Welcome to The Coffee Shop, just for you early risers on Monday mornings. This is an Open Thread forum, so if you have an off-topic opinion burning a hole in your brainpan, feel free to add a comment.
________________________________________________
“Professor Kettleburn, our Care of Magical Creatures teacher, retired at the end of last year in order to enjoy more time with his remaining limbs.”
Many people have the impression that the struggle for women’s equality began in the 19th century, but there is evidence in women’s writing from much earlier that at least these women driving a pen across the page were not content with being subordinate to men, and there were stirrings here and there of rebellion.
Today’s Word Cloud was inspired by the 98th anniversary this coming Sunday of the certification of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which finally granted American women the right as citizens to vote. However, it celebrates the words of a rare woman author from the early days of the American colonies, three centuries before that fateful day in 1920.
Anne Bradstreet (1612-1672) was the first woman to be recognized as a North American poet, and the first in print. Her book, The Tenth Muse Lately Sprung Up in America, was published in London in 1650, where it became a best-seller of the day. In her Prologue to her book, she says, “I am obnoxious to each carping tongue/ That says my hand a needle better fits.”
She had been educated by her father, Thomas Dudley, who was the steward of the Earl of Lincoln. He had taken full advantage of his privilege to study the books in the Earl’s extensive library, and shared that privilege with his daughter. Anne was knowledgeable about history and literature, and could read in several languages.
Anne Dudley married Simon Bradstreet, a graduate of England’s Cambridge University, at the age of sixteen. Heeding the signs of rising intolerance against the Puritans, her father and husband decided the families should emigrate to America aboard the Arbella, one of four ships that were part of the Winthrop Fleet which brought Puritans to America. They arrived at Salem in the Massachusetts Bay Colony on June 14, 1630, but were shocked to find widespread illness and starvation in the village, and quickly moved on. Eventually, they settled in Newe Towne (now Cambridge, Massachusetts), where she gave birth to their first child. Both her husband and her father were involved in the founding of Harvard in 1636, and two of her sons were Harvard graduates. (In October 1997, the Harvard community dedicated the Bradstreet Gate at Harvard Yard, in honor of Anne Bradstreet, America’s first published poet.)
Life in this ‘New World’ was much harder than life had been in England. By the time she was pregnant with her sixth child, her husband moved their family again, this time to help found North Andover in 1646. On July 10, 1666, their family home was lost in a fire that left the Bradstreets homeless and with few personal belongings. Anne Bradstreet’s health was slowly failing. She suffered from tuberculosis and grief over the death of loved ones, but her strong will kept her going until September 16, 1672, when she finally succumbed to tuberculosis at the age of 60.
Bradstreet was a loving mother of eight children and the devoted wife of a public official in the New England Puritan community, but she struggled inwardly with the limitations placed on women by the Puritanism in which she had been raised. She wrote her poetry, often late at night, after her familial duties were done for the day. Her poems are mainly about her family, marriage and motherhood, the sufferings of life, and a dutiful religious faith, but a subtle discontent sometimes seeps through, the never-resolved conflict between her ‘place’ and her desire for something more.
____________________________________
Let’s begin with a poem about Anne Bradstreet, a tribute to her enduring inspiration written by Irish poet Eavan Boland (1944 – ):
Becoming Anne Bradstreet
It happens again As soon as I take down her book and open it.
I turn the page. My skies rise higher and hang younger stars.
The ship’s rail freezes. Mare Hibernicum leads to Anne Bradstreet’s coast.
A blackbird leaves her pine trees And lands in my spruce trees.
I open my door on a Dublin street. Her child/her words are staring up at me:
In better dress to trim thee was my mind, But nought save home-spun cloth, i’ th’ house I find.
We say home truths Because her words can be at home anywhere—
At the source, at the end and whenever The book lies open and I am again
An Irish poet watching an English woman Become an American poet.
“Rather, if the Cohen allegations are true, what President Trump did was knowingly conspire to violate federal campaign law and to hide it from the American people right before the election, and that very severe crime is one that must be punished.” (NY Times) … YouTube Video In the final scene, a rat is seen on Sullivan’s window ledge. Scorsese acknowledges that while it is not meant to be taken literally, it somewhat symbolizes the “quest for the rat” in the film and the strong sense of distrust among the characters, much like post-9/11 America. The window view behind the rat is a nod to gangster films like Scarface (1932), White Heat (1949), and Little Caesar (1931). en.wikipedia.org/…
Trump has been so used to working without accountability as a private citizen especially with respect to covering up his numerous dalliances, that he conspired to commit a crime against the public trust.
Notwithstanding he’s changed his stories numerous times, hoping to obscure his conspiring with Cohen to thwart election laws. As Katyal points out, complaining about flipping is proportionally connected to conspiring. And Trump has not been shy about attempting to disguise his conspiratorial intentions.
Now President Trump has moved on to a new defense, claiming that what he did wasn’t a crime and so it can’t be prosecuted. That argument has no basis, either, and is inconsistent with centuries of Anglo-American law.
Here’s the new Trump argument, stripped down to its essence: It was clear that he would reimburse Mr. Cohen for those payments to the women, and he’s allowed under Supreme Court precedent to give his campaign as much of his own money as he wants to.
Incidentally, it’s no surprise that Mr. Trump himself came out in an interview aired Thursday against the practice of “flipping,” where prosecutors give a guilty person a deal in exchange for information against another person. Flipping and conspiracy charges go hand-in-hand; the latter is what enables the former.
The problem is that legally, his argument doesn’t get him where he wants to go. Even though Mr. Trump can give his campaign as much of his own money as he wants to, he can’t ask other people to front the money for him and promise to pay them back later without reporting the arrangement in a timely fashion to the Federal Election Commission. But he didn’t report it, subverting the whole point of the nation’s post-Watergate campaign finance laws, which is to disclose campaign giving and spending to the American people before an election — not 20 months later.
[…]
We are approaching a reckoning, where criminal and perhaps impeachment processes will begin asking hard questions. It would be a huge mistake for the president to rely on assurances from his legal team that what he did was ordinary and not prosecutable.
Interesting thread discussing another defection with the immunity given to David Pecker of AMI:
THREAD: What does the cooperation of David Pecker, chairman of the company that publishes the National Enquirer, mean for the investigation of Trump and his associates? (Short answer: it’s not good news for them.)
1/ David Pecker, chairman of the company that publishes the National Enquirer, has reportedly backed up Michael Cohen’s claim that Trump knew about the payments at the core of the campaign finance crimes Cohen pleaded guilty to.
2/ The fact that Pecker received immunity means that his testimony was of significant value to federal prosecutors. They would not have given him immunity unless it was worth doing. They would have known in advance the information he was going to provide via his attorney.
3/ Presumably Pecker’s testimony was useful in the prosecution of Michael Cohen. What we don’t know is whether Pecker’s testimony also helped prosecutors make a case against anyone else, such as Trump Organization Chief Financial officer Allen Weisselberg.
4/ Any witness who corroborates Cohen is important, given that Cohen has directly implicated Trump in a crime. For that reason alone, Pecker matters as a witness who corroborates Cohen’s account that Trump knew about the payments in advance. (Trump disputed this on Fox today.)
5/ It’s worth noting that the tape of Trump and Cohen released weeks ago also corroborates Cohen’s account of Trump’s knowledge, but presumably Pecker’s testimony is more comprehensive.
6/ So what we don’t know is the other testimony Pecker was able to provide. Did he tell prosecutors about other crimes committed by Weisselberg or other Trump associates? What is his other knowledge of Trump’s business dealings? There isn’t enough public information to know. /end