Contra-Dawkins : Some genes survive species, but Darwinists are interested in genes that survive as part of the genome of a whole organism-type , a species.

A gene only "lives" as part of a genome , a whole organism type, a genome , a species . An isolated gene is not alive. Carbon 14 atoms last longer than species . So what ? I'm more interested in the Natural History species . I'm interested in the genes and the carbon 14 atoms because they explain species , especially human species . I'm openly human species-being -CENTRIC in my moral outlook .

I’m a robotski too

Campaign for Democratic votes everyday some kinda way like your life depends on it because it really does

Hi Charles. I'm Angella w/ the Democrats. One year ago today, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law, and you helped to make this possible. That's why the Biden-Harris campaign & DNC are inviting you to a special briefing with campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez on Tuesday, Sep 5 at 7:00 pm ET, to hear how we're organizing Michigan to victory in 2024! Will you join? Stop 2 End

RSVP: https://txt.democrats.org/ovmi1/

Students sue Michigan school district for allowing boys in girls’ bathrooms

Students sue Michigan school district for allowing boys in girls’ bathrooms

Hollywood strike

NEW YORK (AP) — Shawn Batey was sweating in the August sun on the 100th day of the writers strike, carrying her “IATSE Solidarity” sign on the picket line outside Netflix's New York offices, but she was glad to be there. A props assistant and documentary filmmaker, Batey is a member of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, the union that represents most Hollywood crew members, and has recently worked on “Pose” and “Russian Doll.” But since the writers strike began in May and the actors joined them on July 14, Batey has had trouble covering her expenses — so she applied to the emergency fund from the Entertainment Community Fund for help. “They say apply when you’re at a critical point,” said Batey, adding that she needed to show her union card, her wages and, in her case, that she'd worked as a member of the union for a certain number of years. The application is lengthy, but she said, “It is definitely worth for people to apply. Just be patient.” Batey — who used her grant to pay her rent, phone bill and electric bill, and other expenses — is one of 2,600 film or television workers that the Entertainment Community Fund has helped during these strikes, granting $5.4 million as of Aug. 25. The fund, formerly known as The Actors Fund, is one of several nonprofits that have long supported workers who make the entertainment industry run, but who were essentially gig workers long before the term was coined. That includes both unionized and nonunionized workers, and those on strike as well as those who've lost work because of it. The fund has received the most requests for help from people in California, followed by Atlanta and New York. It’s raised $7.6 million so far and is granting about $500,000 a week. For now, it’s issuing one-time grants of up to $2,000 for individuals or $3,000 for families. “It's a lot of the crafts people, the wardrobe people, the makeup people, the carpenters that build the sets, the painters, the electricians,” said Tom Exton, chief advancement officer for the Entertainment Community Fund. He said the fund has supported industry members through many previous crises, including the AIDS epidemic and financial crisis, and would continue to fundraise to provide help as needed. Another charity created more than 100 years ago to help entertainment workers get through through tough periods, the Motion Picture & Television Fund, helps administer funds from some of the unions to provide emergency assistance specifically for their members. It declined to disclose the amount of financial support its received from those unions. The fund also provides financial and counseling support to unaffiliated workers and offers housing to industry veterans over the age of 70. Bob Beitcher, its president and CEO, said many of the lowest-paid entertainment workers have little savings or reserves coming out of the pandemic. The federal programs and protections, like eviction moratoriums that helped keep entertainment workers and many others afloat during COVID-19 shutdowns, also aren't around now. “They are losing their homes. They’re losing their cars and trucks. They’re losing their health insurance,” Beitcher said. “And it’s pretty awful.” Striking actors and writers have accused the studios of purposefully prolonging the strike so that they lose their homes. MPTF has been getting 200 calls a day as opposed to 20 a day before the strike. Over 80% of callers are “below-the-line” workers, meaning not the actors, writers, directors or producers. They've processed 1,000 requests for financial assistance through the end of July, the fund said, with applicants waiting an average of two weeks for the money to be dispersed. Beitcher called for greater support from industry members, in an open letter on Aug. 17, saying, “As a community, we are not doing enough to support the tens of thousands of crew members and others who live paycheck to paycheck and depend on this industry for their livelihood. They have become the forgotten casualties during these strikes, overlooked by the media.” MPTF said it has raised $1.5 million since the letter was published. The SAG-AFTRA Foundation, a nonprofit with a mission to support the members of the actors union, quickly raised $15 million with $1 million donations from Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, Oprah Winfrey and Julia Roberts in the first three weeks of the actors strike. Other $1 million donations came from George and Amal Clooney, Luciana and Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Hugh Jackman and Deborra-Lee Furness, Dwayne Johnson, Nicole Kidman, Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Meryl Streep. Cyd Wilson, the foundation's executive director, said her pitch to the top talent is that even the biggest stars need the army of smaller actors, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck, to make their movies and television shows. “Those are the people that we’re going to be helping the most, because those are the people that are going to be hurting the most,” she said. The foundation exclusively supports the 160,000 members of the union and 86% of those performers don't make enough work in a year to qualify for health insurance, Wilson said. “They waitress, they bartend, they work catering, they drive Uber, they babysit, they dog walk, they housesit. They have all these secondary jobs in order to be able to survive,” she said. As the strike goes on, the funds expect more and more union members will lose their health insurance because they will not have worked enough hours to remain eligible. A small group of mostly showrunners decided they wanted to specifically fundraise to cover health care for crew members, and set up a fund with the MPTF. “It’s one thing for us to be sacrificing our own day-to-day for our greater good, but to watch our brother and sister union stand beside us?” said actor and writer Andrea Savage. “We just got together and said, ‘How can we show that we’re there for them? And also really put our money where our mouth is and actually do something concrete?’” On Wednesday, talk show hosts Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers, and John Oliver launched the “Strike Force Five” podcast, with proceeds from the limited run going to the writers and crew on their TV shows. Mint Mobile and premium alcohol maker Diageo signed on as presenting sponsors. Savage, along with other actors like “Girls” creator Lena Dunham and “Black Monday” star Paul Scheer, started talking on WhatsApp groups, then met on Zoom and eventually founded The Union Solidarity Coalition. They've raised $315,000 so far in part from a benefit show in Los Angeles on July 15 that went to the MPTF fund (Savage said she and Scheer covered the cost of the portable toilets). The writer Liz Benjamin helped set up an initial auction, which included a ceramic vase made by Seth Rogen and a blue dress worn by Abbi Jacobson in the series “Broad City,” raising more than $8,600. A second auction opens in mid-September on eBay. Batey says she is still trying to figure out how to make ends meet in September and for the rest of the strike. She's thinking about where else her skills might be applicable and whether to get temporary work outside her field. In the meantime, she supports the striking writers and actors. “It's dignity and standing up for yourself," she said. "So if it means we have to take a hit right now for the bigger cause, it’s worth it.” ____ Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP’s philanthropy coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy. ___ For more on the Hollywood strikes, visit https://apnews.com/hub/hollywood-strikes/

wind power Rising costs, complex planning laws and better opportunities - Chris Laurens/Construction Photography/Avalon/Getty Images Someone get a grip. UK energy policy is once again coming apart at the seams, with growing doubts over whether net zero or even energy security goals can be met. Only now are the true economic costs and practical difficulties of going carbon-free becoming fully evident, and it’s not a pretty sight. Yet still policymakers don’t seem to get it; either that or they are being deliberately misleading on the ease with which it can be delivered. All pretence at “leading the world” in the application of renewables is meanwhile going up in smoke, as one-time champions pare back their ambitions for the UK market in the face of rising costs, oppressive planning laws, and better opportunities elsewhere. Rival jurisdictions, particularly the US and EU, are beginning to offer far superior incentives. If you cannot beat them, do the opposite. Slowly, but surely, the Government is watering down its environmental agenda, which sadly but inevitably frequently clashes with the parallel goal of enhanced economic growth – the latest example being so-called “nutrient neutrality” water pollution rules which act as a barrier to more housebuilding. Yet on paper at least, and indeed legally, the overarching environmental goal of net zero by 2050 – together with the staged targets set for getting there – remains sacrosanct, even though most practically minded people have long thought there is not a snowball’s chance in Hades of actually meeting it. A giant leap of faith in the transforming powers of technology is demanded to think it can be. As if to confirm the gaping chasm between ambition and reality, the latest round of auctions for UK renewable energy licences, the outcome of which is due to be announced late next week, has plainly hit the rocks. Having already abandoned a key UK offshore wind development because of rising costs, the Swedish utility Vattenfall has indicated that it won’t be participating in the Government’s so-called Auction Round Five. Similarly with the UK energy group SSE, which has said it will not be entering its Seagreen offshore development into the auction, citing a low, officially set, strike price, and dramatically rising costs. Under pressure from the renewables industry, the Government has announced a slight increase in the promised subsidy below strike prices, but it’s unlikely to make a difference. Presumably there are at least some bidders still in the running; even so, officials will struggle to get the capacity hoped for, putting in jeopardy the target of 50GW of offshore wind by 2030. Current capacity stands at just 14GW, so there is a way to go. This in turn raises doubts about the Government’s separate target of complete decarbonisation of the electricity network by 2035. This, too, looks unrealistic. British energy policy is once more in a chaotic mess. It was ever thus. As it is, policymakers have set strike prices so low that investors are struggling to see how they might make a return. No surprise that prices should be forced down like this, for the green energy transition is not just about saving the planet. It is also meant to deliver much lower energy costs. This, too, is turning out to be a pretence. It’s true that in the past seven or eight years, the notional cost of renewable energy has plummeted. The price of offshore wind output has, for instance, fallen by around two thirds, from £100 per megawatt hour to less than £40. There you go, say ministers in response to net zero sceptics; it’s cheaper than coal. Would that it was, but the claim is in fact a statistical illusion. The manufacturing, installation and maintenance costs alone have been surging since the war in Ukraine. To these we must also add the costs of upgrading the National Grid to bring the new sources of electricity from where they are generated to where they are used. Littering the countryside with pylons is understandably running into local opposition. Billions may have to be forked out to compensate affected communities, or in finding alternative, more expensive, transmission routes. It could make HS2 look cheap by comparison. But to gain a proper understanding of the real costs of wind, and to a lesser extent, solar, we need to factor in another of their characteristics – that they are intermittent. In order to function effectively, the grid needs a constant balance between supply and demand; if the wind isn’t blowing, or even if it is blowing too strongly, thereby overloading the grid, there is a problem. Lots of conventional backup capacity is required to deal with the shortfalls that result from intermittency – capacity that can be brought online quickly at the flick of a switch when needs arise. The upshot is likely to be a high degree of duplication in generating capacity. This will obviously very considerably add to the costs of the renewable element. It’s disingenuous to say wind is cheaper than fossil fuels. Potentially, storage could provide a solution to the intermittency problem, yet for the moment it doesn’t exist at the scale needed to do the trick. If Britain cannot guarantee to keep the lights on, nobody is going to want to set up shop here. What about batteries? This may seem unduly pessimistic, but it stretches credulity to believe that they can ever really be the solution. Is there even enough lithium in the world to provide the level of battery power needed to supply the National Grid when the wind stops blowing? There are alternatives, nuclear being the most obvious, but many environmentalists are as opposed to it as they are to coal, gas and oil, and here in the UK, policy on new nuclear capacity, as on much else, falls woefully short. It is as much as we can do even to get the money-eating leviathan of Hinkley Point C up and running. Next comes Sizewell C, which scarcely promises to be much better. As Britain’s ageing fleet of existing nuclear power stations reaches the end of its life, merely replacing what’s closing down seems to be beyond us. And to phase out the 80pc of UK energy demand currently satisfied by fossil fuels, we would need far, far more. Yet the Government continues to procrastinate. Shamefully, it is still faffing around with an international competition to decide who gets to build Small Modular Reactors, never mind how to finance them. The last two auction rounds lulled the Government into a false sense of security on the economics of renewables. Both were hugely successful in attracting bidders at apparently highly competitive prices. But things have changed. Having been ahead, Britain is slipping behind. Next week’s announcement on the outcome of the fifth round auction threatens to be a rude awakening. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month, then enjoy 1 year for just $9 with our US-exclusive offer.

Women cherish to-do lists because they reveal unseen Labour to men

Front cover of Listful Dr Joanna Nolan is the author of Listful: an exploration of the cultural history of list-making Women make more lists than men because they have to do more multi-tasking, an academic has claimed. Dr Joanna Nolan said female list writers find the activity “pleasurable” as it means not only that the “unbelievable” number of tasks they need to achieve get done but they also have a record of what they have achieved. The academic, based at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, said that this then enables their male partners to appreciate how much “unseen” work they have done. By contrast, “functional” men don’t enjoy making a list, they simply want to tick everything off, she said. The linguist said she had noticed how men and women approach lists differently when she conducted research for her upcoming book, Listful, which explores the place of lists in history, culture and the media, and in our daily lives. Speaking on Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, Dr Nolan said: “Both men and women make lists – but women make them with more enthusiasm. “Men, perhaps, it’s more functional – there’s a purpose to it. It’s more outcome related, they want to do everything on the lists. “Whereas women are interested in the actual making of the list.” ‘They couldn’t live without their lists’ Dr Nolan said her data was slightly skewed because she had interviewed more women, but added this was because when she asked a woman about a list – “their eyes would light up”. She added: “They would get all excited and they would want to talk for so long, or exchange emails for so long on such an extended basis about their lists, their list-making habits, why lists are so important to them, how they couldn’t live without their lists.” “We take pleasure in our lists, not only because we are trying to make sure that we don’t miss any of the unbelievable number of tasks that we feel we have to achieve but also because we want the record that we can refer back to.” Dr Nolan spoke about a friend who read out her to-do list to her husband every morning. She said: “He [the husband] will say invariably to her: ‘Why are you telling me this?’ “And she will think, it’s because otherwise you might not acknowledge quite how much I am doing that goes unseen.” ‘This multi-tasking problem we have’ Alice Instone, an artist, has extensively researched lists for art exhibitions and noted a key difference between men and women’s list-making habits. She said: “I did find a big difference between men’s lists and women’s lists. “Again, I found that women make a lot more lists than men. “I thought it was maybe to do with this multi-tasking problem we have.” Instone said she herself was not very good at multi-tasking and relied on making lists to get things done. She added: “I’m not someone who’s good at multi-tasking which is why I think I write so many lists. “And it’s the fact that we are looking after our children, and sometimes our parents and we are often the ones that write thank you letters – or invite people for supper. “We are looking after the pets, and combining this with our work, and house work and the repairs. “It’s having things in so many different areas, it’s very hard to remember it all.” Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month, then enjoy 1 year for just $9 with our US-exclusive offer.

The Curse from Prometheus: Air pollution is more dangerous to the health of the average person on planet Earth than smoking or alcohol, with the threat worsening in its global epicenter South Asia even as China quickly improves, a benchmark study showed Tuesday.

Air pollution is more dangerous to the health of the average person on planet Earth than smoking or alcohol, with the threat worsening in its global epicenter South Asia even as China quickly improves, a benchmark study showed Tuesday. Yet the level of funding set aside to confront the challenge is a fraction of the amount earmarked for fighting infectious diseases, said the research from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, known as EPIC. Its annual Air Quality Life Index (AQLI) report showed that fine particulate air pollution — which comes from vehicle and industrial emissions, wildfires and more — remains the "greatest external threat to public health." If the world were to permanently reduce these pollutants to meet the World Health Organization's guideline limit, the average person would add 2.3 years onto his or her life expectancy, according to the data, which has a 2021 cutoff. That adds up to 17.8 billion life years saved, the researchers point out. Fine particulate matter is linked to lung disease, heart disease, strokes and cancer. Tobacco use, by comparison, reduces global life expectancy by 2.2 years while child and maternal malnutrition is responsible for a reduction of 1.6 years. Buildings are seen in the haze caused by the air pollution in Jakarta, Indonesia, on August 16, 2023. / Credit: YASUYOSHI CHIBA/AFP via Getty Images Buildings are seen in the haze caused by the air pollution in Jakarta, Indonesia, on August 16, 2023. / Credit: YASUYOSHI CHIBA/AFP via Getty Images "The impact of (fine particulate air pollution) on global life expectancy is comparable to that of smoking, more than 3 times that of alcohol use and unsafe water, more than 5 times that of transport injuries like car crashes, and more than 7 times that of HIV/AIDS," the report says. Asia and Africa bear the greatest burden yet have some of the weakest infrastructure to deliver citizens timely, accurate data. They also receive tiny slices of an already small global philanthropic pie. For example, the entire continent of Africa receives less than $300,000 to tackle air pollution. "There is a profound disconnect with where air pollution is the worst and where we, collectively and globally, are deploying resources to fix the problem," Christa Hasenkopf, director of air quality programs at EPIC, told Agence France-Presse. While there is an international financing partnership called the Global Fund that disburses $4 billion annually on HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, there is no equivalent for air pollution. "Yet, air pollution shaves off more years from the average person's life in the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo) and Cameroon than HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other health threats," the report said. Globally, South Asia is the region impacted most. Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan are, in order, the top four most polluted countries in terms of annualized, population-weighted averages of fine particulate matter, which are detected by satellites and defined as particles with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5). Air pollution concentrations are then fed into the AQLI metric, which calculates their impact on life expectancy based on peer-reviewed methods. Residents of Bangladesh, where average PM2.5 levels were 74 micrograms per cubic meter, would gain 6.8 years of life if this were brought to WHO guidelines of 5 micrograms per cubic meter. India's capital Delhi, meanwhile, is the "most polluted megacity in the world" with annual average particulate pollution of 126.5 micrograms per cubic meter. China, on the other hand, "has had remarkable progress in terms of its war on air pollution" thst began in 2014, said Hasenkopf. Its air pollution dropped 42.3 percent between 2013 and 2021. If the improvements are sustained, the average Chinese citizen will be able to live 2.2 years longer. In the United States, legislative actions like the Clean Air Act helped reduce pollution by 64.9 percent since 1970, helping Americans gain 1.4 years of life expectancy. But the growing threat of wildfires — linked to hotter temperatures and drier conditions due to climate change — are causing pollution spikes from the western United States to Latin America and Southeast Asia. For example, California's historic wildfire season of 2021 saw Plumas County receive an average concentration of fine particulate matter more than five times over the WHO guideline. Record wildfires in Canada this summer spurred widespread concerns about air quality and the potential impact on health. North America's story of air pollution improvements in recent decades is similar to Europe, but there remain stark differences between western and eastern Europe, with Bosnia the continent's most polluted country. Hurricane Idalia could bring up to 15-foot storm surge to Florida's Gulf Coast Quiet Cutting: Employers reassigning more workers to cut jobs, report finds Fort Myers Beach mayor on Hurricane Idalia preparations

WonderWomanWarren: Last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) sent a letter to tax prep executives seeking information on how much these corporations have profited from their lobbying efforts. In their letter, Sen. Warren and Rep. Porter said

Americans for Tax Fairness Action Fund Charles , For decades, the tax prep industry has spent millions of dollars lobbying the federal government to prevent the IRS from implementing a free, easy-to-use, online tax-filing system. According to an investigative report by ProPublica, TurboTax and H&R Block have been hiding their so-called free tax filing software in order to trick taxpayers into paying fees to file their taxes online, even when a taxpayer qualified for free online tax filing.[1] In 2020, around 70% of taxpayers were eligible to file their taxes online for free. But because of tricks and traps set by the tax prep industry, only about 3% successfully found and used the free options.[2] Together, we’ve been fighting to allow the IRS to implement a free “Direct File” system. And, now it’s on the verge of doing so, using some of the restored funding the agency was afforded in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). But, House Republicans are attempting to claw back $67 billion of that $80 billion investment in better IRS services. Our champions in Congress are fighting back: Last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) sent a letter to tax prep executives seeking information on how much these corporations have profited from their lobbying efforts. In their letter, Sen. Warren and Rep. Porter said: “Tax prep companies have engaged in a long and aggressive lobbying campaign to prevent the IRS from offering taxpayers a direct filing option.” Congress is about to return to Washington after its August recess. We’re fighting back against GOP attempts to kill Direct File and undermine other critical investments made in the IRS that are meant to better serve everyday taxpayers. Rush a donation today to fight back against greedy tax-prep corporations and their high-priced lobbyists and ensure the IRS has the resources it needs to make tax filing free and easy for millions of taxpayers each year. If you've saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your secure donation will go through immediately: CHIP IN $5 NOW CHIP IN $25 NOW CHIP IN $50 NOW CHIP IN $100 NOW CHIP IN $200 NOW OTHER AMOUNT Together, we’re fighting for an economy and a tax system that works for everyone, not just the wealthy few. Thank you, David Kass Executive Director Americans for Tax Fairness Action Fund [1] Here’s How TurboTax Just Tricked You Into Paying to File Your Taxes [2] IRS Should Develop Additional Options for Taxpayers to File for Free PAID FOR BY AMERICANS FOR TAX FAIRNESS ACTION FUND Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address, change your name or address, or to stop receiving emails from Americans for Tax Fairness Action Fund, please click here.

Michigan voters are carrying out my motto: Abolish the kkk-Republican Party ; vote in Democratic majorities as California has .

Michigan voters are carrying out my motto: Abolish the kkk-Republican Party ; vote in Democratic majorities as California has .

Commodity Fetishism

LBJ for the Wage-Labor Class of the USA

Republicans hold America in a Permanent Lockdown /Hostage Situation: Lockeddown for Gun manufacturers’ profits

Lest We forget the Republicans saying let wage-laborers eat cake - another episode in 1,000,000 ; state and federal

YahoogetApp What Causes Scalp Psoriasia? Not What You Think Ad Search Ads | Tarzo INSIDER Republicans are holding the American economy 'hostage' over the debt ceiling after rejecting Biden's offer of $3 trillion in deficit cut proposals, House Progressive Caucus says Ethan Dodd May 24, 2023·3 min read Rep. Pramila Jayapal U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), joined by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), speaks at a news conference on banning stock trades for members of Congress, on Capitol Hill, April 07, 2022.Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesMore Republicans have refused to raise the debt ceiling without reducing the deficit. The US could default on its debt in less than a week unless Congress raises the debt ceiling. House Democrats blame this "reckless hostage taking" on Republicans. Republicans say Democrats are unwilling to negotiate spending cuts. House Democrats have flipped the switch. The US could have only until June 1 to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a default that would rock the global economy, Republicans have refused to raise the debt limit unless they can cut spending. House Democrats are blaming their Republican colleagues for rejecting Democratic proposals to reduce the deficit. Scroll to continue with contentAd New deals. Every day. "The Republicans rejected $3 trillion worth of policies that could have gone towards deficit reduction," Rep. Pramila Jayapal, chair of the House Progressive Caucus, said at a Wednesday press conference after speaking with President Biden Tuesday night. On Tuesday, Rep. Matt Gaetz of the Freedom Caucus told Joseph Zeballos-Roig, a Semafor reporter, that he and his conservative colleagues "don't feel like we should negotiate with our hostage." "Who exactly is that hostage?" Jayapal asked. "It's the American economy. It's seniors, parents, kids, veterans, people with disabilities, teachers, the poorest Americans." "We will continue to reject and call out this reckless hostage-taking from extreme MAGA Republicans," she emphasized. The proposals the GOP rejected included ending oil subsidies, closing tax loopholes, negotiating down more Medicare drug prices a billionaire minimum tax, a corporate global minimum tax, and "raising taxes on large corporations from the outrageous cut that Trump instituted — all together $3 trillion in savings," Jayapal said. The GOP-controlled House narrowly passed a bill in late April that would raise the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion, slash $4.5 trillion from the federal budget, increase work requirements on social welfare programs, ban student loan-forgiveness programs, and roll back earmarked pandemic spending. President Joe Biden has vowed to veto the bill, and McCarthy has refused any short-term debt-limit increase to give negotiations more time. Despite so-called "productive" meetings, the two have failed to negotiate deficit reductions that would satisfy Republicans. If they can't come to an agreement about how to lower the deficit and get Republicans to raise the debt ceiling, 2.6 million Americans could lose their jobs. Americans could each lose $20,000 in retirement savings and see their mortgage, small business, and private student-loan payments surge. "Republicans want you to believe that there are only two choices: their extreme bill that would make you pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest, or default that pushes our economy into catastrophe," Jayapal added. "Don't buy it. There are other options," she insisted, from Republicans joining Democrats in a discharge petition to force a vote to raise the debt ceiling, Biden invoking the 14th Amendment to override the debt ceiling, to Republicans agreeing to "any—any—revenue-raising policies so that it's the wealthiest and big corporations reducing the deficit by paying their fair share." With Republicans rejecting Democratic proposals, Jayapal said, "If we default and if we crash the economy, there is only one person to blame and that is the Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy." Read the original article on Business Insider View Comments View Comments View Comments View Comments View Comments View Comments View Comments

Anthropology 153 – Lecture 2 – Fall 2023

“Survival of the Fittest” and “The Struggle for Existence”

What is FIT in the famous Natural Selection idea of “survival of the fittest “ ? Has everybody heard that phrase ? What is the Darwinian struggle for existence “ ?

An Individual organism, An Animal Body, has an instinct for self-preservation inborn in its brain. This is said to be the first law of nature. This is an inborn, genetically based instinct to live as long as possible (preserve itself) before its inevitable end, as all animals are _mortal_, don’t live forever (though only humans know this ; other species do not ). Every Individual Some Body has a limited lifetime or _ontogeny_ in which it is born, develops, exists and dies. This development of an Individual overtime is not evolution , but _ontogeny_. Evolution is the change or development of a species or a geno-TYPE or GENOME over two or more generations. It is change in the body type of a population of animals , not just one animal as in ontogeny.

Physically fit , in the sense of individual bodily fitness, means fit to literally fight or flee or labor for success in the “ struggle for existence”, or the struggle to survive . HOWEVER , fitness of the individual is NOT the fitness of Darwinian “survival of the fittest”. What survives in “survival of the fittest” are genes passed on and surviving in the next generation, in the offspring, children, of parental generation.

“The struggle for existence” is the Darwinian term of art for longevity in an individual organism living : getting enough to eat , not getting eaten , not falling out of a tree or off a cliff , not freezing to death , not overheating to death, not drowning , not getting deathly ill BEFORE REPRODUCING , BEFORE BEING FERTILE, passing on one’s genes to next generations .

The latter, differential fertility, is more important in determining Darwinian fitness than differential mortality. In other words, success or failure in mating and producing fertile offspring is more important in determining a Body _Type’s_ fitness, a genotype’s fitness, than success in the struggle for existence, (the struggle for the individual animal to survive). Although, the longer an individual lives, the greater the likelihood it will successfully produce fertile offspring, so differential mortality (comparing two animals’ longevities) does impact differential fertility ( comparing two animals’ success in producing fertile offspring)

It is a genotype or a species that has fitness or unfitness, not an individual organism. Because an individual animal cannot survive forever and perpetuate the species; only its genotype can be perpetually passed on down through the generations.

So, Darwin’s principle of Natural Selection is actually survival of the _fertile_ , the fertile –TYPE; the fit types are more fertile than the unfit types . Fertility success is the Darwinian definition of fitness success.

In Darwin's theory, the "struggle" in the struggle for existence, to live, is NOT between Individual Selves of the same species to the point of Individual Bodies, somebodies, of the same species killing each other except very rarely. Most of the deaths before passing on genes to the next generation, are due to failures in struggles with some Individual Body of _another_ species, plant and animal, as predator and prey; or struggle against bad weather, heat exhaustion, sunburn.

It is easy to see how some people get a misconception of Darwinian natural selection because it _is_ posed in most of its prime formulations with a sort of emphasis on the fact of indirect "competition" in the sense that for the typical bodily form of a species to change over generations under Darwin's theory, some members with genes that change the species typical traits must more successfully pass them on than members with species typical traits over successive generations until the new trait is universal , and the old typical trait is extinct. But this does not necessarily or even conventionally imply direct physical conflict between Individuals of the two types but of the same species in the day-to-day struggle for existence to live, not die, as Individual Bodies.

This is demonstrated by the famous anthropological micro-evolutionary study of sickle cell genes on pages 95 to 98 of _Physical Anthropology_ (12th edition). There is no direct physical competition between the people of the various genotypes with different fitnesses in the different environments in the study. It is not an Individual , but a species over generations , a group of the same type who "evolve", "adapt" or "survive". Individuals must live their individual life long enough to reproduce for the species to survive. However, every individual eventually dies. "Survival" of the individual means living long enough to pass on genes or a geno-type to the future generations. If mutated genes, changed geno-type, are passed on, there is a potential unit of evolution between the parent and the offspring. That is evolution occurs between Individuals of different generations, not in one Individual Self. If the mutated genotype results in a phenol-typical trait that is adaptive in some significant way, it may become an evolutionary change by the species through several individuals of different generations.

Significantly, the institution of war which arises in human history with so-called civilization around 6,000 years ago involves human Individuals violating their natural instinct of self-preservation. Going into battle is to risk one's individual life for a social value of some type, nationalism or religion, not the exercise of a non-existent "instinct of aggression". Humans do not even eat those they kill in most war ( joke) , another unnatural aspect. No animal species kills without the motive of getting food.

))))))))))))))))))))))))) 1) Concerning the test, a)please put the word “discuss” in front of each question ; b) ask yourself as you answer the questions, “ why is the professor asking this question ? ‘; try to connect the answers with each other.

2) Write out three questions you have about the last two classes and the readings .

(15 minutes) 3) A student usually asks : “Can you explain the phylogenetic tree of life ?” See Chapter 6 of text _Physical Anthropology_ , especially pages 114 through 119; particularly “phylogeny” is defined on page 118. The discussion there is in terms of taxonomy : Phylogeny is TAXONOMY + EVOLUTION .

“Mammal”, “primate”, "hominin" , australopithecine , are taxonomic/phylogenetic / Tree of Life classifications. As we go down on the Tree of Life, there are increasingly inclusive categories or categories that include more and more species. So, australopithecines are hominins, but not all hominins are australopithecines ( for example ardipethicus is a hominin, but not an australopithecine). All hominins are primates, but not all primates are hominins; primates is a larger inclusive category than hominins, and includes all hominins. All primates are mammals but not all mammals are primates. All mammals are vertebrates , but not all vertebrates are mammals.

All hominins are primates, but not all primates are hominins. There are more primate species than hominin species, and the primate classification is further down on the Tree of Life than the hominin classification.

All primates are mammals, but not all mammals are primates. There are more mammal species than primate species ; and the mammal classification is lower on the Tree of Life than the primate classification.

Genus Homo, Homo habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthal, Homo sapiens are taxonomic/phylogenetic classifications in Chapter 14 (not on Test 1)

Again , The logic of the Tree of Life: Increasing numbers of species included in the classifications as we go down on the Tree: So , all of the Genus Homo species are Hominins, but not all Hominin species are Genus Homo species. There are more Hominin species than Genus Homo species. Genus Australopithecine species and Genus Homo species are included in the classification Hominin. Only Genus Homo species are included in the Genus Homo. The Hominin classification is further down on the Tree than the Genus Homo classification.

_ What is the importance of the African location of “missing link” fossils as Darwin predicted ?_

The world of the last 500 years has been under the ideology of race based on skin color; more specifically an ideology of white skin supremacy and dark skin color inferiority ( I will discuss skin color variation more fully in the Chapter 17 on physical variation in the human species). For now, I am making the point that the Missing Link fossils and Early Human fossils being found exclusively in Africa basically contradicts the false ideology that light skinned humans are inherently superior to dark skinned humans. Therefore, it was important that Darwin, Raymond Dart , Robert Broom and the other anthropologists who discovered all the early fossils were White men. If it had been Black people discovering the fossils, they would not have been believed in major parts of white society. Evidence that parts of European society considered that the Missing Link species should have been found in Europe is the Piltdown FRAUD on page 250 of the text as an indication of the inherent superiority of Europeans.

“Missing Link” is using the “Links in a chain” metaphor to portray an evolutionary line of descent from the species that was the common ancestor of chimps and early hominins; from early hominins to late hominins or Genus Homo species. Australopethicus is a Darwinian MISSING LINK FOSSIL. It has a chimplike brain , but walked BIPEDALLY.The links are better portrayed graphically as follows:

US American Leftists are practical critical political economists; practicing political economic or rank and file Party Militancy in Wage-Labor Class ELECTORAL struggle to extract the rational kernel and discard the poisonist husk of the Big Bourgeoisie, the Finance-Monopoly Capitalism , Night of the Living Dead phase of Imperialism

US American Leftists are practical critical political economists; practicing political economic or rank and file Party Militancy in Wage-Labor Class ELECTORAL struggle to extract the rational kernel and discard the poisonist husk of the Big Bourgeoisie, the Finance-Monopoly Capitalism , Night of the Living Dead phase of Imperialism

The Salt of the Earth : The drama film is one of the first pictures to advance the feminist social and political point of view. Its plot centers on a long and difficult strike, based on the 1951 strike against the Empire Zinc Company in Grant County, New Mexico. In the film, the company is identified as "Delaware Zinc", and the setting is "Zinctown, New Mexico". The film shows how the miners, the company, and the police react during the strike. In neorealist style, the producers and director used actual miners and their families as actors in the film.[2] In 1992, the film was added to the National Film Registry.

https://youtu.be/FE1oKQCwwo4?si=2ukkQg6hrM26dcQr

Wikipedia Search Salt of the Earth (1954 film) Article Talk Language Watch

Edit Hi. Please don't skip this 1-minute read. We're sorry to interrupt, but today's fundraiser won't last long. This Wednesday, August 23, we request your support. Please join the 2% who donate. All we ask is $3 if you can afford $3, or $25 if you can afford $25. — The Wikimedia Foundation, host of Wikipedia and its sister sites. Give $3 Give a different amount

MAYBE LATER I ALREADY DONATED CLOSE For the 2014 film about the works of photographer Sebastião Salgado, see The Salt of the Earth (2014 film). Salt of the Earth is a 1954 American drama film written by Michael Wilson, directed by Herbert J. Biberman, and produced by Paul Jarrico. All had been blacklisted by the Hollywood establishment due to their alleged involvement in communist politics.[1]

The drama film is one of the first pictures to advance the feminist social and political point of view. Its plot centers on a long and difficult strike, based on the 1951 strike against the Empire Zinc Company in Grant County, New Mexico. In the film, the company is identified as "Delaware Zinc", and the setting is "Zinctown, New Mexico". The film shows how the miners, the company, and the police react during the strike. In neorealist style, the producers and director used actual miners and their families as actors in the film.[2] In 1992, the film was added to the National Film Registry.

Salt of the Earth Theatrical release poster Directed by Herbert J. Biberman Screenplay by Michael Wilson Produced by Paul Jarrico Starring Rosaura Revueltas Will Geer David Wolfe Mervin Williams David Sarvis Ernesto Velázquez Juan Chacón Henrietta Williams Cinematography Stanley Meredith Leonard Stark Edited by Joan Laird Ed Spiegel Music by Sol Kaplan Distributed by Independent Productions Release date March 14, 1954 (New York City) Running time 94 minutes Country United States Languages English Spanish Budget $250,000 1:32:20 The full film

The drama film is one of the first pictures to advance the feminist social and political point of view. Its plot centers on a long and difficult strike, based on the 1951 strike against the Empire Zinc Company in Grant County, New Mexico. In the film, the company is identified as "Delaware Zinc", and the setting is "Zinctown, New Mexico". The film shows how the miners, the company, and the police react during the strike. In neorealist style, the producers and director used actual miners and their families as actors in the film.[2] In 1992, the film was added to the National Film Registry.

Plot Edit Esperanza and Ramón Esperanza Quintero (Rosaura Revueltas) is a miner's wife in Zinc Town, New Mexico, a community which is essentially run and owned by Delaware Zinc Inc. Esperanza is thirty-five years old, pregnant with her third child and emotionally dominated by her husband, Ramón Quintero (Juan Chacón).[3] We know from her concern about her onomásticos or día de mi/su santo or Name Day that it is the 12th November as that is the onomásticos of persons named Esperanza.

The majority of the miners are Mexican-Americans and want decent working conditions equal to those of white, or "Anglo" miners. The unionized workers go on strike, but the company refuses to negotiate and the impasse continues for months. Esperanza gives birth and, simultaneously, Ramón is beaten by police and jailed on bogus assault charges following an altercation with a union worker who betrayed his fellows. When Ramón is released, Esperanza tells him that he's no good to her in jail. He counters that if the strike succeeds they will not only get better conditions right now but also win hope for their children's futures.[4]

The company presents a Taft-Hartley Act injunction to the union, meaning any miners who picket will be arrested. Taking advantage of a loophole, the wives picket in their husbands' places. Some men dislike this, seeing it as improper and dangerous. Esperanza is forbidden to picket by Ramón at first, but she eventually joins the line while carrying her baby.[5]

The sheriff, by company orders, arrests the leading women of the strike. Esperanza is among those taken to jail. When she returns home, Ramón tells her the strike is hopeless, as the company will easily outlast the miners. She insists that the union is stronger than ever and asks Ramón why he can't accept her as an equal in their marriage. Both angry, they sleep separately that night.[6]

The next day the company evicts the Quintero family from their house. The union men and women arrive to protest the eviction. Ramón tells Esperanza that they can all fight together. The mass of workers and their families proves successful in saving the Quinteros' home. The company admits defeat and plans to negotiate. Esperanza believes that the community has won something no company can ever take away and it will be inherited by her children.[7]

Cast Edit

Professional actors

Rosaura Revueltas as Esperanza Quintero Will Geer as Sheriff David Bauer as Barton (as David Wolfe) Mervin Williams as Hartwell David Sarvis as Alexander Non-professional actors

Juan Chacón as Ramón Quintero Henrietta Williams as Teresa Vidal Ernesto Velázquez as Charley Vidal Ángela Sánchez as Consuelo Ruiz Joe T. Morales as Sal Ruiz Clorinda Alderette as Luz Morales Charles Coleman as Antonio Morales Virginia Jencks as Ruth Barnes Clinton Jencks as Frank Barnes Víctor Torres as Sebastián Prieto E.A. Rockwell as Vance William Rockwell as Kimbrough Floyd Bostick as Jenkins and other members of Mine-Mill Local 890

Production

Reception Edit Critical response Edit

Miners before they strike With McCarthyism in full force at the time of release, the Hollywood establishment did not embrace the film.[14]

Pauline Kael, who reviewed the film for Sight and Sound in 1954, panned it as a simplistic left-wing "morality play" and said it was "as clear a piece of Communist propaganda as we have had in many years."[15]

Bosley Crowther, film critic for The New York Times, reviewed the picture favorably, both for its screenplay and direction, writing: "In the light of this agitated history, it is somewhat surprising to find that Salt of the Earth is, in substance, simply a strong pro-labor film with a particularly sympathetic interest in the Mexican-Americans with whom it deals....But the real dramatic crux of the picture is the stern and bitter conflict within the membership of the union. It is the issue of whether the women shall have equality of expression and of strike participation with the men. And it is along this line of contention that Michael Wilson's tautly muscled script develops considerable personal drama, raw emotion and power." Crowther called the film "a calculated social document".[16] Michael Wilson, who worked under a nom de plume for some years afterwards, later won an Academy Award for the screenplay of Bridge on the River Kwai (1957).[17]

The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported that 100% of critics gave the film a positive review, based on eleven reviews.[18]

Accolades Edit Karlovy Vary International Film Festival: Best Actress: Rosaura Revueltas; Crystal Globe Award for Best Picture, Herbert J. Biberman, received Ex aequo also by True Friends. Karlovy Vary (Carlsbad), Czechoslovakia; 1954.[19] Academie du Cinema de Paris: International Grand Prize; 1955.[20] In 1992, the Library of Congress selected the film for preservation in the United States National Film Registry for being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant."[21] The film is preserved by the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.

Later history Edit

Juan Chacón as Ramón Quintero The film found an audience in both Western and Eastern Europe in the few years after its American release.[22] The story of the film's suppression, as well as the events it depicted, inspired an underground audience of unionists, leftists, feminists, Mexican-Americans, and film historians. The film found a new life in the 1960s and gradually reached larger audiences through union halls, women's associations, and film schools. The 50th anniversary of the film saw a number of commemorative conferences held across the United States.[23]

Around 1993, Massachusetts Institute of Technology linguistics professor and political commentator Noam Chomsky praised the film because of the way people were portrayed doing the real work of unions. According to Chomsky: "[T]he real work is being done by people who are not known, that's always been true in every popular movement in history...I don't know how you get that across in a film. Actually, come to think of it, there are some films that have done it. I mean, I don't see a lot of visual stuff, so I'm not the best commentator, but I thought Salt of the Earth really did it. It was a long time ago, but at the time I thought that it was one of the really great movies—and of course it was killed, I think it was almost never shown."[24]

The "Salt of the Earth Labor College" located in Tucson, Arizona is named after the film. The pro-labor institution (not a college per se) holds various lectures and forums related to unionism and economic justice. The film is screened on a frequent basis.[25]

Other releases Edit

Union meeting. On July 27, 1999, a digitally restored print of the film was released in DVD by Organa through Geneon (Pioneer), and packaged with the documentary The Hollywood Ten, which reported on the ten filmmakers who were blacklisted for refusing to cooperate with the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). This Special Edition with the Hollywood Ten film is still available through Organa at organa.com. In 2004, a budget edition DVD was released by Alpha Video. A laserdisc version was released by the Voyager Company in 1987 (catalog # VP1005L).[26]

Because the film's copyright was not renewed in 1982,[27] the film is now in the public domain.[28][29]

Adaptations Edit The film has been adapted into a two-act opera called Esperanza (Hope). The labor movement in Wisconsin and University of Wisconsin–Madison opera professor Karlos Moser commissioned the production. The music was written by David Bishop and the libretto by Carlos Morton. The opera premiered in Madison, Wisconsin, on August 25, 2000, to positive reviews.[30]

A documentary titled A Crime to Fit the Punishment, about the making of the film, was released in 1982 and was directed by Barbara Moss and Stephen Mack.[31]

A drama film, based on the making of the film, was chronicled in One of the Hollywood Ten (2000). It was produced and directed by Karl Francis, starred Jeff Goldblum and Greta Scacchi, and was released in European countries on September 29, 2000.[32]

A fictionalized account of the movie's production featured prominently in the Audible original podcast series, The Big Lie (2022). Based on source material written by Paul Jerrico, the production features voice performances from Jon Hamm, Kate Mara, Ana de la Reguera, Bradley Whitford, John Slattery, Giancarlo Esposito, and David Strathairn, and was written by John Mankiewicz and Jamie Napoli.[33][34]

See also References Further reading

External links Last edited 16 days ago by InternetArchiveBot RELATED ARTICLES Rosaura Revueltas Mexican actress (1910–1996) One of the Hollywood Ten 2000 Spanish film International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 890 Wikipedia Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Privacy policy Terms of Use Desktop

What Does It Really Mean to Be the Salt of the Earth? AUGUST 6, 2021 | Andrew Wilson

“You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.” (Matt. 5:13)

Few things in creation are more ordinary than salt.

Most of us have interacted with it in the last couple of hours, whether we realize it or not. We use it to make leather, pottery, soap, detergents, rubber, clothes, paper, cleaning products, glass, plastics, and pharmaceuticals. It sits largely unnoticed on hundreds of millions of café and restaurant tables around the world.

Unlike pepper, which is often sitting next to it, salt is essential for our health and has always been eaten by human beings wherever we have settled. We add it to so much of our food that many languages simply distinguish between sweet and salty flavors. We spread it across roads when it snows. More than half of the chemical products we make involve salt at some stage. And that’s without mentioning the trillions of tons of it that sit in our oceans, covering 70 percent of the surface of our planet.

Salt is everywhere.

Jesus’s Illustration

Its ordinariness and its use in all cultures make it an obvious candidate for Jesus to use as an illustration. Jesus, as we know, loved using everyday items to communicate truths about God and his people, and his description of the disciples as “the salt of the earth” (Matt. 5:13) is arguably the best-known example. To this day, people use the phrase to describe good, honest, humble people. Less predictably, it also features as the name of a Rolling Stones song, a D. H. Lawrence poem, and an intriguing variety of products including deodorants, water softeners, and (bafflingly) wine.

Here is the really odd thing, though: an awful lot of Jesus’s disciples, the very people whom he identified as the salt of the earth, are still not entirely clear on what he meant. Lots of us have heard explanations of it—our job is to make the world taste better or stop it from rotting—but these explanations often conflict with each other and suffer from various problems. Jesus was talking about salt in relation to the earth, not food. Salting the earth was something people did after destroying their enemies, rather than blessing them. Elsewhere in the Gospels, Jesus connects salt with fire and with living at peace together (Mark 9:49–50), neither of which seems to fit with the idea of tastiness or preservation. Technically, sodium chloride doesn’t lose its flavor anyway. So what on earth is Jesus talking about?

The reason it’s confusing is that salt had a number of purposes in the ancient world. At least five of them are relevant to Jesus’s words about his disciples: salt was used for flavoring, preserving, sacrificing, destroying, and fertilizing. Rather than assuming that Jesus’s statement is confusing and then debating which particular use of salt he had in mind, it’s best to assume he knew what he was doing and that metaphors can function in multiple ways. Followers of Jesus are like salt: although we’re ordinary and everywhere and get involved in pretty much everything whether we’re noticed or not, we also have a variety of roles to play as God’s kingdom comes on earth.

Let’s consider each of those five purposes.

1. Flavoring

Salt makes food taste better, either by adding flavor to something that would otherwise be bland (chips or fries), by enhancing flavors that are already there (vegetables), or by providing a contrast with a very different sort of taste (mmm, salted caramel). This is probably the use of salt that most of us think of, because it’s the only one of the five that still applies today. Regardless of whether Jesus’s original audience would also have thought of it first—and they may not have—it is a powerful illustration of the way Christians are to serve the world. We’re intended to spread throughout the world and enhance it, adding flavor to things that would be bland, drawing out the blessings of whatever is good, and providing a contrast by being distinct and different. When Paul tells us to ensure that our speech is “seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Col. 4:6), this is the kind of thing he has in mind.

We’re intended to spread throughout the world and enhance it . . . drawing out the blessings of whatever is good, and providing a contrast by being distinct and different. 2. Preserving

Salt was the ancient equivalent of refrigeration. If you wanted to stop meat or fish from decaying, you could rub in salt and make it edible for longer. This was the main reason salt was so valuable. Roman soldiers were sometimes paid in salt, which (as an aside) is the origin of our word “salary.”

Disciples of Jesus, in this sense, are sent into the world to keep it from decay, preserving its goodness and preventing it from becoming corrupted or ruined, which is a helpful thing to bear in mind as we go to work every day.

Salt does not just savor. It saves.

3. Sacrificing

This may well be related to the previous two functions of salt, although it is probably less familiar to us. Early in Israel’s history, Moses explained how Israel was to offer sacrifices to the Lord: “You shall season all your grain offerings with salt. You shall not let the salt of the covenant with your God be missing from your grain offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt” (Lev. 2:13). Perhaps because it flavored food and kept meat from going bad, salt was a necessary part of all of the Isrealites’ sacrifices and even represented God’s covenant with them.

“Disciples are salt in this sense, too,” Peter Leithart writes. “The world is an altar. Humanity and the world are to become a single great offering to God. As we offer ourselves in obedient, suffering self-sacrifice, we become the seasoning on a cosmic sacrifice that makes it well-pleasing to God.”

4. Destroying

This is one we find much less appealing, but we can’t get away from it: there are more scriptural references to salt being used in judgment or destruction than to any of the other purposes.

When Lot’s wife turns back to look at the city of Sodom, she is turned into a pillar of salt (Gen. 19:26), a story Jesus refers to when describing the day of his coming (Luke 17:32). Moses warns the Israelites that if they break God’s covenant, their land will be “burned out with brimstone and salt, nothing sown and nothing growing, where no plant can sprout” (Deut. 29:23). When Gideon’s son Abimelech tries to set himself up as king of Israel, the men of Shechem rebel against him, and he responds by razing the city and sowing it with salt (Judg. 9:45). The psalmist describes God turning “a fruitful land into a salty waste, because of the evil of its inhabitants” (Ps. 107:34). Jesus himself, in one of the fiercest judgment paragraphs in the Gospels, says simply that “everyone will be salted with fire” (Mark 9:49). Salt, in the ancient Near East, was used to express judgment upon evil.

There are more scriptural references to salt being used in judgment or destruction than to any of the other purposes. There’s a sense in which disciples have the same purpose. God scatters salty Christians into the world as a way of judging evil, destroying wickedness, and preventing lust or greed or murder or injustice from taking root. The very existence of the church, preaching and living out the gospel, proclaims judgment against the enemies of God and serves as what Paul calls “a clear sign to them of their destruction” (Phil. 1:28); this may be why Jesus says we are the salt of the earth immediately after describing the persecution we will face if we follow him. Frequently, of course, the church has failed to live this way and has been an accelerator of worldly evil, not a brake. But Jesus knew that would happen.

That’s why almost all his words of judgment are directed to the people of God rather than the unbelieving world. We need to be salted too.

5. Fertilizing

Several ancient civilizations used salt as a fertilizer for the soil, and depending on the conditions, it could help the earth retain water, make fields easier to plow, release minerals for plants, kill weeds, protect crops from disease, stimulate growth, and increase yields. The reason this matters is that Jesus specifically describes his people as the salt of the earth, which in a rural, farming culture would have been significant.

Disciples are fertilizers. We’re meant to be in those places where conditions are challenging and life is hard. We are sent to enrich the soil, kill weeds, protect against disease, and stimulate growth, and as we scatter, life springs up in unexpected places. Barren lands become fruitful. When the people of God are redeemed, as the prophet says, “the wilderness and the dry land shall be glad; the desert shall rejoice and blossom like the crocus” (Isa. 35:1).

So when Jesus said we are the salt of the earth, what did he mean? Did he mean that God will use us for flavoring, preserving, sacrificing, destroying, or fertilizing? In a word, yes. If people tell you that it’s about only one of those things, by all means hear them out. But take it with a pinch of salt.

Editors’ note: This is adapted from Andrew Wilson’s God of All Things: Rediscovering the Sacred in an Everyday World (Zondervan, 2021).

Super rich, corporate interests finance Republican presidential hopefuls

People's World Super rich, corporate interests finance Republican presidential hopefuls August 23, 2023 10:24 AM CDT BY MARK GRUENBERG Share

Email Super rich, corporate interests finance Republican presidential hopefuls Harlan Crowe, the multi billionaire yacht owner and "sugar daddy" for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is pumping money now into the campaign of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Like Trump, Christie, will be beholden to big billionaires if is he ever gets the GOP nomination, like all the Republican presidential hopefuls. | AP WASHINGTON—This shouldn’t come as any great surprise, and the records are incomplete, but the superrich and corporate interests corruptly bankroll the latest crop of Republican presidential hopefuls.

If “money is the mother’s milk of politics,” as the late fabled California House Speaker Jesse Unruh once said, there are a lot of Republican cows around.

What’s to be determined: What the “cows” will get in federal favors and/or individual or corporate tax breaks should their favored candidates win the White House next year.

After all, that’s the pattern in politics that makes voters cynical, and leads progressives like Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., to declare the system is rigged. A review of campaign finance records



, by The New York Times, CNN, OpenSecrets.org, and now by People’s World, shows many of those cows are individual big givers who financed prominent right-wingers and extreme conservative campaigns.

One is Harlan Crow, the “sugar daddy” for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Two others are Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, who financed the recent Ohio Republican effort to convince voters to give up their constitutional rights to initiative, referendum, and a woman’s right to choose. Crow’s in former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s camp. The Uihleins back Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla.

The recipient list for the corporate and capitalist contributions also includes former Oval Office occupant Trump, the current leader in Republican opinion polls. There are three differences between him and the others though, the records show.

One is that his finances are uniquely opaque, with millions of dollars being shuffled back and forth to hide its true origins.

A second is that one big honcho, Charles Koch, has contributed $50 million of his $59 billion fortune this year into an anybody-but-Trump drive by the Americans for Prosperity Action PAC (campaign finance committee). Koch and his late brother David established that PAC several years ago as a companion to their lobby, Americans for Prosperity, to champion their right-wing and anti-labor agenda.

That New York Times report adds the same anti-Trump campaign got another $25 million from a “non-profit” Charles Koch established this year. Non-profits don’t have to disclose donors’ names or their business affiliations, either.

The third difference is that Trump’s campaign finance committee has had to funnel so much money to his lawyers that its cash reserves are lower than those of some of his foes. Trump’s been indicted once each by the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and by Fulton County, Ga., DA Fani Willis, and twice by Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Trump’s campaign spent at least $40 million in legal fees in the April-June 2023 campaign finance reporting period alone, on top of $16.9 million for “accountants, compliance and legal services” in 2022. It’s spent so much on lawyers that its reserves shrank in those three months. And of the $40 million it spent on lawyers in 2022, $1.2 million went to the Baltimore firm whose partners include Trump attorney Evan J. “Jack” Corcoran, campaign finance records show.

Corcoran testified and turned his notes over to the federal grand jury in D.C. which handled the Washington end of the indictment against Trump for purloining top-secret government documents—including a Pentagon plan to make war on Iran—and taking them to Trump’s Mar-A-Lago estate. So where does all this money come from?

The rich, their companies, and their campaign finance committees, or PACs.

Open Secrets.org a big tracker

PAC donor numbers for that April-June quarter aren’t available yet, but OpenSecrets.org, the prime tracker of money in politics, reported Trump’s main fundraising committee, the Save America PAC, raised $108.72 million last year, with almost 50,000 individual donors contributing at least $200 each, for a total of $73 million.

Who are those donors? That’s a tougher call. The former construction magnate’s campaigners and allies have become experts in shuffling money around, from joint PAC to his main PAC to his campaign committee and back again, all to hide the identity of his donors.

Just in the second three months of this year, his finance operatives shuffled $60 million of it to his main campaign committee, Make America Great Again. Where’d they get it, from the joint PAC and that shuffle lets them keep donors secret.

Shades of Watergate, when Nixon campaign finance chair Maurice Stans, the former Commerce Secretary, hit major corporate contributors for piles of cash and checks before a new federal disclosure law took effect, forcing donors to identify themselves.

Stans funneled the money to phony committees with “patriotic” names, which in turn wrote checks to Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President, aka CREEP. The quid pro quo then was federal favors. One big donor, shipbuilder and New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, got caught. Stans, somehow, escaped conviction by a Big Apple jury.

Some Trump big givers, however, are listed in federal records, obtained by OpenSecrets.org, which tracks campaign and lobbyist spending. For example, the first and largest individual donation early this year, directly to Trump’s own campaign committee, without a pass-through, was $10,000 from “investor” Timothy Mellon of Saratoga Springs, N.Y., a ritzy playground of New York’s rich.

Mellon, of course, is heir to the family banking fortune, amassed by his ancestor, Andrew Mellon, Treasury Secretary for Republican Presidents Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover.

The money from Mellon, a staunch backer of conservative causes, to Trump pales next to his $5 million to renegade Democratic ex-Rep. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Riding his family name, Kennedy is challenging Democratic incumbent President Joe Biden in the party’s primaries. Mellon’s money is more than half of what Kennedy’s American Values PAC has raised overall.

This makes Kennedy, who’s touring the country spouting crazy theories, a tool of the interests, too.

The other Republican contenders are also recipients of corporate and capitalist cash, according to OpenSecrets, the Times, and CNN. Details include:

Right-wing Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., running on a social issues platform that’s red meat for Republican crowds—anti-teacher, anti-union, anti-Black, anti-immigrant, anti-“woke” and so on—depends on big donors for his super PAC, Never Back Down Inc. It’s now taken over the faltering campaign of the so-far-second-place governor, including hiring some of the staffers DeSantis had to can when direct contributions dropped.

And DeSantis appears as “an honored guest” at Never Back Down fundraisers, though he openly can’t make a pitch there to give to the PAC, because that would violate one of the few remaining strictures of federal campaign finance law: No “coordination” between super PACs and the candidates they back.

Running DeSantis schedule too

Since Never Back Down is not only raising money but even running DeSantis’s schedule, eyebrows are being raised over potential campaign law-breaking. But the toothless, and deadlocked, Federal Election Commission can’t enforce that weak anti-coordination law.

Never Back Down garnered $130 million in the first six months of this year, CNN reports. But in another case of shuffling money to hide donor names, DeSantis’s former state PAC—which amassed more than $200 million for his gubernatorial landslide win last year—threw in 63% ($82.5 million) of Never Back Down’s total.

Another $20 million came from a rich hotel magnate, Robert Bigelow, after Bigelow gave $10 million to the governor’s state PAC, Empower Parents, in 2022. A third PAC chipped in $5.5 million, while billionaire Venture Capitalist Douglas Leone added $2 million.

Another $2 million went to DeSantis’s Super PAC from Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein. He’s the right-wing owner of the Uline office products company—and the biggest giver, through $5.1 million via two PACs, of the Republicans’ recent failed campaign to convince Ohio voters to amend their constitution to make initiatives and referendums harder.

Former Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., a right-winger who distinguishes himself on the campaign trail by denouncing Trump’s crimes—after Trump unceremoniously kicked then-boot-licking Christie out of a key transition post in late 2016—still has a Trump connection in his campaign finance records.

It’s Anthony Scaramucci, who served 11 days as Trump’s communications director before being kicked out for, in so many words, upstaging the boss. Scaramucci gave Christie’s PAC $100,000, CNN reported.

So did another notorious Republican big giver: Harlan Crow, the magnate who’s lavished globe-girdling vacations, luxury yacht rides, private plane trips, and more on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the ideological leader of the Supreme Court’s right-wing Republican-named majority. For Crow, net worth of $3.1 billion, a hundred grand is pocket change.

And in another example of how to hide money, billionaire TikTok investor Jeff Yass gave Christie’s PAC $250,000, CNN reported. That was peanuts compared to the $10 million Wall Streeter Yass gave to the PAC of the anti-worker Club for Growth, a notoriously anti-corporate tax and anti-spending right-wing outfit which has been lambasting Trump in TV ads for spending money to fight the coronavirus.

And if you use WhatsApp as an app, you may be indirectly giving money to former Gov. Nikki Haley, R-S.C., who was Trump’s UN ambassador but got out before the roof fell in via the coronavirus.

Haley’s PAC raised $18.7 million from when she declared her candidacy, early this year, through the end of June. Almost one-third of that came from Jan Koum, co-founder of WhatsApp, who gave $5 million.

This whole tsunami of big giver and corporate cash, let loose by two Supreme Court rulings a decade and more ago by the Republican right-wing majority on the nation’s highest tribunal, proves one more point, made, ironically, by Trump, in 2015:

“When you give,” he said of politicians, “they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”

We hope you appreciated this article. At People’s World, we believe news and information should be free and accessible to all, but we need your help. Our journalism is free of corporate influence and paywalls because we are totally reader-supported. Only you, our readers and supporters, make this possible. If you enjoy reading People’s World and the stories we bring you, please support our work by donating or becoming a monthly sustainer today. Thank you! TAGS:

corporations Republicans right wing CONTRIBUTOR Mark Gruenberg Mark Gruenberg

Award-winning journalist Mark Gruenberg is head of the Washington, D.C., bureau of People's World. He is also the editor of the union news service Press Associates Inc. (PAI). Known for his reporting skills, sharp wit, and voluminous knowledge of history, Mark is a compassionate interviewer but tough when going after big corporations and their billionaire owners. RELATED ARTICLES

Teachers, civil rights leaders fight DeSantis history whitewash Teachers, civil rights leaders fight DeSantis history whitewash Trump threats endanger jurors, judges, prosecutors, lawmakers, citizens Trump threats endanger jurors, judges, prosecutors, lawmakers, citizens Right-wing danger grows as crisis in German left continues Right-wing danger grows as crisis in German left continues Comments 0 comments MOST POPULAR TODAY After months of denial, U.S. admits to running Ukraine biolabs U.S. agrees Taiwan is part of China; it’s time to act like it Union support growing for Aug 26 MLK anniversary ‘March on Washington’ Trump gives up trying to muster supportive crowds for his indictments MAGA fascists are taking over sheriffs offices across the country ABOUT PEOPLE’S WORLD CONTACT POLITICAL AFFAIRS ARCHIVE MUNDO POPULAR ARCHIVE DOWNLOAD PRINT EDITION Copyright 2023. Some Rights Reserved. People's World