(CNN)As the Trump administration grapples with the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to reinstate the President’s travel ban, a federal judge across the country dealt another significant blow to the executive order in Virginia late Monday, writing in her opinion: “Maximum power does not mean absolute power.”
US District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia granted a modified version of the state’s request for a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the travel ban, finding the state had the ability to sue, “is likely to prevail on the merits” of at least one of its constitutional arguments and the Justice Department would not suffer any harm from imposing the injunction.
The judge declined to issue her injunction on nationwide basis “to avoid any claim that” it is “defective because of overbreadth.”
At the hearing the judge also said that she was moved by a declaration signed by several former senior US officials, including former Secretaries of State John Kerry and Madeleine Albright, in support of a brief filed by the attorneys general of Washington state and Minnesota in the Ninth Circuit appeal.
“We view the (executive) order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer,” officials wrote.
“It could do long-term damage to our national security and foreign policy interest, endangering US troops in the field and disrupting counterterrorism and national security partnerships.”
Brinkema said at last Friday’s hearing that the officials’ declaration was “clear as a bell.”
“This is coming from people with first-hand direct knowledge” of national security issues, Brinkema added — whereas the government had failed to offer even a “scintilla of evidence” that counters it.
Brinkema’s written decision on Monday further recounted the public comments made by then-Republican presidential candidate Trump, calling for a “complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” and more recent statements from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani that Trump wanted to find a way to implement the ban “legally.”
“Defendants have not denied any of these statements or produced any evidence beyond the text of the (executive order) itself, to support their contention that the (executive order) was primarily motivated by national security concerns,” Brinkema explained.
“Defendants have argued that the court may not go beyond the text of the (executive order) in assessing its purpose, or look behind its proffered national security rationale, but the Supreme Court has rejected that position,” she added.
“The evidence in this record focuses on the president’s statements about a ‘Muslim ban’ and the link Giuliani established between those statements and the (executive order),” Brinkema wrote. “Based on that evidence, at this preliminary (stage) of the litigation, the Court finds that the Commonwealth has established a likelihood of success on the merits.”
“I saw this unlawful, unconstitutional, and un-American ban for exactly what it is and I’m glad the Court has, too,” Virginia attorney general Mark Herring said in a statement following Brinkema’s ruling.
Horses are a more popular artistic subject than dogs – that’s one of 10 illuminating facts unearthed by BBC analysis of Art UK’s digital archive, which catalogues more than 200,000 of the nation’s oil paintings.
1. Kew’s forgotten queen is the most prolific female artist
The woman with the most paintings in the collection is the Victorian botanist Marianne North.
Born in 1830, North devoted her life to travelling the world and painting plants.
North had no formal training, according to the Kew website. However, she put her natural talent to “prolific” use on her travels. During an eight-month stay in Brazil, she finished more than 100 paintings. Instead of painting individual plants, her work typically showed landscapes and natural habitats. The Marianne North Gallery contains 833 paintings by the artist, showing more than 900 species of plant.
North approached Kew and offered to build the gallery in return for her life’s work being displayed in it. It opened in 1882.
2. The most painted monarch is Charles I
The Stuart king’s execution in 1649 enshrined his status as an object of fascination for artists. There are more than 200 paintings of Charles in the collection, about 40 more than his son, Charles II, who was restored to the monarchy in 1660.
Andrew Ellis, director of Art UK, said: “It does not surprise me that Charles I is the monarch with the most portraits.
“Not only was he the greatest of royal patrons and collectors of art but he was also keenly interested in how art could promote the image of kingship. Some of the portraits date from after his death including one in King’s Lynn Town Hall, which was the subject of a sonnet written for Art UK by the poet John Fuller.”
We counted up the words used to describe the paintings in the collection. Boat (12th), sailing (14th), mast (16th), ship (17th), wave (18th), sea (22nd), sail (25th) and rigging (42nd) all feature in the top 50.
Pieter van der Merwe, the general editor of the National Maritime Museum, said the emergence of the seascape as an art form in England was imported from the Netherlands in the 17th Century.
“It’s a British taste, but where did we get the taste for maritime art? We did not invent it ourselves, we got it from the Dutch,” he said.
4. A dog is not an artist’s best friend
We may be a nation of dog lovers, but there are more horses than dogs in the collection, according to the list of the most popular tags.
The horse is the most popular animal tag (49th), followed by dog (132nd), bird (138th), cow (140th), sheep (172nd) and fish (200th).
Pictured is the Scottish painter George Harvey’s depiction of a horse from 1836.
Dorchester-born Everett, a well-connected Edwardian, was a graduate of the Slade School of Fine Art who lived his life according to his dual passions – painting and sailing.
His life and work remained relatively unknown until art historian Gwen Yarker began researching his biography.
The majority of his art lies in the storerooms of the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, while his landscapes can be viewed at Dorset County Museum.
Ms Yarker said Everett shunned fame, was ambivalent about exhibiting and reluctant to take the limelight.
“Art history has not been kind to him,” she said.
7. At least 1,800 paintings were donated to collections in lieu of tax
Works of art can be handed over instead of inheritance tax.
Under the scheme, the government accepts the item at market value, and hands it over to a public museum or gallery.
8. There are at least 28,000 paintings in the collection where the artist remains unknown
Andrew Ellis said: “We are aware that we are still missing key information for many of the paintings on the site. Who is the artist? Who is the sitter? Where is the landscape?
“The Art Detective sub-site of Art UK is helping to fill in some of this missing information with the incredible help of the general public.”
9. 1910 is slap bang in the middle (But with some caveats)
BBC News examined the dates of the paintings in the collection.
The median year was 1910, meaning half of the paintings we have a creation date for came before that date, and half afterwards.
However, we could only ascertain dates for about half of the 214,000 artworks. Some 74,000 paintings had no year at all, and another 27,000 used either date ranges or other descriptions.
Earlier works are less likely to be dated as record-keeping was poor.
10. The National Trust has the largest collection of oil paintings
Andrew Ellis said: “At the other end of the scale, some 50% of the collections on the site have fewer than 10 paintings.”
What is Art UK?
Art UK’s roots go back to 2002, when a charity, the Public Catalogue Foundation, was founded by Fred Hohler, who was determined to improve the public’s access to the art it owned.
The record started life as a series of hardback colour catalogues on a county-by-county basis.
In 2011, the BBC and Public Catalogue Foundation launched the Your Paintings website to catalogue the collection online. Five years later, this became Art UK.
The website was built with funding from Arts Council England, the Scottish government and a private foundation.
More than 200,000 oil paintings by nearly 40,000 artists are available to view online
The data analysed relates to the artwork in Art UK’s digital archive.
Photo credits for collage picture: City of Edinburgh Council, Penlee House Gallery and Museum, Tate, Jersey Heritage, Budleigh Salterton Town Council, Wolverhampton Arts and Heritage, Ferens Art Gallery, Manchester Art Gallery
Reporting team: BBC England data unit: Pete Sherlock, Paul Bradshaw
This revolutionary work written by Henry Jamess less famous brother brought a democratising impulse to the realm of religious belief
The United States is a society, first described in Thomas Jeffersons revolutionary words in 1776, that constantly rewrites its narrative in law, philosophy, economics and belief, as well as through poetry, drama and fiction. In moments of change, its finest writers have often found new forms of expression and ideas that both illuminate the American story and help to redefine it.
William James, brother of the more famous Henry, was a classic American intellectual, a brilliant New Englander and renowned pragmatist a celebrity in his time who coined the phrase stream of consciousness. He responded to the cultural and social ferment of the late 19th century with the Gifford lectures, given in Edinburgh during 1900-02. When he turned these talks into a book, James, a Harvard psychologist and the author of The Principles of Psychology, placed himself at the crossroads of psychology and religion to articulate an approach to religious experience that would help liberate the American mind at the beginning of the 20th century from its puritan restrictions by advancing a pluralistic view of belief inspired by American traditions of tolerance. Like his brother, he was obsessed by the problem of expressing individual consciousness through language; this is just one of the principal themes of The Varieties of Religious Experience.
Psychology aside, this is an odd book in many ways, especially for its unorthodox approach to the precepts of organised religion. One commentator has described it as a classic that is too psychological to have shaped most religious inquiry and too religious to have influenced much psychological research. And yet, in the words of Psychology Today, it remains the most notable of all books in the field of the psychology of religion and probably destined to be the most influential book written on religion in the 20th century.
The James family, who were originally Scots-Irish, like many of the first Americans, exerted a powerful influence on William James in the genesis of this text. His father, Henry Snr, was not just an unorthodox Calvinist, he was also (with Emerson and Jung) a disciple of the cult mystic Emanuel Swedenborg, who was determined to find a theory which would explain how matter relates to spirit. Swedenborgs desire to understand the order and purpose of creation had led him to investigate the structure of matter and the process of creation itself: his ambition was intoxicating and his teachings inspired a democratisation of religious impulses that appealed to the unorthodox Jameses, father and son.
The idea that all citizens were equally and independently close to God sponsored among the James family the conviction that religious experience should not become confined within the narrow prison of a denomination. The same irreverence towards categories encouraged William James to adopt a high-low style that gives his writing a fresh and populist character thats rather different from the mature style of his brother the novelist. William used his populism to suggest that any religious experience was true if the consequences of holding it were pleasing to the individual concerned. This restatement of the American pursuit of happiness gave his audiences a new appreciation of human dignity grounded in everyday reality.
In his approach to religious experience, William James writes that he had to face a hard problem: first, to defend experience against philosophy as the real backbone of the worlds religious life; and second, to make the reader believe that [the life of religion] is mankinds most important function.
James begins his argument with the assertion that religion answers basic human needs. From here, he separates belief from its tribal origins. Religion, he says, has become a consumer item for individuals. His only concern about religion is what it tells us about what goes on in the single private man. Then he comes up with a famous definition:
Religion shall mean for us the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine.
Using potted biographies of well-known writers and thinkers, including Tolstoy and John Bunyan, William James concludes a long and fascinating exploration of the healthy mind, the sick soul, and the divided self, with closing chapters on mysticism, saintliness, atonement and conversion. Here, too, he presented an account of God as a finite being, inextricably caught up in world affairs, and linked to human activity and ambitions. He closes with a witty question: Who knows whether the faithfulness of individuals here below to their own poor over-beliefs may not actually help God in turn to be more effectively faithful to his own greater tasks?
A signature sentence
And the moment we renounce the absurd notion that a thing is exploded away as soon as it is classed with others, or its origin is shown; the moment we agree to stand by experimental results and inner quality, in judging of values who does not see that we are likely to ascertain the distinctive significance of religious melancholy and happiness, or of religious trances, far better by comparing them as conscientiously as we can with other varieties of melancholy, happiness, and trance, than by refusing to consider their place in any more general series, and treating them as if they were outside of natures order altogether?
The Mormon church owns vast tracts of US land, and now envisages a huge new city on its Deseret Ranch but at what cost?
Everything about the Deseret cattle and citrus ranch, in central Florida, is massive. The property itself occupies 290,000 acres of land more than nine times the size of San Francisco and almost 20 times the size of Manhattan. It is one of the largest ranches in the country, held by the one of the biggest landowners in the state: the Mormon church.
On an overcast weekday afternoon, Mormon missionaries give tours of the vast estate. Fields, orange trees and grazing animals stretch as far as the eye can see. While central Florida may be best known for Disney World, the ranch roughly an hours drive away is nearly 10 times bigger. It is home to a jaw-dropping 40,000 cows and has grown oranges for millions of glasses of juice.
Now there are ambitious, far-reaching plans to transform much of this land into an entirely new city, home to as many as 500,000 people by 2080. Deseret has said that while nothing will be built here for decades, its plans are necessary because urban growth in the area is inevitable and the alternative is piecemeal development. A slide from a 2014 presentation explains: We think in terms of generations.
The revered producer has been at the centre of pop since the days of Roxy Music. But dont ask him about the past hes more interested in how to reorder society
Brian Enos new album is called Reflection, and what better time to reflect on an astonishing career? Or careers. Theres the first incarnation of Eno as the leopardskin-shirted synth-twiddler who overshadowed the more obviously mannered Bryan Ferry in Roxy Music. With his shoulder-length hair and androgynous beauty, there was something otherworldly about Eno. He was as preposterous as he was cool. So cool that, back then, he didnt bother with a first name.
After two wonderfully adventurous albums he left and Roxy became more conventional. There followed a sustained solo career, starting with the more poppy Here Come the Warm Jets, progressing to the defiant obscurity of his ambient albums and on to commercial Eno, the revered producer behind many of the great Bowie, Talking Heads, U2 and Coldplay records.
There is Eno the visionary, who helped conceive a 10,000-year clock and invented an influential pack of cards called Oblique Strategies that offer creative solutions for people inapickle. There is Eno the visual artist;Eno the activist, tirelessly campaigning for a fairer world; and Eno the philosopher, endlessly thinking of ways in which to bring thisnew world about.
We meet at his studio, near Notting Hill in west London. It is a mix of the minimalist and maximalist. Minimalist in its big white empty spaces, maximalist in the numerous books carefully filed away (library-like sections for African, Asian and European art), old-fashioned hi-fi equipment, a parked bike, and his own Rothko-ish artworks.
Eno, now 68, could not look more different from the louche glamour-puss of the early 70s. As his music became more pared down, so did he. The head was shaved, the makeup washed off and the feather boa dispensed with. Nowadays, he looks like a stylish academic.
His assistant asks me to join Eno athis table. Ill just be 40 seconds, finishing off my lunch, Eno says. He takes a mouthful of fruit salad. Just 30seconds now. There has always been something fastidious about him. His interviews tend to be 45 minutes long precisely. One journalist said that Eno had interrupted their chat to play him an Elvis Presley record that lasted two minutes and seven seconds, and then added two minutes and seven seconds to the interview sothe journalist wouldnt be shortchanged. At the same time, Eno loves to embrace the random. As a producer, he encourages artists to pick up Oblique Strategies cards to alter the path they are taking. Itell him I have brought a pack with me in case we find ourselves struggling. He smiles, flashing a gold tooth. That will be just the job, I should think, he says.
During a rousing speech delivered to supporters in New York City Tuesday night, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had a few words for the media establishment.
“Over 90 percent of media coverage [during the 2016 presidential race] was not about the issues that impact your lives,” he said, citing “a variety of studies.”
Instead, he continued, the stories “were about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. They were about political gossip. They were about polls. They were about fundraising. They were about stupid things that people said 20 years ago. What we must demand of a media is that they start covering the issues that impact our lives. Not just the candidates’ lives.”
Sanders was in town to promote his new book, Our Revolution, named for the political action group that grew out of the senator’s progressive platform.Speaking to a crowd of seated audience members in Manhattan’s Cooper Union, he took what he called “corporate media” to task for its failure to cover the 2016 presidential campaign season in “a serious way.” During the speech, Sanders echoed sentiments outlined in the last chapter of his book, a section titled “Corporate Media and the Threat to Our Democracy.”
“If media does not accept its responsibility to talk about the reality facing the American people […] that is a real threat to the future of American democracy,” he told his supporters Tuesday night.
Mr. Trump does not have a mandate to carry out his extremist ideas and we should not forget that for a second.Senator Bernie Sanders
In his book, published on Nov. 15 by Thomas Dunne Books, he cites an early experience with “the nature of the media’s political coverage,” recounting the time Vermont news outlets focused their attention on a candidate for state representative who skied around the state to meet voters, downplaying the actual issues affecting voters. “If corporate media won’t change,” Sanders writes in the final pages of his book, “start new media.”
The issues that impact our lives, Sanders reiterated throughout his hourlong talk, include access to healthcare and higher education, the disappearance of the middle class, criminal justice reform, immigration reform, and climate change. He urged his followers to pay attention to these concerns, going so far as to point out three subjects on which American citizens should refuse to compromise: bigotry, democracy and climate change.
Sanders was introduced on Tuesday night by the actor and activist Harry Belafonte, who described the election of Donald Trump as “weird.” Belafonte was in turn introduced by Strand Bookstore owner Nancy Bass Wyden, who praised Sanders’ “action-oriented ideas for progressives who want to reclaim power in America.” Strand hosted the event at Cooper Union.
The Huffington Post streamed the entire speech live on Facebook Tuesday night. You can watch the event, and read more excerpts from Sanders’ talk, below.
On Donald Trump:
“In terms of the popular vote, Mr. Trump lost that to Secretary Clinton by almost three million votes. […] Mr. Trump does not have a mandate to carry out his extremist ideas and we should not forget that for a second.”
On the progressive agenda:
“On virtually every major issue impacting the American people, it turns out that a significant majority of the American people support the progressive agenda. I want all of you to know […] that you’re not heroes and heroines fighting some great uphill struggle out on the vanguard. What your views are, by and large, represent where the American people are on issue after issue.”
On voter suppression:
“What you have in Republican states all over this country is you have Republican governors who are too cowardly to participate in free and fair and open elections. They are working overtime to deny poor people, old people, young people, people of color the right to vote. Massive levels of voter suppression.”
On Trump’s cabinet nominations:
“Mr. Trump nominated for Secretary of State the head of ExxonMobil. He appointed or nominated as head of the Environmental Protection Agency someone who does not even believe in the reality of climate change. And on this issue, as on many other issues, what we have got to do as a nation is […] we have got to bring millions and millions of people together to tell Mr. Trump that we’re not going back to bigotry, that we’re going to protect American democracy, and that we are going to transform our energy system, whether ExxonMobil likes it or not.”
On why Hillary Clinton and Democratic congressmen lost:
“There are a lot of reasons why, but I’ll tell you what I think a key reason is is that the Democrats failed to understand that, while it is true, absolutely, that we are better off today economically than we were eight years ago when Bush left office, no debate about that, there’s another truth. And that truth is that there are millions and millions of people, often in rural areas, in inner cities, who are hurting today very, very badly. They are in real pain. This is a pain that you don’t see on television. […] The word poverty comes out of the mouths of very few elected officials.”
On the future of the Democratic Party:
“I think we need a fundamental transformation of the Democratic Party. I am not here tonight to, you know, knock people […] but I think it is very clear that the current approach the current way the Democratic Party has done business simply has failed and we need a very new direction.”
Jennifer Lawrence may not be happy, but shes hopeful.
The actress responded to President-elect Donald Trumps victory, in an essay posted Thursday morning that she wrote for Broadly, Vices womens interest channel. In it, Lawrence asks Americans to think long and hard about the state of the country, and to not place blame on others for Hillary Clintons defeat.
I want to be positive; I want to support our democracy, but what can we take away from this? Its a genuine question that we all need to ask ourselves, writes the Oscar-winning actress. We shouldnt blame anyone, we shouldnt riot in the streets. We should think strongly and clearly about what to do next because we cannot change the past.
As an outspoken opponent of Trump, Lawrence wrote that women must work exponentially harder than their male counterparts in order to be heard and taken seriously.
More From Variety
Shares of Tech Giants Fall on Renewed Fears of Trump Administration Policies
If you found yourself missing Americas favorite transracial role model, youre in luck! Rachel Dolezal is back in the news with her new tell-all memoir, In Full Color.
While the book wont be in stores until March of 2017, she was nice enough to unveil a little preview on the books Amazon page.
“With In Full Color, Rachael Doleal describes the path that led her from being a child of white evangelical parents to an NAACP chapter president and respected educator and activist who identified as black. Along the way, shell discuss the deep emotional bond she formed with her four adopted black siblings, the sense of belonging she felt while living in black communities in Jackson, Mississippi and Washington, D.C., and the discrimination shes suffered while living as a black woman.
“Her story is nuanced and complex, and in the process of telling it, she forces us to consider race in an entirely new lightnot as a biological imperative, but as a function of the experiences we have, the culture we embrace, and, ultimately, the identity we choose.”
So, basically, for a cool $14.97 you can hear all about how oppressed white Rachel Dolezal felt after choosing to identify as black. We feel for her.
Not everyone is fumbling for their credit cards. Some people on Twitter were actually upset about Dolezals memoir.
Twitter users have seized on a tweet describing the Republican nominees vague debate responses as like a book report from a teenager who hasnt read the book
Inspired by Donald Trumps responses during the third presidential debate, Twitter users are humorously attempting to explain great works of literature through the Republicans eyes using #TrumpBookReport.
The idea seemed to have been spawned from a widely shared tweet from Antonio French, a city alderman and mayoral candidate in St Louis, Missouri, criticizing Trump for his vague, surface-level remarks during the debate.
Trumps foreign policy answers sound like a book report from a teenager who hasnt read the book, French wrote on Wednesday night. Oh, the grapes! They had so much wrath!
The debate was the final opportunity for Trump and Hillary Clinton to spar on national television ahead of election day, and plenty of other remarks from the Republican nominee inspired their own widespread online reactions. Many began sharing hair memes after Trump called for removing bad hombres (or perhaps he said ombrs) from the US.
After Trump called Clinton a nasty woman, many on Twitter quickly moved to reclaim the term, making it their username or hoping for T-shirts. More than 100 products have already been marketed on Etsy using variations of the quote, with Nasty Women Vote T-shirts, buttons and coffee mugs. Trumps insult was an unintended boon for singer Janet Jackson and her 1986 song Nasty. A spokesperson for Spotify told Quartz streams of her song spiked 250% after the debate.
The book report joke caught on quickly in replies to Frenchs tweet, with riffs on Moby-Dick, Catcher in the Rye, Of Mice And Men and the Great Gatsby, before becoming its own trending hashtag. The imagined book reports took on some of Trumps rhetoric, from his campaign slogan, self-promotional tendencies to his disparaging comments about women.
(CNN)I am so sorry that the world I’ve brought you into is one in which not only is Donald Trump possible, but possibly the next President of the United States. I had hoped that by this point in history, we would be better than this. Apparently, we’re not.
You know some of what Donald Trump has said and done in this campaign. You hear it on the news, kids talk about it at school. “I hate Donald Trump,” you said the other day during breakfast. Please don’t. Don’t hate one sad man with a lot of power and little self-restraint. And don’t hate the people who are enthusiastically supporting him. Donald Trump is running a campaign of hate, and hate cannot be solved by hate but by empathy and understanding.
Our progress as a nation is something you can be proud of. As you grow up, it’s important you understand more and more about the dark parts of America’s history, but also the bright moments where we moved forward. Once upon a time in our nation, black people were the legal property of white people and only white men could vote. We changed all that. Our history has progressed imperfectly, but make no mistake about it, it has progressed — and that simple but glorious fact should always give you hope. Do not let those fighting against this progress convince you that they are the only ones who love their country. Fighting to make our nation more inclusive and more just is one of the highest forms of patriotism I can imagine. If you always fight for fairness and justice, you will make me proud and you will make our country proud. You will be a bright light in our nation’s still-unfolding story.
All of this may be too hard for you to understand right now. After all, you’re only eight years old. But I know you understand the difference between right from wrong. And I know that you know the things Donald Trump has said about Mexicans and veterans and Muslims and women are wrong. More importantly, you know that what he stands for is wrong — a narrow vision of America that promises opportunity for some through the oppression of others. That “logic” shaped the mistakes of our nation’s past. I pray every night it will not shape our future.
You’ve said that if Donald Trump wins, you want to move to India. I’m afraid to tell you that the current prime minister of India isn’t much better than Trump. But more importantly, no matter what happens on Election Day, we will stay and fight for justice. If Trump wins and does the things he has promised, we will not only march in the streets, but we will use our bodies to stop his forces from entering mosques or raiding homes of immigrants. And if Trump does not win, we will still need to fight — against the strains of intolerance and hate that still course consciously and unconsciously through each of our minds and our entire nation. If Trump is defeated, there is much work to be done to ensure that another Trump does not rise.
On November 8, I will take you with me to vote. And together we will vote to elect Hillary Clinton the first woman president in the 227-year history of the U.S. presidency. And with that choice we will also vote to uplift the best of America’s values. With every fiber of our beings, we will continue to vote and speak and write and march and do whatever we can to uphold and uplift justice and inclusion and fairness and kindness and equal opportunity for all.
I cannot promise you that these values will always govern every moment of our nation’s future, just as they clearly failed at times in our past. But I can promise you that I will fight for a world and a country that is, at its core, as loving and generous and beautiful as you are. I will fight for the world that you and all children deserve. Electing Hillary Clinton and defeating Donald Trump is just one step. Onward.