On Thursday evening, I went to watch The Top of Bravery: An Evening with Bert Williams– the play that my SSIR Travel for Discovery community has been working to bring to campus since this past August. The messages that this one play promotes are truly life changing and mind opening. The Top of Bravery is a monologue depicting the struggles that Bert Williams, a black performer during the vaudeville era faced during his length in the entertainment industry. Although audiences absolutely loved Bert and his wonderful acts he was still subject to the extreme racism and hate that surrounded African Americans during this time. He was forced to wear blackface during his performances, although he was an African American man, and he did not enjoy any of the luxuries that the white performers were able to during this time. Bert Williams’ struggles were depicted brilliantly onstage by playwright and actor Jeremy Morris.

When I first read the script back in September, I honestly did not believe that this play would be as much of a success as it was. I promoted the play to my best ability (because it was part of my grade), although at the time I did not think that it was all that special. When I finally saw it in person, 6 months removed from originally reading the play, I was reminded how powerful the arts are in conveying messages to a multitude of people. Playwright and actor Jeremy Morris invited the entire audience to view an entirely different perspective on an issue- something that we do not always get to do. Humans tend to shy away from discussions that make them feel uncomfortable, however in order to fix certain situations we need to talk about them, no matter how uncomfortable they make us feel. That is why we often do not consider viewing something from another’s perspective, simply because it makes us feel uncomfortable, however this is exactly what Jeremy shows us we need to do more of in order to put an end to oppression.

During the talk-back panel at the end of the show, I was blown away by what the 3 panelists had to say. The most important message that I took away from the talk back was that we need to continue to fight the oppression that blacks face in today’s society. While we have taken steps forward, blacks continue to face racism and different obstacles in their daily lives- meaning that we have many more uncomfortable talks coming up in the near future to even begin to fix this issue. Jeremy Morris talked about the idea that there is an archetypal “black guy” that is promoted in the entertainment industry, and when blacks do not fulfill this role they are told to act “more black,” often by whites. He raised the question that how can someone be told to act “more black” when they are acting the only way that they know how? How can an individual be told that their people only act one certain way by someone else, when in fact that individual knows that this is not true? How do they conform to this stereotype and what effect does this have on the person?

As critical thinkers, we need to realize that these types of questions are often forgotten in society, and we need to bring them up to combat racial injustice. We need to force the world to have more uncomfortable conversations in order to overcome the discrimination is still prevalent. That is the only way that we can begin to overcome these problems.

On February 16, I attended the play, “The Top of Bravery: An Evening with Bert Williams.” This play was brought to campus by my SSIR community, Travel for Discovery. “The Top of Bravery” is set in the late 19th to early 20th Century depicting the life of comedian and protagonist, Bert Williams, braving the racial barriers that were a part of the entertainment industry and world at the time. Williams, a native of the Bahamas, was forced to perform in blackface like the other white actors of the time period. Despite the many adversities Williams faced as a black actor, he was still able to propel himself to stardom through his resiliency. The play is a mix of social commentary, stand-up comedy, and soliloquy. It also features a few musical numbers, all while illustrating Bert Williams as an international star and one of the most beloved entertainers of the Vaudeville Era.

Actor, Jeremy Morris, played the role of Bert Williams and did a fantastic job. He performed with so much energy and emotion that radiated through the audience. The audience felt the emotions that Jeremy Morris portrayed through the character of Bert Williams. I had read the monologue of the “The Top of Bravery” before experiencing the production, however, it was a completely different experience as a member of the audience. Watching the performance, I felt that I could really understand the struggle that Bert Williams faced as a black actor in the late 19th century better than I did when I read the monologue.

One of the big themes that the play portrayed and Dr. T, Iman Shabazz, and Jeremy Morris verbalized in the talk-back panel after the play, was the idea and importance of identity. As a black actor trying to make it big, Bert Williams struggled to find his identity as he faced a lot of discrimination for being who he was. A quote that especially struck me during the play was when Bert Williams said that one of the struggles he encountered as an actor was with white men who thought they could play the role of a black man better than a black man knew how to be or rather that white men played their perception of a black man better than a black man could play. This idea ties back to the theme of identity present in play and explains why Bert Williams struggled throughout his career trying to find his identity.

I also found that this theme and idea present throughout the performance related back to the chapter about the playpump in the book “Doing Good Better.” In that chapter, there is the idea that in order to be the most efficient and productive, while doing the most good, it is important to ask and listen for the feedback from the members of the community that you are trying to do good for.

I found these two chapters of Diamond’s novel to be incredibly interesting when read together. It took a long time for the first chapter to pick up and for me to grasp onto any concept that would be used to connect this reading to our class. However, as soon as it began to talk about Easter Islanders and their overuse of their resources, I immediately made the connection that the society would fail due to their own choices. I finally had my connection to critical thinking.

Diamond raised to mind reasons why societies fail, with the four main reasons being: failing to anticipate a problem before it occurs, failing to perceive a problem when it is occurring, failing to solve a problem after individuals have perceived it, and failing to resolve the problem itself. It was interesting to see him bring these up because I felt that they were kind of useless. He was very hypocritical when talking about instances involving hindsight bias, but he was also very quick to judge the inhabitants of Easter Island for their choices.

It is easy to see how the Easter Island society failed now that the situation is removed from us, but we generally won’t apply this same mindset when trying to dissect problems with our own lifestyles. It is far easier to point our finger at the example on paper rather than direct our criticisms at the ways we need to amend our own lives for the betterment of society. For example, we may look at their need to create massive ahu and moai as rather excessive and state that had they not wasted their effort and resources to create these structures than the society would not have fallen apart. However, at the same time people could point to our use of cars eating away at the atmosphere and say that without cars/other technology we would not have destroyed Planet Earth in the ways that we have.

The Chapter entitled “Fill ‘Er Up With Dictators” in Thomas Friedman’s book Hot, Flat, and Crowded detailed the dangers of relying too much on oil from the Middle East. He first describes how our addiction to oil has helped fund both sides of the War on Terror. While our tax dollars fund our armies at home, the money we spend on oil is indirectly funding terrorist organizations by financially strengthening Islamic nations in the Persian Gulf that, “share their windfalls with charities, mosques, religious schools, and individuals” and proceed to donate many of those proceeds to anti-American terrorist groups. These so called “petropolitics” are also funding radical islamist groups that don’t focus solely on anti-American actions. Saudi Arabia has been able to use much of their money to fund simply intolerant and anti modern groups. They are able to export their terrorists and kill groups in other countries that they don’t like, such as the Shiites, which has also reduced terrorism as a whole within Saudi Arabia.

He then details how the price of oil and the pace of democracy are directly correlated. Friedman calls this correlation the First Law of Petropolitics, which states that, “in oil-rich portliest states, the price of oil and the pace of freedom tend to move in opposite directions.” Friedman then goes on to detail how when oil prices are lower, many governments feel forced to invest more in their own people, because they cannot survive without their entrepreneurship and education. However, when oil prices rise, they can create enough capital without their own people, which means they have no reason to represent their people or give them what they want at all.

This entire article was riddled with fallacies, contradictions, and anti-Muslim propaganda, that it was difficult to ascertain any real value from it. Just one example of a fallacy Friedman includes is when he is talking about the Saudi’s increased funding for schools that indoctrinate their students with extremist Islamic teachings. He claims that these schools are creating generations of brainwashed students and “thinking twenty, forty, even sixty years ahead to a time when their armies of extremism will have the numbers to swarm over Pakistan and the rest of the Islamic world.” If this does not scream “slippery-slope” fallacy, I’m not sure what will. Also, I found it interesting that he said his Law of Petropolitics didn’t apply to developed nations such as the United States. I’m not sure how you can create a supposedly universal law that Friedman can then pick and choose where to apply it in order to make his case.

I actually agree with Friedman that the world’s addiction to oil and the greed that comes along with it is detrimental to our global society as a whole. Too many lives are lost as a result of the struggle over who controls the world’s oil, but unfortunately so much power lies in having control over that that the government’s of the world often lose sight of the needs and rights of their own people in order to keep the upper hand. Friedman’s conclusion that it is imperative we work towards finding clean energy sources and “going green” is becoming increasingly important in terms of our environment, as well as national security, is, I believe, a sound conclusion. However, I struggled to get on board with much of his argument that clearly used the Islamaphobia that has plagued our country since 9/11 to push across an anti-Islamic agenda throughout much of the article.

On Monday February 3^rd I attended a Live Speaker Event on mental health for my sorority. The Speaker for our Standards of Education(SOE) Event was Ross Szabo. I enjoyed this lecture because Szabo approached the lecture from a personal angle. He knew that 100 plus sorority girls were forced into this room to fulfill an SOE requirement, and by no means wanted to be there. However, Szabo was such a talented speaker he could capture every audience members’ attention from the moment he began his lecture. Szabo was successful in making an emotional appeal to all of us because he told his personal story. Szabo did not simply lecture us about mental health and how we should live our lives.

Ross Szabo had his own personal struggles with mental illness as a young teenager and through telling his ‘personal story’ he could capture all our attention. Mental health is a very fragile, taboo topic among young women especially. There is a stigma that we as society put on anyone diagnosed with a mental illness. However, as Szabo explained, there are two types of mental health. Good mental health, and bad mental health. Good mental health involves motivating oneself to be better, and creating good coping mechanisms for oneself. However, when we think of mental health we think of cases of depression, anxiety, ADHD and bi polar disorder. Szabo stressed that we must embrace the concept of mental health and abandon this concept of mental health as being ‘bad’. I would love to attend another lecture from Ross Szabo because I learned a lot from it and I found it very enjoyable.

I would recommend attending a lecture by Ross Szabo to everyone I know!

 Sylvia Molloy – “Translation as Queer Practice: A conversation with Sylvia Molloy

On Thursday, February 2nd I attended a speaker for my Spanish class. The talk was called “Translation as Queer Practice: A conversation with Sylvia Molly”. Despite it being a requirement for my spanish class, the discussion took place in english. Sylvia Molloy is a renowned Latin American scholar at New York University, translator, critic, and writer who has explored the issues of translation in text after text of a writing career that itself breaks apart the straightjacket of genres, disciplines, and institutionalized modes of reading. Molloy is fluent in three languages and has translated thousands of documents, but explained how translation is a deviant process. She went through her processes of translating and I found it interesting because I had never really thought in depth about the series of steps it takes to translate. Molloy says she starts by pretending to write in a different language to trick herself, so that the language is “infected” by the other language. She stressed the importance that translation is not a replica, because if it were, it would be repetitive. Instead, translating is an untidy exercise and is not amenable to rules.

I find the topic of translation an interesting one, as a Spanish minor I go back and forth between Spanish and English often. It is frustrating when you cannot figure out the translation between the two languages, and often times you find yourself with a completely different translation than what you started with. The implications of translating can be severe, as we have seen in recent news the differences between people and their languages has caused a lot of tension. Molloy also touched on translation in the past, and how it used to be much more complicated when no one knew each other’s languages and they had to figure out how to communicate. I think in this day and age we take communication for granted, technology being the culprit of most of the ungratefulness that has fostered among us, we have the access and ability to communicate when and almost wherever we want.

In chapter 4 of The Power of Critical Thinking, Vaughn discusses the reasons for belief and doubt. After reading this chapter I can see how these are decisions that are being made so many times per day. How you receive information you see on the news, read about, or gossip about, depends on so many factors including who you are getting the information from and how it is being given. Determining truth and falseness is not always so cut and dry. In chapter 5, Vaughn describes many different types of fallacies. Although most of us have heard these used, reading the real definitions gives them a clearer meaning and makes them easier to spot in sentences. The rhetorical moves (persuaders) are also an aspect of the english language that are constantly used. I realized people, including me, do not often think about how the use of fallacies and rhetorical moves can alter the intention or meaning of a statement.

The concluding chapter of How to Lie With Statistics revisits the things to look for to see if information is lying. It is important to determine if the information is trying to prove something for the sake of a theory, reputation, or fee. If so, the source who gives the information will be more inclined to exaggerate the numbers and deceive the interpreter. Huff warns his readers to be aware of who is presenting the information and where they got the information from. Also, do not let your eyes deceive you, look carefully at what is being said, not what is being shown. This was proven to be important when we looked at the graphs in class, and we came across a pie chart that not only added up to over 100%, but the 60% section was larger than the 70%. The numbers were written, but if you were given limited time to look at the chart, you would see a big piece of the pie next to a less popular name, and a smaller piece next to a more popularly voted name.

Another important thing to consider is what is NOT being shown. Information that is left out is usually done so intentionally to sway the reader towards the desired opinion. The final question to consider when interpreting statistics is “Does this even make sense?”. Huff explains in the final pages of his book that you would be surprised how often the answer to this question is No.

Reading this book opened my eyes to the constant misconceptions that are thrown around in the news, in books, and on the internet, everywhere we look to find helpful and meaningful information. Often times people look to information like this to make major decisions in their lives. This is a scary thought considering, now we know, much of the statistics we look at are presenting, more or less, false information.

Evidence Action was created in 2013 as a start up spawning from Innovations for Poverty Action(IPA). It’s goals are the reduction of global poverty as well as economic growth. It oversees two main initiatives; Dispensers for Safe Water and Deworm the World Initiative. These two initiatives are vital to the development of those in extreme poverty who lack access to clean water and medical care. Currently Dispensers for Safe Water provides clean water to over 4 million in Kenya, Uganda and Malawi. The second initiative has treated over 160 million children in 2014-2015.

Evidence Action has a third component which I would argue give it incredible potential; Evidence Action Beta. This is basically an intensive investigation into new ideas which would allow this charity to have an even greater impact in the future. Given the youth of this charity, its eye towards the future is especially remarkable and is a very strong indicator of growth of the charity in the future. Another strength of Evidence Action is its transparency. It lists its financial documents on the website from 2013-2015, in addition to the compensation of its board and staff. Additionally, the website is very easy to navigate and clear, meaning that those who wish to donate will clearly know what they are donating to and where it goes.

Initially, I am very glad we choose this charity since I proposed it to the group. I became intimidated because it has three large components and I believed it would be difficult to focus on the overall effectiveness of the charity. However, I think that this charity, given its causes, youth and transparency made this a clear choice among our group. Additionally, I think its constant investigation in how to grow the charity and expand its impact set this charity apart from many of those that I have come into contact thus far.

Although its youth is a strength, it could also be a weakness. It has only existed for around 3 years which could suggest inexperience and there is a greater risk of the charity failing as opposed to a more established charity. Also, they fail to include statistics from 2015-2016. This could present a potential challenge because we cannot determine the exact impact of the charity if we don’t have recent numbers. Despite these challenges, I think that Evidence Action looks very promising and that it is definitely worthy of receiving donations as of now.

The charity that we have chosen for our group Giving Games research project is called Save the Children. The primary focuses of this charity include aid in areas such as: child protection, child sponsorship, education, emergency response, health and livelihoods, hunger and nutrition, and HIV and AIDs. This charity works on a global scale incorporating 120 different countries across the world. Specific areas that the charity works with include: the U.S., Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Middle East and Eurasia.

Taken directly from their website, Save the Children states that one of the goals of the organization is to “give children a healthy start, the opportunity to learn, and protection from harm.” The central goal of the charity is to give children the ability to succeed and it does so by working with its different resources for the education and health programs within the charity. For example, not only does the charity work to help children to better educate themselves, but they also aid in the mentoring of teachers, parents, and coaches so they can help children achieve that success mentioned above. One reason why this charity can be considered so effective can be the fact that such a large portion of the funds the charity receives is used directly for the program services implemented. The remaining funds 13% in funds are spent in areas of fundraising (8%) and management and other needs (5%).

Ultimately, when reading about this charity I found one of the main reasons why it would be most effective to donate to it is because financing the success of children and the youth of the world, particularly on a global scale, will provide greater benefits for society in the long run. Looking deeply into the charity and how it spends its funds, I found it to be very reputable and principled. I looked over the charity’s website and browsed in multiple different areas that the website provides. Overall, it hits you with an overwhelming amount of information and statistics about the charity. It also had up how the funds were used in the last couple years. There most certainly is not a lack of information on this charity. I also do not have a particular inclination or bias to this charity because I have never had a super personal experience with extreme poverty myself. As of right now, I stand by Save the Children and believe it should receive the funding from Jepson.

Despite all this, there are still a couple of concerns that my group will continue to address and revisit throughout this project. One main concern is that the majority of the information I looked at about the charity thus far (and I know they did as well), is the charity’s own website. We will clearly need to do more digging and see from other sources if the website is a truthful representation of the charity’s depiction of itself. One final concern that I have with this charity is how effective it is to use the funds in 120 different countries, rather than just zeroing in on the countries with the lowest poverty rate and helping those children out first and foremost.

Eight years ago, I traveled with my family from Indiana to Washington D.C. to watch my brother participate in Barack Obama’s inaugural parade. Four years ago, I too was given the chance to ride horses in Obama’s second inaugural parade. And when the opportunity to attend the most recent inauguration presented itself, I accepted, in spite of all the controversy surrounding the election of President Donald Trump.

Writing this post has been a challenge, and if you are reading this in its published format, know that I dedicated a significant amount of time thinking about how to organize my thoughts. As of recent, the craze is all about comparing the 2009, 2013, and 2017 inaugurations. While I certainly am qualified to contribute on this topic, I don’t think it would be productive. Instead, I have resolved to simply reflect on my 2017 inaugural experience by simply offering a chronological account of the events I witnessed. I will include comparisons of my experiences where I think it is relevant and appropriate. This way, I can be objective yet fair with my story.
Thursday, January 19

0500 It is early. My alarm has clearly irritated my two roommates. I get ready quickly and make my way outside wearing a suit and wool hat. An Uber is waiting to take me to the train station.
0630 I definitely showed up too early for my train. Waiting alone in this small train station, I start to notice how differently dressed I am from others. They are wearing jeans and sweatshirts. I feel slightly elitist – and pretentious.

0730 Almost everyone on my train has arrived at this point. Two men sit down next to me, who are clearly close friends. I estimate they are probably in their late fifties. One (Paul) is in great shape, the other (John) is more heavyset and wearing a Make America Great Again hat. I start chatting with them. John tells me his wife would not let him take his “I am a deplorable” shirt. They begin to tell me about the last inauguration they attended, which was Bush 43 in 2001. I ask if they saw the protests then. They shrug the question off and rant about how some Americans take our democratic system for granted. Paul mutters something angrily about how young people are inclined to view socialism favorably. John then tells me about how they appreciate our country more than most Americans because of their military tours. I quickly thank both of the men for their service. After this exchange of my gratitude, the conversation comes to an impasse. We keep to ourselves.

1230 I arrive at Union Station. There are plenty of vendors soliciting per usual. I am stopped dead in my tracks by my own intrigue but also dismay. “Trumped that b!tch” or “Hillary for prison” are displayed right alongside the iconic red Make America Great Again hats. The pejorative paraphernalia is everywhere, and it clearly sparks pride or disdain, depending on one’s perspective.

1400 Waiting in line for a security screening, I start a conversation with the people around me. The tone is cordial as soon as we realize that most of us are Hoosiers – an all-inclusive label denoting you are from Indiana. When asked about school, I answer back that I attend the University of Richmond. I have to clarify that the school is not in Indiana, but also note that I attended Culver Academies. This ends the conversation for some, which puzzles me.

1430 I arrive to the event that I was invited to attend. The room has nice red velvet carpet and is used for committee meetings and confirmation hearings. It can probably fit around 150. As I check in to pick up the inauguration tickets and press passes I came for, I see Senator Donnelly talking to students, parents, and officials in suits or military uniforms. His message to everyone is an uplifting textbook platitude that is centered around the “peaceful transition of power.”

I pull a staffer off to the side and attempt to ask about what the office really thinks. He tells me that everyone is still processing the election results, because of how inaccurate the media coverage was. We hold back grins as fake news is paid some lip service. I learn that, in response, a considerable number of staffers were dispatched to actually listen to constituents. He tells me that everyone’s inboxes are flooded with concerns from teachers and parents about Besty Devos, who was tapped by Trump to lead the Education Department.

From the corner of the room, I spot Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend who is currently running for head of the DNC. He clearly has something urgent to talk with Donnelly about, but the press intercepts him for an interview. I wait about an hour to see if he will come back, but he is clearly busy elsewhere.

2300 My sleeping arrangements are modest. I am nevertheless thankful that a high school friend and her roommates have agreed to let me crash on their couch. I can tell that the roommates are uncomfortable with the fact that I am attending the oath ceremony. It comes to my attention that they are part of the 96% of Clinton voters in Washington. They also inform me that two others will be arriving later in the night. I ask if they have plans to attend the inauguration, too. Bursts of laughter come from one roommate, who tells me that they are communist protesters. I begin to wonder if these organized demonstrations will interfere with my own plans.

Friday, January 20

0500 My alarm sounds and I cope with the fatigue that accompanies little sleep in the anticipation of a busy day. I open the Periscope app on my phone to try to get an idea of what I will be confronting in a few hours. There is only one stream in the area, which is highly unusual. It’s a protest going on at DuPont Circle. From what I can discern, people are gathering to smoke pot. I roll my eyes and visit my Twitter feed, largely composed of journalists I trust and political officials I find interesting. Conservative and liberal pundits appear to be equally concerned about the messages Mr. Trump will project on to the public today. There are very few predictions, mostly just concerns about what he could say.

0530 A stream from the district finally goes live, and I analyze what is being shown. There are dozens of people waiting for the lines to open, but it is not chaotic. I remember the lines starting at 4:30 in 2008, so this is not particularly terrible. I relay the information to my friend, who I have given my spare ticket to, but get no response.
0600 I make my way over to the Panera Bread by the Tenleytown-AU metro and sit down for a much-needed coffee. The store is almost empty, besides a few customers who have already been served. I am the only person in line, which shocks me. Eight years ago, all of the Starbucks were sold out of food before 5:30! While I eat quickly, I try to get a response from my friend. At this point, I realize she probably overslept.

0630 I get on the metro in route to Judiciary Square, where my ticket gate is located. The metro is not overcrowded, and everyone has a comfortable amount of room whether they are standing or sitting. I think back to when I used to lobby with AIPAC, and how the metro was more packed on those days in particular compared to now. As the metro arrives to my destination, I sit down on a bench and begin to spam my friend with texts and phone calls in the hopes that one might get a response. Finally, I get a response and patiently wait in the metro.

0800 About five metros have unloaded at this point, and each time the passengers created an overflow line for the escalator. I tell my friend where to meet me and head towards my entrance gate. As I get closer, I hear a familiar sound: low-quality speakers transmitting an unclear message about G-d. Although these demonstrators were present at the past two inaugurations, they were not nearly embraced as they were now. Perhaps I was not paying attention back then, but I do not remember inaugural attendees donating money to these people. That is, there was no bucket for donations like usual. Rather, this individual was happily accepting the contributions voluntarily offered to him.
0830 I walk over to the Red Gate entrance where a cohort of security officials is stationed. Forced to leave their caffeine fixes behind, attendees have carelessly left them on the cylinder barricades and ground. Litter is always a problem at these gatherings. I notice a sea of individuals directly across the ticket entrance. They have formed a platoon and are standing unnaturally still. I tell my friend to hurry up, because I do not like the tension that is brewing. It is too late; the demonstrators start to approach the entrance barricades. They form a human wall and try to prevent ticket holders from getting through (see video). A violent game of red rover results, and those who get through are visibly frustrated, with some throwing punches. Two old women break through and both are wearing Trump apparel. Their brief exchange of screams ends with a middle finger and its verbal equivalent. As one of the women walks away, I realize she is wearing a confederate jean jacket to the oath ceremony. People begin to walk around the demonstrators and pour in through the side, including my friend. We quickly make our way to and through the security gate.

0930 Walking towards the fenced in area that constitutes our ticket area, I am spatially aware of how much room there is. Interestingly enough, some attendees have managed to smuggle signs through the security lines. The signs are not pro-Trump, they are simply anti-Hillary. A lot of the small talk revolves around the election, but nobody seems is focused on the presidency.

1030 I start a conversation with some of the people around me. When they learn I am from Indiana, they automatically assume I am for Trump. They question me about Pence and I offer my opinion, which they seem to agree with. I am more interested to learn about their backgrounds, however. I only listen, for I fear that my rearing would clash with theirs. One man, likely in his mid-60s and wearing a camo colored Trump hat, tells me that he didn’t have electricity in his house until two decades ago. He tells me that Donald Trump garnered his support, because he thinks more people in his neighborhood will get electricity. Another man with a scruffy beard, who is probably in his 40s, tells me that his father walked out on him when he was 11. In turn, he was forced to pull himself up by the bootstraps and become an apprentice at a car shop. He quit, however, when he was told that his compensation was offered due to the owner’s sympathy for his situation. His reflection ended with a bold takeaway: “And that is why I don’t support no form of welfare.” The man in the camo hat interjects into the conversation again, and defends welfare programs. It brings the conversation to an awkward halt.

1130 The oath ceremony is initiated by a formal prayer observance. Three religious leaders offer some evangelical remarks. Some churchgoers are at home with their eyes closed and hands raised in the air. The moment felt unnatural, as if it was forced or being dragged on. I get the feeling that this is more about pride than faith.

Former presidents are welcomed to find their seats. Jimmy Carter is greeted by booing. The crowd erupts in booing and hissing as Bill and Hillary Clinton’s names are announced. Despite the booming inaugural music, the crowd’s disrespect is clearly audible. In fact, Hillary cannot hold back her disgust and the camera catches a glimpse of her reaction. The announcer skips ahead to Bush 43, who, albeit was repeatedly attacked by Donald Trump in the campaign, is welcomed by overwhelming cheers. I am confused and disgusted by the disrespect that was shown. These Americans did not consider the office to be a transcendent one. I still wrestle with the fact that these people were kind to me.

I found it interesting how the announcer named “Barack H. Obama” and “Donald John Trump.” Usually, conservatives emphasize the Hussein. For his own part, Trump refers to himself as Donald J. Trump. I conclude that this must have been intentional, but restrain myself from commenting about it in the moment.

When Supreme Court Justice John Roberts is announced to deliver the oath to Donald Trump, the crowd is silent. Perhaps they forgot he was the swing vote in favor of saving Obamacare. It is clear that their bursts of discontent are drawn along party lines.

Trump’s speech begins. I quickly find his message ridiculous. I joke that Stephen Bannon must have written the whole oration (only later did I discover I was right!), because it does not sound like anything else I have heard. Two words strike a chord for everyone listening: American carnage. It was a facile narrative that I refused to buy, but it went unquestioned by those around me. The dark tone of this speech shaped the mood of the attendees. As everyone left for the exit, it was dead quiet, a stark contrast from what I remembered. Before I enter the subway, I see a teenage girl, no older than 15, posing for a picture in front of a political banner. She is wearing a sweatshirt that reads “Fuck Islam”; the latter word is in Arabic. I keep walking straight, just like everyone else.

Sadly, that is the last memory I have from the 2017 Inauguration.

DB