Why do people sometimes prefer Dom/sub relationships?

Why do people sometimes prefer Dom/sub relationships?

D/s is one aspect of the wider category of BDSM (Bondage and Discipline, Dominance and Submission, and Sadomasochism), sometimes also known as kink. Some people are into all of the things listed under BDSM, and some only some of them. D/s is generally distinguished from SM because it is more about power than about physical sensation (although some use these terms more interchangeably).

In D/s activities one person generally dominates the other, or has power over them, therefore people tend to prefer D/s if they find a power dynamic to be exciting in some way. Of course it is pretty common for sex and power to be mixed together in our culture. For example, a lot of romance fiction involves people being rescued from peril or being swept away by somebody more powerful, and a lot of people fantasise about having the power of being utterly desirable to their partner.

What is involved in a Dom/sub relationship?

If somebody identifies as being into D/s, or having a D/s relationship, then they probably include power play in their sex life, and perhaps in other aspects of their relationship. People can identify as dominant, submissive, or switch (which means that they are sometimes dominant and sometimes submissive). It might be that people stick to the same roles each time they play together, or that they take different roles on different occasions.

For most people, being D/s will be something that they only do some of the time (for example, just in pre-arranged scenes – often, but not always, involving sex). Such scenes could involve any kind of exchange of power. For example, the submissive person might serve the dominant one food, or give them a massage; the dominant person might order the submissive one around or restrain them or punish them in some way; people might act out particular power-based role-plays such as teacher and student, cop and robber, or pirate and captive.

Some people who are into D/s might have longer periods, such as a holiday, where they maintain their power dynamic. And a few have lifestyle or 24/7 arrangements, where one person always takes the dominant, and the other the submissive, role. However, even in such cases much of their everyday life will probably not seem that different to anybody else’s. How does it differ to the traditional ‘vanilla’ relationship?

This depends very much on how important it is in the lives of those involved. Some D/s relationships would look very much like a vanilla relationship but just with a bit more power-play involved when people have sex. Others would have something of the D/s dynamic in other parts of the relationship. However, it should be remembered that most vanilla relationships have specific roles (e.g. one person takes more responsibility for the finances, one person is more outgoing socially, one person does more of the looking after, one person takes the lead in sex). In D/s relationships those things tend to be more explicit, but perhaps not hugely different.

So perhaps the main difference is in the amount of communication. Most people involved in BDSM stress the importance of everything being ‘consensual‘ so there will probably be much negotiation at the start about the things people do and do not enjoy, and the ways in which the relationship will be D/s. Checklists and contracts can be useful ways of clarifying this. So, for example, there may be limits about the kinds of activities and sensations people like, whether they enjoy role-play or not, and which aspects of the relationship will have a D/s element.

Why do so many people have misconceptions of this type of relationship?

The media portrayal of BDSM has tended to be very negative, often associating it with violence, danger, abuse, madness and criminality. Research has shown that actually people who are into BDSM are no different from others in terms of emotional well-being or upbringing, and that they are no more likely to get serious injuries from their sex lives, or to be criminal, than anybody else.

Often the media also focuses on the most extreme examples, such as very heavy and/or 24/7 D/s arrangements, rather than the more common relationships where there are elements of D/s. For these reasons people may well have misconceptions about D/s relationships. This is why it is useful to get a range of experiences out there in the media – so people can have more awareness of the diversity of things involved and the continuum (e.g. from light bondage and love bites to more scripted scenes and specifically designed toys). How do couples go about beginning a relationship like this?
A good idea for all people in relationships, whether or not they are interested in D/s, is to communicate about what they like sexually early on, and more broadly about what roles they like to take in the relationship. Often people just assume what they other person will enjoy or how they would like the relationship to be.

For example, one good activity from sex therapy and from the BDSM community is to create a list as a couple of all of the sexual practices that either of you is aware of, and then to go down it writing ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘maybe’ about whether it is something that interests you, and sharing your thoughts. It can also be good to share sexual fantasies or favourite images/stories and to talk about whether (and, if so, how) they might be incorporated into your sex life (the Nancy Friday and Emily Dubberley collections of sexual fantasies can be helpful with this). It is very important that people only do things that they really want to try (rather than feeling coerced into certain activities) and that it is accepted that there will likely to be areas which aren’t compatible as well as those that are.

BDSM communities and websites are a great place to look for more information from those who have been involved in these kinds of practices and relationships. Also local fetish fairs and kink events often include demonstrations and workshops. There is more in my books Enjoy Sex and Rewriting the Rules about communicating about sex and relationships. Some people have a BDSM relationship outside of an existing ‘vanilla’ relationship.

What effect can this have on a marriage or couple relationship?

Again this varies. Although it isn’t always out in the open, many couples have arrangements where they are open to some extent (e.g. monogamish couples, the ‘new monogamy’, open relationships, swinging, polyamory, and ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ agreements).

Having different sexual desires is one reason why some couples open up their relationship to one or both of them being sexual with another person. If this is communicated about clearly, kindly and thoughtfully, it can work perfectly well. The important thing again is kindness and communication. In regards to the hit book 50 Shades of Grey, many husbands have bought this for their wives and girlfriends. What does this say to them, and how would you help a couple who want to get more involved in this sort of lifestyle but don’t know how, or they are too shy to approach it?

The kinds of conversations and activities mentioned above are a great idea. One of the good things about 50 Shades of Grey is that it has opened up this kind of conversation for many people. However, it is important not to assume that the only form of BDSM is the one described in the book. In a heterosexual couple it may well be that the woman is more dominant, for example, or that both people switch roles, and the things that they enjoy may well be different to the ones which the characters engage in in the book.

If you want to read more about different practices and how to do them, then there are lots of good books available about BDSM. Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy’s books The New Topping Book and The New Bottoming Book are great places to start, as is Tristan Taormino’s The Ultimate Guide to Kink.

For couples who are really struggling to communicate about sex, or who have very different desires and are finding it hard to reconcile this, it might well be useful to see a sex and relationship therapist for a few sessions. The Pink Therapy website includes many kink-friendly therapists.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Submissive_/comments/dxlqsg/why_do_people_sometimes_prefer_domsub/ 

https://archive.is/JGiSc

How to Read Tarot Cards: A Beginner's Guide to Understanding Their Meanings - By Aliza Kelly Faragher - 26 Feb 2018

How to Read Tarot Cards: A Beginner's Guide to Understanding Their Meanings

By

Aliza Kelly Faragher

February 26, 2018

Rider-Waite tarot deck and Vilma Bánky with cardsGetty Images

 

 

• 
  

Tarot is one of the most popular divination practices, and though occultists have been drawing the allegorical cards for centuries, illustrated decks are now popping up all over. The intrinsic aestheticism of this ancient art has revitalized interest in tarot, making it a social media favorite — there's now even such a thing as emoji tarot.
Despite its ubiquity, though, tarot can still seem elusive and confusing. What exactly is tarot? What do the cards mean and how are they used? Don't fret: The tarot fundamentals are easy to understand. Here's what every beginner should know about the history of tarot, as well as tips and tricks for kick-starting your unique practice.

Where does tarot come from?

Surprisingly, tarot is a relatively modern craft. Though tarot decks date back to the 1400s, pictorial cards were originally used for games rather than prediction. Cartomancy, or fortune-telling through the use of playing cards, actually wasn't developed until 1785, when French occultist Jean-Baptiste Alliette — known by his pseudonym, Etteilla, the inversion of his surname — created comprehensive links between illustrated cards, astrology, and ancient Egyptian lore.

Over the next century, mystics and philosophers continued to expand the role of tarot. In the late 1890s, several London-based occultists formed the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, one of the groups responsible for the modern magical revival. Two of the group's founders, husband and wife MacGregor and Moina Maters, wrote a manual that detailed tarot's symbolic power, entitled Book T.
In 1909, Arthur Edward Waite and Pamela Colman Smith designed and published a tarot deck loosely based on the teachings of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. This timeless deck is commonly known as the Rider-Waite deck and is still the most popular tarot variant for both beginner and professional card readers. In 1943, occultist Aleister Crowley (the self-declared nemesis of Arthur Edward Waite) and Lady Frieda Harris published their own interpretation of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn's tarot. Their Thoth deck, named after the Egyptian god of alphabets, incorporates specific astrological symbolism into each card, linking the divination practice to the cosmos.

How do I choose a deck?

There is no shortage of stunning, dynamic tarot decks. Since the mid-twentieth century, hundreds — if not thousands — of beautiful decks have been published. The Tarot de Marseille deck is an elegant reproduction of a classic French deck; the Motherpeace deck perfectly captures the ethereal spirit of the 1970s; the Black Power deck spotlights famous black luminaries.

The Sun, the House of God (the Tower), the Nine of Swords, the Magician and the Devil, French Tarot cards. France, 17th century.The Sun, the House of God (the Tower), the Nine of Swords, the Magician and the Devil, French Tarot cards. France, 17th century. (Photo: Getty Images)

Some tarot readers believe that your first deck should be gifted to you. While everyone loves presents, there is nothing more valuable rewarding yourself with the magic of divination, so I say you should relish the opportunity to choose your first deck. With so many enchanting options available, the most important variable is your unique connection to the cards.

Whether you are shopping online or in-person, observe your emotions as you browse different tarot decks. Does the one you're considering make you feel excited? Wary? Confused? Trust your intuition: Your careful consideration will ultimately guide your interpretation of the cards. Explore the imagery: Are you enchanted by classical or modern representations? Note the symbols: Are they enticing? Remember, there is no hierarchy of tarot decks, so be sure to choose whichever deck truly tantalizes your soul.

What's the difference between the Major Arcana and the Minor Arcana cards?

Let's talk about the structure of the deck and the meanings of its cards. Any magical practice — tarot, astrology, or spell work — is based on the Hermetic axiom "as above, so below." In other words, the macrocosm of the cosmos is reflected in the microcosm of individual experience. Accordingly, the entire universe exists within a tarot deck, with each card representing a person, place, or event. These symbols are depicted in both the Major Arcana cards, which speak to greater secrets, and the Minor Arcana cards, which speak to lesser secrets.

The Major Arcana cards represent monumental, groundbreaking influences. They punctuate our journeys and each stands alone as a powerful message, representing life-changing motions that define the beginnings or ends of cycles. These dynamic cards appear during major transitions, signaling distinctive moments of transformation. The cards are numbered to represent stations within our greater journey through life; their chronological order reveals the passing of time.

The World, the Wheel of Fortune, and the Sun are all Major Arcana cards.
(Photo: Petchjira/Getty Images)

The Minor Arcana cards, on the other hand, reflect everyday matters. These cards showcase ordinary people engaging in mundane activities, such as dancing, drinking, sleeping, or quarreling. They suggest action that is triggered by human behaviors and appear during gentle transitions that may be temporary or have only minor influence.

The Minor Arcana cards are broken up into four suits, each containing ten numbered cards and four court cards. In the Minor Arcana, the card's number reveals the stage of an event: The ace card represents the beginning, while the ten symbolizes the end. Similarly, the progression of the court cards demonstrates our understanding of circumstances on an individual level, representing either personality types or actual people. The Page (or Princess, in some decks), Knight, Queen, and King interpret circumstances with increasing levels of understanding and wisdom.

The Swords card is among the Minor Arcana cards.

The suits (Wands, Pentacles, Swords, and Cups) correspond to their own unique areas of life and astrological elements. Wands symbolize passion and inspiration (corresponding with the fire element), Pentacles represent money and physical realities (corresponding with the earth element), Swords depict intellectual intrigues (corresponding with the air element), and Cups illustrate emotional matters (corresponding with the water element). These suits reveal which spheres of influence are being activated, offering guidance on how to best manage any circumstances at hand.

How can I get started reading the cards?

Together, the Major and Minor Arcana cards create a comprehensive pictorial language. It is important to remember that all the answers we seek exist innately within the deck, with each card illustrating a person, circumstance, or potential outcome. Since there are no secret puzzles or hidden agendas with tarot, the ability to discern meaning lies within your own narrative interpretation.
Before any reading, be sure to shuffle (or "clear") the deck. This deliberate gesture should become a meditation. Feel the physicality of the cards in your hand, visualizing your question. If you're reading for another person, use this reflective moment to get to the root of their situation and help you formulate specific queries for them. Take as long as you need. Clearing the deck is a critical first step in reading tarot cards, as it opens the pathway between spiritual dimensions. Whenever you're ready, cut the cards into three and reorder the pile, face down. On your favorite cloth (be precious with your tarot deck), prepare to pull cards for your tarot "spread."

Neoclassical, hand-painted tarot cards: Le Stelle, Il Sole, and Il Bagattelliere etchings (Italy, 19th century)Neoclassical, hand-painted tarot etchings, Italy, 19th century (Photo: Getty Images)

The "three-card spread" is one of the most simple and effective tarot spreads. You can adjust the categories to accommodate any situation (past, present, future; yourself, the other person, the relationship; opportunities, challenges, outcomes; mind, body, spirit). The cards and their corresponding positions will effortlessly expose bonds and dynamics. But before reading the straightforward explanation of each card, take a moment to create your own story based on observation. How do the cards you drew make you feel? What are the colors and symbols? If there are characters, are they facing towards or away from each other? Do the illustrations seem cohesive or disjointed?

Though each card has classic associations, the most powerful resource available is your intuition. Note your immediate emotional reaction: Your instincts will inform your study and strengthen your pictorial memory. Eventually, you'll develop your own systems and patterns, and individual cards will carry meanings specific to you. Perhaps the Devil card will come to represent an ex-lover, while the Two of Wands will symbolize a new job. Your distinctive lexicon will inform your readings, allowing you to create specific narratives that can be applied to any circumstance or situation.

Don't forget, cosmic warriors, tarot provides a rich vocabulary, but it is ultimately no more powerful than a coin toss: We can energetically charge any item or action through the strength of our own spirit. Though tarot requires time, practice, and patience, we intrinsically possess all the skills necessary to produce honest and accurate divinations. At the core of tarot is passion, logic, curiosity, and intuition — characteristics that define both the illuminated cards and their mystical readers.
—————

Learn The 78 Tarot Cards in Two Hours (pt 1/2)

NY Times Claims Black People Are Specialists At Chicken Sandwiches and Can Build a Political Movement on Chicken

The New York Times’ obsession with race expands to its food commentary

Once again, in a commentary devoted to the purported popularity of fast food chain Popeyes’ fried chicken sandwich among African Americans, the New York Times has demonstrated its repugnant obsession with race and capacity to embarrass itself.

The piece, headlined “Popeyes Sandwich Strikes a Chord for African-Americans,” fixates on the premise that the multinational chain (with 3,100 locations in 25 countries and $3.7 billion in revenue in 2019) struck this “special chord” with black people because its sandwich “tastes like something that could have come from a black home kitchen.” The author, John Eligon, a Times national correspondent covering race from Kansas City, claims black people enjoy Popeyes chicken not only for its flavor, but also for “the feelings of home cooking it evoked.”

Various remarks are dredged up in an attempt to provide a degree of legitimacy to the claims put forward. Eligon cites a Facebook post, by Nadiyah Ali, comparing the Popeyes sandwich to one from Chick-fil-A, according to which the latter tastes as if it were made “by a white woman named Sarah who grew up around black people.” The Popeyes sandwich, however, tastes “like it was cooked by an older black lady named Lucille.”

Ali further suggests that white people cook differently than black people by relying on precise measurements. “Black folks don’t cook like that,” Ali adds. “Our recipes are a little bit of this, a little bit of that. We season until it’s right. That’s what Popeyes tastes like.”

Compounding these foul and preposterous comments, the article favorably recalls an incident in 2006 when Oprah Winfrey—a go-to symbol for “black excellence”—grimaced after tasting a chicken-and-spinach dish made by a white woman who won $1 million for it in the Pillsbury Bake-Off. Winfrey implied that the dish was poorly seasoned, asking if salt and pepper were added. “I think we needed salt and pepper.”

The Times quotes Omar Tate, founder of a pop-up diner series that aims to explore “blackness in food and art,” who explains that black people were at the root of Southern culinary traditions, which travelled across the country as blacks settled elsewhere. “Black hands were in that pot all the time, and still are,” Tate says.

While praising Popeyes, Tate asserts that when he thinks of authenticity, he thinks “of the techniques of someone like Edna Lewis, a pioneering black chef … ‘That’s authentic. That’s what soul food is to me,’ he said. ‘It’s one of those black magic things that can’t be reproduced.’”

The Times saw fit to acknowledge that Popeyes’ popularity is likely due to aggressive marketing towards black communities. However, it then immediately highlights the claims of Psyche Williams-Forson, who states that the presence of Popeyes restaurants in African-American neighborhoods gives black people “a sense of connection” to the food chain.

“Black communities can say, ‘This is our own and it tastes like our own,’ she said. ‘You’ve got location. You’ve got taste. You’ve got texture. And you’ve got a food that people enjoy. You have a perfect storm there.”

The commentary concludes with the demand that Popeyes invest in black communities, the supposed main driver of the company’s success.

“We own the fried-chicken narrative,” said Nicole Taylor, executive food editor at the website Thrillist. “Black people are turning it into a political moment.”

What is one supposed to take from this? It is a rotten conglomeration of tribalism, chauvinism and racialist drivel. According to the Times, not only are black people a homogeneous group of fried-chicken lovers, but also they have a cultural monopoly on Southern cuisine. Furthermore, we’re to take seriously a cry for turning high-cholesterol food into a “political movement.”

Furthermore, the commentary suggests that Southern culture is predominantly “black” and an isolated body instead of an amalgamation of varying socio-geographic influences. The absurdity was too great for many of the Times’ readers. The top voted reader comment, by Ethan, is worth quoting at length:
“I had to read this twice to make sure it wasn’t parody. Firstly, the stereotypical, monolithic take on black people as fried chicken loving, spice obsessed, fast food nuts is highly offensive. Fried foods, particularly chicken, became part of black culture due to food scarcity in slavery/Jim Crow times. To celebrate a multi-billion dollar corporation’s exploitation of poor and black people is absurd.

“Secondly, fried foods are unhealthy. Fried foods will damage your health. It’s a well known fact! Promoting this cultural ownership of fried chicken (especially factory farmed chicken) ignores a massive public health crisis that disproportionately affects black people.”

Heart disease is the leading cause of death for both men and women in the United States, accounting for about one in every four deaths per year. Research shows that black people have a 30 percent greater chance of dying from heart disease than white people. Many researchers believe this disparity is caused by poor diets high in cholesterol.

Ethan continues, “It’s obscene that an author would produce such an uncritical analysis in favor of promoting a chicken sandwich from a corporate chain, let alone the underlying implication that black people all eat the same food, or that white people are clueless when it comes to food spiciness.”

A sensitive comment by Sierra Morgan rejects racial attitudes towards food and culture: “Food is not tied to skin color. Popeye’s is Louisiana style food. You could [not] find a more mixed… population. I am Creole and lived all over the world. I cook food from all of the places I lived. The recipes and customs are my culture.

“There is no such thing as cultural appropriation. This idea that it is real is hateful and racist. We are all human beings and we are all on the same planet. We all sink or swim together. Food unites us because we all have to eat and we all love tasty food.”

As of the time of this writing, over 600 people have commented on the commentary, the majority being hostile to the promotion of race. The Times’ race obsession finds little footing among the majority of Americans, who are opposed to the racial division of society.

(Older white woman argues with black employees of a Popeye's and is thrown to the ground breaking bones after allegedly using the 'n' word. 8 Nov 2019)

The chauvinistic promotion of “black excellence” and “black magic,” whether intentionally or not, echoes fascistic conceptions. According to the authors of the Times’ historical falsification, the "1619 Project," nearly everything “great” about America is because of black people. One of the many articles that composed the project brazenly declared “American Wasn’t a Democracy, Until Black Americans Made It One.”

The reactionary conceptions advanced in Eligon’s article are linked to the insistence by the Times and other elements surrounding the Democratic Party that forms of identity are the primary divisions in American society.

I was an astrologer – here's how it really works, and why I had to stop - by Felicity Carter - 7 Nov 2019

Customers marvelled at my psychic abilities but was that really what was going on when I told their fortune?

‘It turned out what most people want is the chance to unload for an hour.’ Photograph: Fiorella Macor/Getty Images

The man was agitated, with red-rimmed eyes and clammy skin.
“Help me,” he said. “I’m under a curse.”
At first it was just flickering lights, he said. And then a figure, at the edge of his vision. Now something grabbed his fingers or stroked his arm. There was more – and it was happening more frequently.
“I saw a Catholic priest,” said the man. “But he couldn’t help. Can you?”
Yes, yes I could. I knew exactly what he needed to do.
I was a fortune teller. Every Sunday, I climbed the stairs of an old terrace house in Sydney’s historic Rocks district, to sit in the attic and divine the future. I would read Tarot cards or interpret horoscopes.

Advertisement

As a teenager, I’d devoured a book called Positive Magic. An instruction manual for witches, its central idea was that if you wanted something, and you had good intentions, you just told the universe and magic would happen. Although nothing I wanted (fame, money, hot boyfriend) actually arrived, one thing led to another and I taught myself to read Tarot cards. At the time I was a science student, and just considered it a fun game at parties.
That changed after I took my cards to my part-time job and read them for a colleague during the break. She picked the card for pregnancy, which we laughed about, because she wanted her tubes tied.
A week later she said, “Guess what the doctor told me this morning?”
She was pregnant, and I was officially psychic.
Deciding to develop my gift, I enrolled in a psychic class, where I learned to say the first thing that popped into my head. “Your first thoughts are the most psychic ones, before your rational mind interferes,” said the teacher.
I also learned that all things are connected, and everything is a symbol of something else. Suddenly, I saw signs and omens everywhere.

‘The range of problems faced by people who can afford $50 for fortune telling turned out to be limited: troubles with romance, troubles at work, trouble mustering the courage for a much-needed change.’ Photograph: Busà Photography/Getty Images

Advertisement

To test my new skills, I volunteered to be a clairvoyant at the spiritualist church. Congregants would place a flower on the table, and the clairvoyants would choose one and “read” it at the microphone. Nervous, the first thing I grabbed was a packet of silver foil. The rose inside had been packed so tightly, its petals were crushed. I didn’t get a single vibe from it, so I just described the symbolism.
“You are feeling battered and bruised,” I said.
Afterwards, a woman approached and said she was a victim of domestic violence, and what should she do?
I was only 19 and had no idea, but my psychic reputation soared. The attention was intoxicating.
Then the universe told me I wasn’t cut out for science, by sending me my second-year results. I dropped out to pursue theatre and also signed up for a one-year course at the Sydney Astrology Centre, a cavernous commercial building in a seedy part of town.
The course began with the meanings of the zodiac, from Aries to Aquarius. Then the luminaries; the sun (what you will become), the moon (what you brought into this life) and planets. After that, how to calculate planetary positions and cast horoscopes.
Although astrologers use Nasa data for their calculations, horoscopes aren’t a true map of the heavens. The Babylonians who invented astrology believed the sun rotated round the Earth; modern astrologers still use Earth-centred charts, as if Copernicus had never existed. That’s only the start of the scientific problems.

The astrological meanings themselves derive from a principle called sympathetic magic, where things that look alike are linked together. Mars looks red, so it rules red things like blood. How do you get blood? You cut, so Mars rules surgery and war.
You forecast by combining meanings with planetary movements. Say Saturn, planet of restrictions, is about to transit the First House of self – your life will contract! You’re going to get more responsibilities than usual. Or maybe you’ll be denied the chance to take on more responsibilities. Or maybe a cold, critical person will come into your life. But anyway, it’s a good time to go on a diet.
Astrology is one big word association game.
I loved it, though I was losing interest in other mystical practices. Partly I didn’t have time, because I was now immersed in theatre while working as a temp typist at St Vincent’s, a Catholic hospital. But as I bounced from one department to another, my views changed. I’d understood organised religion to be something between an embarrassment and an evil. Yet as Aids did its dreadful work – this was the 1990s – I watched nuns offer compassionate care to the dying. Christian volunteers checked on derelict men with vomit down their clothes. I became uncomfortably aware that New Agers do not build hospitals or feed alcoholics – they buy self-actualisation at the cash register.

Finally, I was accepted into a music degree and my days filled with classes, my nights with rehearsals. This caused a cash crisis, because I could only do office work during academic holidays. When I saw the ad for a fortune teller, I pounced.
My credentials impressed the man on the counter (“My name is Ron,” he said. “My spirit guide is Blue Star. He’s on the intergalactic committee”) and I was hired.
We charged A$50 an hour, a significant sum at the time, and I wanted to offer value. No fishing for clues from me – I printed a horoscope or laid the cards and started interpreting immediately, intending to dazzle the customer with my insights.
Half the time, though, I couldn’t get a word in. It turned out what most people want is the chance to unload for an hour.
The range of problems faced by people who can afford $50 for fortune telling turned out to be limited: troubles with romance, troubles at work, trouble mustering the courage for a much-needed change. I heard these stories so often I could often guess what the problem was the moment someone walked in. Heartbroken young men, for example, talk about it to psychics, because it’s less risky than telling their friends. Sometimes I’d mischievously say, “Let her go. She’s not worth it,” as soon as one arrived. Once I heard, “Oh my God, oh my GOD!” as an amazed guy fell backwards down the stairs.
I also learned that intelligence and education do not protect against superstition. Many customers were stockbrokers, advertising executives or politicians, dealing with issues whose outcomes couldn’t be controlled. It’s uncertainty that drives people into woo, not stupidity, so I’m not surprised millennials are into astrology. They grew up with Harry Potter and graduated into a precarious economy, making them the ideal customers.

‘Intelligence and education do not protect against superstition.’ Photograph: Alamy

Advertisement

What broke the spell for me was, oddly, people swearing by my gift. Some repeat customers claimed I’d made very specific predictions, of a kind I never made. It dawned on me that my readings were a co-creation – I would weave a story and, later, the customer’s memory would add new elements. I got to test this theory after a friend raved about a reading she’d had, full of astonishingly accurate predictions. She had a tape of the session, so I asked her to play it.
The clairvoyant had said none of the things my friend claimed. Not a single one. My friend’s imagination had done all the work.
Yet sometimes I could be uncannily accurate – wasn’t that proof I was psychic? One Sunday, I went straight from work to a party, before I’d had time to shuck off my psychic persona. A student there mentioned she wasn’t sure what to specialize in – photography, graphic design or maybe industrial design?
“Do photography,” I said.
She looked at me, wide-eyed. “How did you know?” she said, explaining photography was her real love, but her parents didn’t approve.
I couldn’t say, “because my third eye is open”, so I reflected for a moment. Then it hit me. “You sounded happier when you said ‘photography’,” I said. My psychic teacher was right – the signals we pick up before conscious awareness kicks in can be accurate and valuable.

Well, maybe I wasn’t psychic, but it didn’t matter. It was just entertainment, after all, until the cursed man came in. The one who’d seen the Catholic priest.
“Get to a doctor,” I told him. “Now.”
That very week, I’d typed letters for a neurologist who specialized in brain diseases. Some of those letters had documented strikingly similar symptoms to this man.
“Are you saying I’m crazy?” he said, his hands balled.
“No,” I reassured him. “But Catholic priests know what they’re doing. If he couldn’t help, this isn’t a curse.”
That made the man angrier.
“You’re a fraud!” he shouted, and stormed downstairs to demand his money back.
The encounter shook me, badly. Shortly afterwards, I packed my astrology books and Tarot cards away for good.
I can still make the odd forecast, though. Here’s one: the venture capital pouring into astrology apps will create a fortune telling system that works, because humans are predictable. As people follow the advice, the apps’ predictive powers will increase, creating an ever-tighter electronic leash. But they’ll be hugely popular – because if you sprinkle magic on top, you can sell people anything.

Movie Review: 'Harriet' a Biopic on Run-away Slave and Black Liberator Harriet Tubman

  Official Movie Trailer (2:48 min) 

 

Harriet

Kasi Lemmons’ Harriet features Cynthia Erivo in the title role, as the great abolitionist and political activist Harriet Tubman (c. 1822-1913). It is to Lemmons’ credit that she has made Tubman’s life her subject matter. There has been a dearth of films devoted to Tubman, Frederick Douglass, John Brown, Sojourner Truth, Wendell Phillips and other anti-slavery opponents, representatives of a profoundly egalitarian and democratic tradition.

Tubman’s life and times raise issues of an essentially revolutionary character. However, Lemmons, a veteran actress and director of several films ( Eve’s Bayou, The Caveman’s Valentine, Talk to Me, Black Nativity), turns in a relatively limited work. The tumultuous social dynamic of the Civil War period is largely absent.

Cynthia Erivo in Harriet

The film’s biography of Tubman begins in 1849, when she is a slave in Maryland known as “Minty” whose master refuses to grant her freedom despite legal documents entitling her to that. Her owner dies, but his cruel son Gideon (Joe Alwyn) now wants to sell her. She escapes from slavery at the age of 27, making a perilous journey to Philadelphia, where she meets the abolitionist William Still (Leslie Odom Jr.) and changes her name to Harriet Tubman.
Despite the relative safety of her new condition, Harriet, as “Moses,” makes 13 harrowing expeditions to the South to rescue approximately 70 slaves, including her brothers, Henry, Ben, and Robert, their wives and some of their children. After the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 is passed, she helps guide fugitives into Canada, using the network of safe houses and clandestine routes known as the Underground Railroad.

When the Civil War breaks out, Harriet becomes a scout and spy for the Union Army. As the first woman to head an armed expedition in the war, she leads a raid at Combahee Ferry, in South Carolina, liberating more than 750 slaves, many of whom joined the Northern forces.
The makers of Harriet, despite sincere intentions, skim the surface of Tubman’s life and times, creating a relatively bland, rather than appropriately electrifying work.

When an early biography of Tubman was being prepared in 1868, the legendary abolitionist Frederick Douglass wrote to her:

“The difference between us is very marked. Most that I have done and suffered in the service of our cause has been in public, and I have received much encouragement at every step of the way. You, on the other hand, have labored in a private way. I have wrought in the day—you in the night … The midnight sky and the silent stars have been the witnesses of your devotion to freedom and of your heroism. Excepting John Brown [for whose October 1859 raid on Harpers Ferry, Virginia, Tubman helped recruit men]—of sacred memory—I know of no one who has willingly encountered more perils and hardships to serve our enslaved people than you have.”

Funs Size vs Full Size - Handing Out Full Size Candy Bars For Halloween - Capitalist Ostentation? or Communist Nostalgia? (Boson Phoenix) 3 Nov 2019

As with almost every holiday there is a controversy across the city of Boson, and positions have been announced at Boson City Hall.

This is about Halloween, but not about Storm Trooper costumes or kids not being allowed to be super heroes or other characters of color.  The issue is the size of the candy handed out as some kids went door-to-door for traditional 'trick-or-treat.' 

Mayor Welsh has been famous since he was a city councilor from the wealthy neighborhood of Pleasant Valley for his handing out full sized candy bars in an array of brands.  When some pointed out that Marty Welsh was 'buying votes' he retorted that, 'these kids don't vote.'   By now, of course, many of those kids from a decade or more ago are of voting age, and the mayor does have a good reputation in his base neighborhood of Pleasant Valley. 




The west side of neighborhood of Pleasant Valley, in Boson, Mass, is lined with large stately homes, brick and stone exemplars of architectural revivalism in Mayor Marty Welsh's street.  Built in the late 19th century and the first part of the last, these were the houses of the city’s industrialists and bankers. Today they are the homes of the modern titans of Massachusetts, the tech CEOs and financiers, who, like their predecessors, enjoy a peaceful remove from the rest of the city of Boston to the north across the Neponset River. But there is one night a year, the teeming masses swarm at their front doors—for candy.

For all but one of the last eight years, Boson After Dark has named Pleasant Valley as the best city for trick-or-treating and the tony northern neighborhoods of Blithering Heights and Seacliffnote as the top ranked to visit on Halloween. There’s a reason for this.  Economists base their rankings on things like walkability scores and number of children under the age of 10. But even the littlest Jedi knights and Hermiones know that the most important indicator in their investment of the night is yield.



So the Welsh house became a legend each Fall. 

The one can't miss house that was legendary for their largesse: they hand out full-size candy, specifically Toblerone bars. When the Marty Welsh and family moved in some twenty years ago, Halloween was a sleepy and underwhelming evening and the parents decided to up the ante to foster a sense of community and festivity amongst their neighbors. They now stock boxes of the triangular Swiss chocolate, as well as a changing variety of Sour Patch Kids, full-size Snickers and sometimes even small plush toys for the sugar-averse.

 

Growing up, many of us knew of that "one house" that gave out full size treats. But with more stores than ever pushing full-size treats this year, and many residents who go fun-size feeling pressure to give not just one bar but several to each trick or treater, this year Halloween is raising some interesting economic quandaries.

Fun-size vs. full-size

But not everyone is happy.  Liberal Democrat City Council President Ema Strickland says that giving out 'full size' makes people who are poorer look like they are less generous when they give out 'fun size' candy bars.  The 'fun size' is always a lot smaller than the regular size candy bar and calling something smaller the 'fun' size is misleading.  But, that is not Councilor Stickland's point.  She wants everyone to hand out the same size candy bar so everyone looks equal.  

But in Boson's East Germantown neighborhood with strong blue collar and socialist equality ideas and support for workers and labor unions there is also a tradition of handing out full size candy bars and also the traditional German fresh baked pretzel.

 "We believe that people should enjoy wealth and prosperity and a  life of plenty,"  said one man at the local union hall who was at the door handing out full size locally baked chocolate bars.  "That's made from the recipe we got from the old Baker's Chocolate factory that was on the Neponset River for hundreds of years." 
 
Others have pointed out that Councilor Strickland has come out in favor of banning Halloween door-to-door trick or treating, so why should anyone listen to what she has to say about what kind of candy people give out. 

When asked what kind of candy she handed out for trick-or-treaters Councilor Strickland's office responded that the councilor was not home that evening and did not leave out any candy for anyone. 

Mayor Welsh observed that once someone starts handing out full sized candy bars people come to expect the treat and he can't back out of the practice now.  He did greet people at the door himself Halloween night, and had on a cape and a batman style hat. 

Twitter's Ban on Political Ads - Upper Class Internet Censorship - 1 Nov 2019

On Wednesday, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced that his company would ban all political advertisements on its platform. Advertising, Dorsey said, “brings significant risks to politics, where it can be used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions.”
The announcement comes in the midst of an increasingly aggressive campaign by the US intelligence agencies, congressional Democrats and the media to impose censorship, in the guise of “fact-checking.”

Twitter’s action is politically reactionary, with far-reaching consequences. It converts a private corporation, subject to innumerable political and economic pressures, into the arbiter of what may or may not be written and publicized.

Twitter and Facebook acquired mass audiences by facilitating the free flow of information. But having obtained this audience, they are using their power to carry out censorship on behalf of the government.

Dorsey’s action has been counterposed favorably in the media to the stance of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who has publicly opposed calls for social media companies to ban or “fact-check” political advertisements.

“I don’t think it’s right for a private company to censor politicians or news in a democracy,” Zuckerberg said in a speech at Georgetown University last month. “Banning political ads favors incumbents and whoever the media chooses to cover.”

Zuckerberg is hardly a poster child for the defense of democratic rights. But here he happens to have made a correct point. In response to these statements, he has received a congressional grilling far more severe than Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg, whose company is responsible for the deaths of 400 people in crashes involving the 737 Max 8.

His statements have also prompted an outpouring of denunciations in the New York Times, the Washington Post and the broadcast TV networks, who have for years been waging a campaign to censor the internet.

The argument is constructed using a well-worn technique. Various examples of false information or potential lies are cited, including from Donald Trump, as a dangerous threat. This is then used to justify wholesale censorship of political speech, which will inevitably be directed primarily against the left.

A similar method was used after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. In The Lesser Evil, published in 2004, Michael Ignatieff declared that “A terrorist emergency” may “require us to take actions in defense of democracy which will stray from democracy’s own foundational commitments to dignity.”
What would the government have to do, he argued, if it captured a terrorist who had critical information about an imminent attack? Would not all methods, including torture, be necessary to elicit the knowledge needed to “save lives”? What is not permissible to stop the “mushroom cloud”? The implications of these arguments were realized in the dungeons of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

Now, the same pretext is being concocted: a supposed imminent threat to democracy—“fake news”—is used to justify the most sweeping attacks on democratic rights.

What is striking, even more so than under the Bush administration, is the degree to which “liberal” and upper middle-class layers in and around the Democratic Party have been recruited into this campaign.

In an op-ed published by the Times yesterday, screenwriter Aaron Sorkin—who should know better—wrote that “crazy lies pumped into the water supply” are corrupting “the most important decisions we make together.” These lies “have a very real and incredibly dangerous effect on our elections and our lives and our children’s lives.”

Freshman congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, earlier this month demanded that Facebook “take down lies.” Her thoughtless, ignorant arguments, which expose nothing but a complete absence of democratic consciousness, are being used to legitimize a campaign for censorship.

The underlying assumption is that the determination of what is truth and what are “crazy lies” is a purely objective process, unrelated to class or social interests. In fact, bourgeois politics by its very nature is built on lies, which serve, as Leon Trotsky explained, to cover over the deep contradictions in capitalist society.

Who is to be given authority to decide what is the truth? Giant corporations with intimate connections to the state, like Google, Facebook and Twitter? Or publications like the New York Times and the Washington Post, which serve as mouthpieces for the intelligence agencies? Or is it to be the intelligence agencies themselves?

Bill Keller, the former editor for the Times, once warned that the Internet has undermined the role of “gatekeepers”—that is, institutions that vet the information to which the public has access.
These presumed “gatekeepers” are, in fact, not politically neutral. According to the Times, for example, anyone who questions the circumstances behind the death of Jeffrey Epstein is engaged in unfounded “conspiracy theories.” Those opposing the entire anti-Russia narrative of the intelligence agencies—which has been used to justify internet censorship—are propagating “fake news.”
The implications of these types of arguments are perhaps most crassly revealed by Times columnist Thomas Friedman.

To Zuckerberg’s statement that “people should be able to see for themselves,” what politicians say, Friedman declares, “Yeah, right, as if average citizens are able to discern the veracity of every political ad after years of being conditioned by responsible journalism to assume the claims aren’t just made up.”

“Years of…responsible journalism!” Friedman takes his readers for fools. Sixteen years ago, Friedman served as a propagandist for the Bush administration’s war in Iraq, promoting the White House’s lies about “weapons of mass destruction” while declaring he had “no problem with a war for oil.”

In 2017, Friedman declared that “only a fool would not root for” Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Just over a year later, bin Salman personally ordered Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi to be sawn into pieces at a Saudi Embassy.

Presumably those who attacked Friedman for his role in promoting the lies of the state should have been censored for “propagating lies.”

As for those who should determine what is true, Friedman writes: “Diplomats, intelligence officers and civil servants” are “the people who uphold the regulations—and provide the independent research and facts—that make our government legitimate.”

That is, the task of the government, through its “intelligence officers” is to provide the “facts” that lead citizens to believe the government legitimate.

What is to be done with people who have exposed the “facts” that “intelligence officers” believed should not be public? They are to end up, like Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, languishing in prison, and the publications that distribute their revelations are to be gagged.

Let’s call things by their real names. This is nothing but censorship. The New York Times is in the business of selling lies. And the public is getting tired of it, so the Times wants to prevent them from having a choice.

Since the 2016 election, the US intelligence agencies have advocated internet censorship in the name of fighting “fake news.” The main target of this campaign has not been Trump, but rather left-wing, anti-war, and progressive websites and organizations. In 2017 Google, announced that it would promote “authoritative” news sources over “alternative viewpoints,” leading to a massive drop in search traffic to left-wing sites. Facebook and Twitter followed suit, removing left-wing accounts and pages with millions of followers.

Under relentless pressure from the Democrats and intelligence agencies, these companies will only intensify their offensive against left-wing, anti-war, pro-labor union, and socialist organizations.