estábamos hablando. Había devastado a personas que conocía y no quería desacerse de la última protección que lo separaba de los clientes que llegan enfermos todo el tiempo. En su propia manera, él insistió en seguir recociendo la pandemia protegiéndose como mejor sabía.
The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.
The captains of the tech industry have rapidly warmedtoTrump. But are they sincere? Or is the whole thing just a cynical display of fealty to the new leader, only to be reversed as soon as power changes hands? It’s probably a mix of both—not only across the industry, but sometimes even within a single person.
A helpful test is to ask when a given figure’s rightward lurch occurred. Those that happened after the election are much more likely to be transactional. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Sam Altman of OpenAI—who had previously been openly anti-Trump—seem to epitomize this category. Google’s Sundar Pichai likewise bent the knee, but was giving hostage-video vibes.
Last night, Liberal Senator Jane Hume announced they’d done a deal with the Albanese Labor Government on electoral laws – and some twelve hours later, it became law, having been rushed through both houses of Parliament.
Labor’s compromises with the Coalition have worsened the bill even further:
The material needs of working class people in America continue to be obscured and co-opted by politicians and people claiming to know what’s best on both sides of the political aisle. While Republicans and right-wingers address some of these needs head on, they do so by luring people through empty rhetoric and culture war distractions. On the other side, Democrats and liberals police and enforce a cancel-culture paradigm built by elites that also distracts and divides the proletariat from ever engaging in meaningful connection and change.
The latest figures from the Bureau of Statistics today reveal that the size of the average home loan over just the past 5 years has increased by more than $198,000 in Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales.
Everyone knows Australian house prices are high and putting home ownership out of reach for many new home buyers. These most recent mortgage figures only serve to remind people just how expensive it is to buy a home.
While often the media commentary is about Sydney house prices, the home loan figures show all states are affected. For example, the average new home loan in South Australia in just five years has gone from $372,000 to $580,000 – a 56% increase at a time when the average full-time earnings in South Australia have increased only around 18%.
But while the current situation is dire, if the pace of the past 20 years continues, owning a home will not so much be the Australian dream, but a ludicrous fantasy unavailable to everyone except to the very richest.
One clear way to demonstrate just how unaffordable housing is now compared to the past is to compare dwelling prices with average earnings. If average earnings went up at the same pace as house prices, then housing now would be just as affordable as it was before.
The problem, as you can see from the first graph above, is that is not the case.
Donald Trump’s top economic advisor, Kevin Hassett, recently outlined the administration’s economic vision, and after digging into the details, one thing stands out: it looks eerily similar to what Europe did following the Great Financial Crisis (GFC). If Trump gets his way, the U.S. economy could end up looking a lot like Europe’s—stagnant growth, higher unemployment, and structurally weaker economic conditions. Let’s break it down.
The Core Strategy: Fighting Inflation by Shrinking the Economy
Hassett laid out two main pillars of Trump’s economic plan:
Increase Labor Supply – This means pushing those receiving government assistance into the workforce, which effectively increases unemployment before they find jobs.
Lower Aggregate Demand – Achieved through government spending cuts, meaning less money flowing through the economy.
Theoretically, this will bring down inflation. But at what cost? If history is any guide, slashing government spending and pushing more people into the labor market without increasing demand leads to stagnation—a scenario Europe found itself in after the GFC.
Like a herd of American buffalo, joy and high spirits have stampeded across America since January 20, 2025—Liberation Day! The country has been liberated from the bleak, suffocating prison of woke tyranny—and we will need all the determination we can muster if we are going to finally put an end to it. The spirit of Making America Great Again is once more at large in the land, stronger, more inspired, and more determined than ever.
It is hard to keep up with the astounding multitude of executive orders President Trump is signing in his first weeks in office. One deserves more attention than we might be inclined to give it: “Celebrating America’s 250th Birthday.” It is focused on preparing “a grand celebration” of America on July 4, 2026, among “other actions to honor the history of our great Nation.” This includes the construction of the monument garden Trump tried to launch during his first term, now to contain 250 statues in honor of our nation’s birth.
Just when you think you can't be more alarmed and disgusted by the Republican Fascist regime, further horrendous stuff happens. Just because none of it is surprising doesn't mean it isn't shocking. Nothing Trump, Musk, the Trump cabinet heads and other Trump appointees are doing is unexpected, yet it is still very hard to process and absorb. Same for the support for all of this by the Republican Fascists who form the majorities in both the House and Senate of the federal government.
The fear and loathing, overlaid by feelings of incredulity and unbelief, can be disorienting and paralyzing, not just for us ordinary folks but also, I imagine, for state executive branch members and state legislators who prepared for months to respond to the reign of Republican Fascism at the federal level. Yet they, and we, are going to have to act if we are to give ourselves any protection at all.
I’ve spent my career looking at bad, unforced decisions. I describe them as times that people took a lot of time and talk to come to a decision they later regretted. These aren’t times when people didn’t know any better—all the information necessary to make a better decision was available, and they ignored it.
On this episode of Follow the Money, Senior Economist Matt Grudnoff joins Ebony Bennett to explain how tariffs work, Trump’s 25 per cent levy on steel and aluminium imports, and how big a deal this will be for Australia.
This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 11 February 2025 and things may have changed since recording.
The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.
Higher Education Reform Part II | Cincinnatus Series Ep. 2
Want to make a sign that gets noticed? Here is a template and tips shared by the Visibility Brigade, who make different signs each week.
Origin and Mission
The Visibility Brigade model was born in 2020 out of a frustration due to the lack of physical messaging in the real world regarding the existential crisis we face as a nation. We present our messages at a pedestrian walkway over Route 4 in Paramus, New Jersey.
Our goal is to remind folks of this crisis, to suggest simple actions to take and to support pro-democratic state and national candidates. However, perhaps the greatest purpose at present is to comfort heartbroken voters and let them know that they are not alone.
Who We Are And What We Do
As Margaret Meade once wrote,
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world, indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.
A Visibility Brigade needs only a handful of dedicated members (5 minimum) to create weekly actions. This requires a weekly dedication of 60-90 minutes a week of placing a simple message in a public location, usually an overpass or other well-trafficked locale.
The Australia Institute’s Democracy Agenda for the 48th Parliament proposes reforms aimed at strengthening Parliamentary debate, increasing government accountability, and enhancing the integrity of our political institutions.
Joined by Greens Senate Leader Larissa Waters and independent MPs Kate Chaney, Zoe Daniel, Helen Haines, Sophie Scamps, Monique Ryan, Andrew Wilkie, the Australia Institute’s Director of Democracy & Accountability Bill Browne launched the report today with a press conference at Parliament House.
Determining citizenship based on a birth certificate alone simplifies things immensely. Unfortunately, we no longer live in a world where that’s sustainable.
President Trump’s executive order interpreting the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” qualifier as not including people here illegally or on nonimmigrant visas may not succeed in changing current practice. In fact, I expect the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roberts, will punt on the issue, pointing to Section 5 of the amendment, which says, “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” In other words, a law is required, not an executive order.
But whatever the immediate outcome, the president has already succeeded in bringing the citizenship question to the center of our political debate.
Looking for narrative and storytelling directories, libraries or hubs? Here is a live list collated by the Commons librarians. Contact us if you if a suggestion to add.
The supposedly large campaigns run by community independents have been used to justify the Albanese Government’s rushed changes to electoral laws. Labor Special Minister of State Don Farrell explicitly linked the laws to an attempt to limit funding for community independents, saying “if you can’t get your message across after spending $800,000, then maybe you shouldn’t be in politics”.
Liberal MP Paul Fletcher claimed that “[t]hese amounts being spent on campaigns in individual electorates are without precedent in the Australian political system”.
Since these claims are being used to justify sweeping changes to Australian electoral law, they warrant close scrutiny.
The data reveals that the line being pushed by the two major parties does not stack up.
Despite what the Labor and Liberal parties might wish to suggest, million-dollar campaigns were not uncommon before the 2022 election.
As part of our campaign to commence to socio-economic duty, we’re asking supporters to write to their MP about Early Day Motion 258. This EDM calls for the socio-economic duty to be commenced in the strongest way, alongside consultation from trade unions, campaigners, and community groups. MPs from any party can sign this EDM! You […]
A live list of training and planning tools about narrative and storytelling collated by the Commons librarians. If you have a resource to add please contact us.
Counter or Transformative Narratives, Feminist Basket of Resources, Oxfam, see pgs 105-106 Purpose: Exploring the differences between “counter” and “transformative” narratives this is a simple exercise to source this knowledge and build it collectively. We do this because often we get stuck in responding or reacting to others, rather than thinking about our own narratives, what we believe in, what we are for. Time: 20 mins
President Trump has already appointed more Supreme Court justices than any president in 50 years. He now has a chance to be the first president since Eisenhower to appoint a majority of the justices on the Court. If he does, he would solidify his place as one of America’s most consequential presidents, and he would lock the Court’s liberals out of power for a generation.
If President Trump waits for a vacancy, his opportunity to secure his legacy may slip away. It is possible that neither Justices Alito nor Thomas will retire before the 2026 midterms. And three other justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, will soon be older than 65, the common retirement age, and could in theory vacate their positions between the 2026 midterms and the conclusion of President Trump’s term. If the Democrats win the Senate majority in 2026, they will likely block any appointments President Trump would make to the Court in the interim.
To guard against this, within the first 100 days and without a single justice announcing their retirement, Trump should nominate at least two candidates for the Supreme Court. Alternatively, he could make as many as five nominations for the justices aged 65 or older. President Trump can specify that these nominations will vest upon a vacancy actually arising, and the Republican Senate should swiftly confirm the nominees.
