Gilded Age or Dark Ages, which one, they’re different.
Plus they forgot few key words “in certain specific ways”. I don’t think say for example all of USA women are going to lose the right to vote. Something about a constitutional amendment. People shouldn’t blanket compare to Gilded Age, Dark Age etc.
I’m sure they thought themselves clever. Yeah their specific comparison in actual article was on point and then they go ruin it by over generalizing in the headline and insert
See, here’s the scary part - through the theory of original intent, and with enough creative wording, SCOTUS can find interesting ways to end-run around constitutional protections, and there’s very little recourse to this if enough of the court goes along with it (and if cases are brought dealing with these specific issues). Additionally, it actually wouldn’t be that hard to disenfranchise voters - simply drop them off voter rolls, continually. I have a friend who had to reregister twice with his state in the last 8 years because a good chunk of his entire county’s population got purged from the rolls. There’s, again, very little recourse on this because enforcement of compliance with things like federal law rests entirely on the federal government, and the incoming admin has shown a willingness in the past to simply ignore enforcement of things they don’t want to enforce.
You don’t have any reason to obey the constitution if you control the Supreme Court.
Misread that as “Gilead Age”. Need my caffeine.
Gilead has TWO literary connotations by the way, most people get the first one:
https://the-handmaids-tale.fandom.com/wiki/Republic_of_Gilead_(Series)
2nd one is worth examining too:
Interesting, never read the Dark Tower series so I had no idea.
But y’know, I do think there’s another famous book that is included “Gilead”…
I attempted the dark tower series and kind of lost steam around the endless beach and lobstrosities… it is worth pushing through?
So I blew through the first 3 books and was hooked, then had to wait FIVE DAMN YEARS for book 4. Did I mention book 3 has a cliffhanger ending? Yeah…
If you didn’t get past the lobstrosities, that’s book 2 and the story completely changes through 2 and 3.
4 is largely a flashback to when Roland was a kid…
King then promised he was “going to write 5, 6, and 7 without getting up to go to the bathroom” and instead, he got hit by a van and almost killed. (!)
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2000/06/19/on-impact
I’m glad he got to finish the story, but in my mind, the first 4 were far, far better books than the last 3.
There are ZERO flashbacks in 5-7, I’m not sure if that was an intentional choice after book 4, but it makes the narrative lesser IMHO.
It already is worse.
If you’re strictly looking at one metric, maybe (income inequality). Overall, it’s a lot better. Women can vote, child labor is illegal, etc.
Fair
