About a week ago, I was sitting on one of those red lawn chairs by Jewell Hall, just soaking in the sun, when I noticed something strange lying in the grass a few feet away, glittering in the bright midday light. I walked over and picked it up. Looking at it now, it seems to be a book or journal of some sort, written in a strange, hieroglyphic script which I have been working to decipher. Its cover is metal and has various buttons embedded in it, some of which make a strange beeping sound if I press them. As I began to read, I noticed the date on the inside front cover: January 26, 2961! Have I found an original document from the future? I can’t say for sure, but in the spirit of journalism I will share the contents of this book, and maybe one of you readers will be able to find out whether this could possibly be, indeed, a time traveler’s diary.

—

The research project has been approved. I am excited and honored to begin my dissertation studies by traveling to the ancient civilization of pre-Vorkopolik America, in the year 2026, to discover by experience the culture of its inhabitants and hopefully to conduct undercover exploration about their beliefs and customs. I have landed at what I believe to be the ancient city-state of Texas, and there seems to be some sort of religious celebration occurring which I have been observing for the past few hours. My list of observations grows steadily more unbelievable, but I swear I write nothing but the pure truth so help me Borg.

I was wearing my red, reflective antivirus suit which I had worried would cause the inhabitants some fear or confusion. However, as I walked into what, according to the signs, was the American Airlines center, the inhabitants seemed pleased and not at all offended by my hyperreflective outfit, instead uttering drawn-out grunts of some sort. One even offered me a ceremonial headpiece of the same color enscribed with the slogan to “Improve, Once More, America” or something like that. I did not get a chance to fully run text translation software. 

They all seemed to be headed to a specific area in the building, so I joined them. Following, I walked into a large amphitheater of some sort in the middle of what seemed to be a speech which I translated with my multi-language earpiece, although I believe it may have been malfunctioning, as I picked up audio of a very ugly old man attempting to bribe the Americanite people for their vote with a payment of $5,000 each should he win some sort of powerful title. If my calculator reports correctly, this would come to over $1.3 trillion, which in those days I believe was a lot of money although today Borg knows you can hardly get a tank of gas for less than $2 gongillion. Anyway, I began attempting to fix my translation headset as the speeches continued, but I continued to pick up fragments. I will have to confirm with the ship’s backup recordings, but I believe the same ugly man also stated that people who did not vote for him would be attending a place called “hell,” which after a brief jorblenet search I found to be a term for some sort of immortal torture location within the belief system of this civilization. To me, this seems like a harsh punishment, but I came to believe that these inhabitants thought of the ugly old man as their deity. There was little negative reaction to anything he told them, even when stating untruths such as that the area was “packed” (whereas from my calculations it seemed to be at a relatively low percentage of habitation. Perhaps “packed” is a piece of linguistic vernacular that my translator does not include and instead means something more like “a little more than half full or so”). 

The inhabitants also allowed themselves to be led in a sort of religious pact or oath, chanting that they respected the man as “the greatest President in the history of the United States that loves us so much he can’t breathe,” that they would “go out with … family and friends” and vote “if I’m registered or not. I’m going to try and cheat like hell.” This was surprising, because from what I had learned in Ancient History Seminar, cheating was generally a thing that the American peoples’ deity forbade, and so Americanites generally frowned on it unless it was conducted by the upper-class members of its caste system. I think I’ll have to take my translation software to the shop. 

After the event, I tried to ask some of the inhabitants what was going on. I believe there was some sort of virus spreading, though, because each person I asked responded with an exuberant “Trumpapalooza!” “Bless you,” I would respond. Good thing my reflective suit was also antibacterial. Switching tact, I tried to find out how each inhabitant ended up here. Surprisingly, I found that some of them had paid up to $20,000 (equivalent to approximately 3.8 squintillion in 2961 currency) to be there, while others had been given tickets for free or won them from lottery-style giveaways. Another sign pointing to this occurrence being of religious significance, as it includes an element of chance destining some to attend and some not to.

Having collected this fascinating research, I have begun preparations to return to my research academy. I believe that my dissertation thesis concerning religious practice in the ancient Americanite civilizations of the 1800-2300 period has been overall upheld by my immersion experience, although the technical difficulties were certainly annoying. In fact, as well as the potential issues with my translation software, I worry that the supply hold is loosening and will not latch properly. Hopefully nothing of value to my studies will fall out as I fly rapidly around the earth, attempting to gain enough velocity to shift back to the present day. Maybe in the future it will be more convenient to time travel. It’s so Borg-damn frustrating. 

Signing off,

Captain L. P. Exivor, Research Assistant for Prof. Broxiffle of the Ancient Studies Department, Ziglat State University.

In a democracy, party factionalization should be expected. In fact, James Madison acknowledged this in the 10th essay of the Federalist Papers when he said, “A zeal for different opinions [has], in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.”

However, just because the founding fathers acknowledged the tendency of humans to faction does not mean they condoned it. Patrick Henry warned the American people of the dangers of factions when he said, “United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs.”

While party factionalization is inevitable in a democratic form of government, ideological polarization is something that we should be wary of just as the founding fathers were. The American public has not heeded their warnings.

Party factionalization is beneficial to a democracy because it promotes a diversity of thought and discussion. Differing ideas can be heard, so one group of people does not hold all the power. In short, party factionalization helps prevent tyranny.

However, it is when political factions polarize based on differing ideologies that the efficiency of a democratic system is damaged. Ideological polarization is born out of differences in key ideological beliefs that catalyze a stark rift between the opposing sides. In the political realm, ideological polarization is one of the main reasons that parties have drastically decreased their cooperation since the 1980s.

Ideological polarization creates a lack of compassion between people of opposing parties. It is not uncommon for one to refuse socialize with a person of opposing beliefs. Quite frankly, this notion is unfounded and idiotic. By refusing to socialize with people of opposing beliefs, we actively deepen animosity. A refusal to communicate perpetuates harsh misunderstandings and deepens the ideological divide.

The lack of compassion between parties increases snap judgements about people of opposing views. A Republican might assume that Democrats are lazy and want everything done for them. A Democrat might assume Republicans do not want to help people in unfavorable economic situations. In reality the Democrat might believe the government should take responsibility for individuals in need but still enjoy the benefits of private corporations. The Republican might truly care about those in need but believe that private corporations are the most effective way to give aid.

The point is, we do not know and should not assume why a person is in his chosen political party. The fact that he is in a party that one does not agree with in its entirity does not mean the individual is despicable. It is vital, especially in this age of heightened tension and gridlock between parties, to understand that differences in views do not have to result in staunch divisions.

Another dangerous aspect of ideological polarization is ignorant party allegiance. While it is not detrimental for a person to align with a political party, it is when the party’s beliefs supersede his own that party allegiance becomes blind. For instance, one might belong to party X or Y only because his family is in the same party or because he is not educated on the party’s policies. These ignorant bases for political decisions are dangerous when a person mindlessly casts votes for certain candidates, who may not actually share the same beliefs as him but are rather led by party affiliation.

Blind party allegiance is also evident when a person changes his beliefs, which are ideally firmly founded, when party national conventions do. If a person aligns with a party’s complete agenda, ignoring nuanced views he personally holds, does he really have beliefs at all? Other than the belief in a party’s superiority, it can be assumed that he does not. And, to quote the musical “Hamilton,” “If you stand for nothing… what will you fall for?”

Ideological polarization can lead politicians and the public to refuse to work together. In Congress, the lack of compassion and understanding between parties is one of numerous reasons that cross-party voting has decreased as ideological polarization has increased.

In the public, the lack of compassion and understanding between parties can mean ending friendships, cutting family ties and creating enemies due to allegiances to factions that are polarizing more and more as time goes on.

Ideological polarization affects people of all ages and can control the relationships we have with each other in both the political and private realms. It is important that we aid in the decreasing polarization. Choose to find middle-ground with people who have different views than you. Choose to not pledge allegiance to belligerent political parties. Choose to support bipartisan legislation because it promotes compromise. By actively choosing to do these things, we can begin to decrease the ideological polarization that has accelerated political extremism in the U.S.

Photo courtesy of bbnpov.com.

Zervos’s victory is looking much more likely after she and her lawyers managed to subpoena the Trump campaign for all documents relating to her. Though this subpoena was issued in March, it was brought to light in October by reporters at BuzzFeed.

The subpoena is rather broad in its scope and may help other alleged victims. It requests documents relating to “any woman alleging that Donald J. Trump touched her inappropriately.”

It also requests documents relating to Trump defenders in this sexual assault case. Some may raise eyebrows, like former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani defended Trump after the infamous Access Hollywood tape leaked and subsequent allegations of sexual assault, saying “men at times talk like that.”

The 20-page lawsuit reads like a New York Times exposé. In it, Zervos’s entire history with Trump is chronicled in detail. Zervos first met Trump as a contestant on The Apprentice. Though Trump fired her, she stayed in his favor and maintained contact.

Zervos, like many of the other women who have accused Trump of sexual assault, initially admired him for perceived business success and acumen. She wanted Trump’s advice and guidance to expand her restaurant business. Trump would greet Zervos with a kiss on the lips, taking her aback. However, Zervos assumed that Trump “just greeted people that way.”

Future meetings involved Trump making advances towards her, including grabbing her breasts, embracing her and pressing his genitals against her, all without her consent. Zervos repeatedly pushed Trump away, occasionally accompanied with clear rejections.

Zervos was being patient with a man who repeatedly made unwanted advances on her because she believed the meetings would be beneficial to her business pursuits. In the long run, they weren’t. Zervos did not pursue sexual assault charges at the time because, as the lawsuit claims, she thought that the advances were an isolated incident. She even thought that Trump “had been testing her and that she had passed.”

The document begins with a description of Trump’s comments on the Access Hollywood tape because that was a turning point for Zervos. With Trump explicitly claiming that he’s allowed to sexually assault women on a regular basis due to his celebrity status, Zervos began to see him as “a sexual predator who had preyed on her and other women.”

But, Zervos isn’t suing Trump for sexual assault. Once his image as an advisor was shattered, Zervos came forward with attorney Gloria Allred to detail her troubling experiences with the then-presidential candidate.

That’s when the alleged defamation began. With less than a month left until Election Day, Trump claimed Zervos’s accusation was a fabrication.

The lawsuit includes a long list of statements, tweets and press releases in which Trump claims that Zervos’s accusations are “yet another hoax.” The document doesn’t hold back, calling all of Trump’s claims “false and defamatory.”

In the State of New York, where the case has been filed, one must establish  “actual malice” to prove defamation. A statement made with actual malice is done so “with knowledge that it was false.” If a statement is made with actual malice and causes damages, the victim is entitled to compensation.

In her lawsuit, Zervos’ lists financial damages totaling $2,914 due to fewer customers at her restaurant. The lawsuit claims that Trump ruined Zervos’ image, branding her a liar “who came forward only for fame or at the manipulation of the Clinton campaign.” Emotional damages are also listed, as Zervos calls the whole experience of the alleged defamation “painful and demoralizing.”

Zervos has asked Trump to retract his statements and apologize.

Since the case’s beginning, Trump’s defense has continually claimed that Zervos is lying, seeking fame, working for Clinton or all three. Since becoming president, Trump has added another element to his defense: his authority. Attorneys for Trump filed a statement claiming that “the Supremacy Clause [of the United States Constitution]… immunizes the President from being sued in state court while in office.”

Trump may settle in Zervos’s case, as he has done with many other lawsuits against him. But, with this broad subpoena, Zervos may be followed by several other women accusing Trump of sexual assault in a similar fashion. Zervos Complaint v. Trump could set up a precedent whereby Trump’s tweets could come back to haunt him, as anyone could go after him for insults made during his campaign.

Photo courtesy of Time Magazine.

Flynn’s actions allegedly violated the Logan Act, a law that makes it a felony for private citizens to to negotiate with foreign governments. Whether or not Flynn violated the Logan Act is the subject of an ongoing investigation by U.S. officials. The FBI, which regularly monitors communications between Russia and the U.S., did not find any wrongdoing when it intercepted the communication last year. However, as of Feb. 9, the FBI is continuing to investigate the series of communications Flynn made. Among the subjects discussed were President Obama’s harsh response to Russia’s influence in the 2016 Election. Flynn later gave Vice President Mike Pence, among others, “incomplete information”—translation: he lied—regarding what he discussed.

The revelations should come as no surprise. Flynn has long had close ties with Vladimir Putin and his oligarchy. He regularly appeared on “Russia Today,” one of Putin’s many propaganda outlets, as an analyst. During one of his appearances, he stated “Russia has its own national security strategy, and we have to respect that.” The existence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization begs to differ. Flynn also famously appeared at a 2015 Russia Today Gala with Putin and Jill Stein, another hypocritical, self-proclaimed “people’s hero” who cozies up with autocrats. He’s even given paid speeches at these galas. It should come as no surprise, then, that many Russian lawmakers were upset with Flynn’s resignation Feb. 13 and swiftly came to his defense even after he left office.

Guilty or not, Flynn’s removal from office is a victory for Americans and global security. During Trump’s campaign, he regularly led “lock her up” chants, a reference to Secretary Hillary Clinton’s alleged crimes committed while mishandling emails, having a foundation for global health or whatever people think happened during the Benghazi attack. Flynn said that Clinton “does not know the difference between a lie and the truth.” Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, so it might be time for “lock him up” chants.

Flynn also supported the hateful speech by members of the alt-right on Twitter, along with the furthering of conspiracy theories. Keep in mind, Michael Flynn was once the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency as a U.S. Army Lieutenant General. To list off all of Flynn’s offensive or downright false tweets would take too long (though CNN put together a nice anthology), but many of them include equating Islam with terrorism. One particular tweet includes a link to a video in which Flynn calls the ridiculous assertion that the terror group ISIS is practicing Islam the “most powerful message I’ve heard in a long time.” Flynn also famously tweeted “Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL” with a link to a video falsely claiming that Muslims want 80 percent of the world exterminated or enslaved. Off Twitter, Flynn has also called Islam “a cancer.” It’s disappointing, especially coming from someone who was once part of the U.S.’s titan intelligence community in which patriotic American Muslims regularly put away a lot of terrorists. Perhaps it shouldn’t too disappointing, since Flynn was fired from that post.

Flynn also furthered fake news from champions of Nazism and other taboo societal views. One such champion was Mike Cernovich, who once tweeted “Have you guys ever tried ‘raping’ a girl without using force? Try it. It’s basically impossible. Date rape does not exist.” Cernovich later deleted the tweet like the coward he is. Flynn also retweeted posts by Milo Yiannopoulos, another alt-right closet Nazi who got himself banned from Twitter and enjoys a disturbingly large numbers of shares on Facebook. In Flynn’s defense, his posts were often made to disparage Muslims or attack Clinton and not explicitly espouse other alt-right ideas like anti semitism or white nationalism, but our political apparatus should include figures who reject falsehoods, conspiracy theories, hate speech and the comments of ideologies like Nazism, anarchy and fascism that have no place in our society.

And that’s why Flynn’s resignation is a victory. Trump’s inner circle of crazy ladies, shady businessmen and vaguely evil propagandists has taken a hit with the fall of Michael T. Flynn. Trump’s easily-convinced ears now have fewer people telling him, among other things, that American Muslims aim to kill us all. But it’s only a drop in the bucket: Steve Bannon still holds a permanent seat on the National Security Council while General Joseph Dunford, a modern McCarthy and the highest ranking member of the military, is left in the dark. But seeing how we’re only a few weeks in, the quick collapse of Trump’s circle of cronies is off to a good start. The sooner it’s gone, the sooner the United States can get back on-track.