Politics roundup: The Mueller report is finally here

Attorney General William Barr has released the Mueller report to Congress. What does this mean for the White House and the rest of us?

The Mueller report is here

This week, the much-anticipated Mueller report made it to public view. Most of it, anyway.

The report, which summarizes the findings of the 2017 – 2019 special counsel investigation, was issued with a series of redactions. Some sections were blacked out, having been deemed too sensitive by Attorney General William Barr’s office. According to Barr, information was redacted if it revealed investigative techniques, could harm ongoing matters, was part of a grand jury inquiry, or could violate an individual’s privacy.

Prior to the release, Barr gave a press conference in which he insisted there was “no collusion” between the White House and Russian agents. Yet, he also acknowledged that Mueller’s team found at least 10 instances in which the current president could be accused of obstruction of justice. Barr has since come under fire for his preemptive defense of the President when he should remain at least nominally objective.

All told, the question of whether or not this report fully exonerates the President or condemns him doesn’t speak to the complexity of the matter. At least it does show that press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders lied outright to the press.

Meanwhile, Democrats have raised concerns over the handling of the report and Barr’s bias in favor of the White House. The House Judiciary Committee may issue subpoenas releasing the full, unredacted version to members of Congress. White House officials mentioned in the report may well find themselves presented with subpoenas of their own.

Notre-Dame donations bring applause and upset

Earlier in the week, a significant part of the Notre-Dame cathedral burned. The 856-year-old church, which has become an icon of the Paris landscape and French culture, was ultimately saved. However, large sections of its roof were destroyed, along with its spire and some artworks inside.

News of the blaze soon spread worldwide, with support and critique pouring in from all sides. Some pointed out similar blazes that had taken place in other areas yet received comparatively little press, like a small fire at the historic Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem or last year’s incredibly damaging fire at the National Museum of Brazil. At least historically black churches in Louisiana that burned in arson attacks received over $1 million in donations in the aftermath of the Notre-Dame news.

Still, it’s hard to see the pictures of a blazing, medieval cathedral and not feel at least a twinge of sadness. For the French people, it’s also the destruction of a symbol of national pride and deep history. For French billionaires, it happens to be one heck of a tax break.

It’s not just that the billion dollars already pledged to the reconstruction could be used to support hungry families or immigrants fleeing danger. It could, after all, even if you still feel like a wet blanket while pointing it out.

What’s also rankling people is the fact that, in France, donors can enjoy a dizzying 60 percent tax break. That takes some of the nobility out of the money raised, though donors like Bernard Arnault and fellow luxury goods magnate Francois-Henri Pinault say their intent is totally altruistic.

So, what does this all come down to? Why are so many of us more inclined to support the rebuilding of a beautiful landmark, as opposed to the everyday practicalities of helping living human beings? Are we allowed to feel grief at the burning of Notre-Dame, and also the burning of Al-Aqsa, or the National Museum of Brazil, or the loss of the Bamiyan buddhas, or the suffering of people today?

North Korea sanctions

In North Korea, economic sanctions imposed by the United States are increasing pressure on both the North Korean government and its people. Last year, Chinese imports of North Korean goods, such as coal, seafood, and textiles, dropped by a considerable 88 percent.

State employees, including members of the military and their families, are facing some of the tighter restrictions as the government deals with an anemic wallet. Government-funded enterprises, like construction projects, are also staring down decreased resources.

This pressure may be one of the forces behind the recent missiles test conducted by Kim Jong-un’s government. While these efforts have not been of the same power as warhead testing in 2016 and 2017, some take this as a worrying move.

Kim may be undertaking this display of a “tactical guided weapon” in an attempt to bolster his support amongst elites in his country. He and other officials are also pushing to remove U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from further peace talks, claiming that he isn’t “mature” enough for the discussions.

And, finally, your palate cleanser

So, was Shakespeare queer? Of course, if we were to ask the man himself, the differences of history and the drift of the English language would make the conversation pretty darn difficult.

Will might not especially appreciate the implication, given how unfriendly 16th century England was towards people who might identify as LGBTQ today. Our definition of all that and how it fits into our culture is, at times, strikingly different. All of that makes some scholars leery of asking the question. If you lob that sort of question at them, they may well ask you to leave their office.

Yet, there’s some tantalizing evidence. Sure, it may not entirely fair to identify Shakespeare as “gay” or “queer”, since those are modern terms applied to a long-gone person. Furthermore, in the early modern period and earlier, queerness wasn’t so much an identity as a series of vices that could plague a person. Even then, but we can’t entirely dismiss these claims.

Take Shakespeare’s sonnets to the “Fair Youth”, for one. His work is also full of other decidedly not-straight themes, from crossdressing to sexual puns. It’s certainly an interpretation that is proving important to modern actors and directors. For now, we’ll leave it up to you to decide.