#Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

As of December 2023, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has received 59 allegations that Donald Trump or his committees violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. In 29 of those cases, nonpartisan staff in the FEC’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) recommended the FEC investigate Trump. Yet not once has a Republican FEC commissioner voted to approve any such investigation or enforcement of the law against Trump.

Democratic Vice Chair Ellen Weintraub pointed this out in her December 5, 2023 statement of reasons after the FEC once again failed to garner the votes to enforce the law against Trump after he allegedly violated the law by illegally soliciting or directing money to a pro-Trump super PAC that spent millions on ads opposing Joe Biden in 2020.

Because at least four of the six FEC Commissioners need to approve any FEC investigation, and because only three of those seats can be filled by Democrats, Republicans hold a veto over the agency’s enforcement and have repeatedly used it to shoot down any recommended enforcement of campaign finance law against Trump—and thus successfully shielded him from accountability over and over. Instead of fostering bipartisanship, the split FEC has often become gridlocked and, in cases involving Trump, its ability to pursue action is constrained by the members of one party.

The FEC’s enabling statute, the Federal Election Campaign Act, specifically subjects the Commission’s non-enforcement to review to prevent it from blocking meritorious enforcement. In June 2018, however, two Republican-appointed judges of the D.C. Circuit—including now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh—largely gutted that rule, giving commissioners the authority to block enforcement of the law without judicial review if the commissioners claimed that they did so as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion or under Heckler v. Chaney.

So, in 21 of the 29 cases where the FEC received recommendations to enforce the law against Trump, Republican commissioners justified non-enforcement by invoking prudential or discretionary factors in attempts to circumvent review.

When dismissing the recommendations to investigate Trump—and to kill further inquiries into his actions—the Republican commissioners have at times claimed that the FEC should not take any action because “proceeding further would not be an appropriate use of Commission resources” or that the resources would be “best spent elsewhere.” Trump has even falsely declared that the FEC “dropped” one of its investigations into him “because they found no evidence of problems.” As Commissioner Weintraub wrote in a statement of reasons in November 2023, “the data is clear: At the FEC, Mr. Trump is in a category by himself.”

Unless courts restore their check on partisan vetoes on enforcement, the commissioners will continue to fail to enforce federal campaign finance law against the powerful figures they are trying to protect.

[tomorrowusa]

I'll never think of Pokémon in quite the same way again. 🫣

Trump is scheduled to be sentenced on September 18th for the 34 felony counts he was convicted of in his hush money trial in New York City.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) published this a few days ago...

What to know about Trump’s NY hush money sentencing

Weird Donald veers way off message with the slightest provocation. Let's hope there are some news stories about conditions at New York prisons a day or two ahead of the scheduled debate next week.

[stellardeer]

TL;DR - How would you kick someone out of your house without involving police? and Should you?

My no-note blog is probably not the best place to ask this question, but maybe someone will come along and answer, who knows.

So in the ideal circumstance that we abolish the police, I've been wondering about a specific scenario. Say there is a person in your home, for whatever reason, who has no legal right to be there, and you do not want them there (again, for whatever reason) but they refuse to leave and you want to forcibly remove them from your home.

Most people nowadays would threaten to call the cops on them, and usually that alone is enough to get people to leave. I've never actually had this problem myself, but I've known numerous people who've talked about these kinds of situations (and coincidentally they were all middle class, if that tells you anything...) I, personally, would think twice (or a million times) about calling the cops on someone, especially if the person in question is particularly vulnerable to police brutality. So, even if the police aren't abolished, I still want to know the proper alternative to handle this kind of situation.

I'm a pretty weak, easily overpowered person, so my first instinct would be to like.. call someone I know or go get a strong neighbor or something to help me get this person off of my property.

I know that the specifics of the situation also play a key role here, too, on how to handle it. Like, if the person is reasonable, I would hope that just telling them to leave would get them to go - easy enough. But if they refuse to move.. what do I even do? If it's someone that I know very well, I might think to take a break and just walk away from them and hope we can sort things out once we've calmed down. If it's someone that I don't know very well, though, (not even necessarily an intruder, but just say someone who is overstaying their welcome) and especially if tensions are not even high, I wouldn't really know what to do. Some states even have squatters rights, so like.. sometimes you literally CAN'T do anything about this person being in your home, and in some cases they can even get you kicked out. I think it's kind of obvious that if the person clearly has violent intentions towards me, then I have a right to defend myself, but again, I am not going to be able to do that by myself, and I don't know what the legalities are around asking for help from another citizen, i.e. not a cop, if someone means to do you harm?

And what if you do ask for help and your helper ends up injuring the person in the process of trying to get them out?? I'd imagine it's still better than calling a cop, and risking getting a life-ruining criminal record, or worse, shot and killed. But I'd also imagine there could be grounds for them to sue if they get injured by the helper since the helper is not a professional of any kind and not protected in anyway. Only some states have protections against self defense anyway, and I don't know if it even counts if you invited the person into your home willingly and they weren't being violent to begin with. Like.. if they person is just stubbornly standing there and then your burly neighbor puts hands on them first, I don't think that even counts as self defense for the homeowner? At that point if the person fights back then they have a case for self-defense.

And I don't know what the leftist attitude is towards personal property like that anyway, like should we even have a right to our own home? I don't know the leftist view on that, I get the idea that individualism is not the move, but like.. do we still have our own personal space? Space that we are allowed to bar others from entering? Even if that space extends to the entirety of a 2-bedroom home? I'm asking sincerely, because I really haven't read enough socialist theory, so I don't know what the opinions are on home ownership in general. Like in an ideal society, would we supposedly just allow the person to stay for as long as they like, as long as they aren't hurting anything? That's another part of it, like what if they aren't doing any harm but I still don't want them there? Am I wrong for wanting them to leave, even if I don't know them? Supposing even if they are an intruder, if they haven't stolen anything or hurt me or my animals, but they just... won't leave, should I even be mad about that?

But again, forget an ideal society, let's take it back to reality, assuming that I live in the US and the laws are exactly the same as they are in this moment, police are not abolished, but I am choosing to not involve the police in this matter... what is the right thing to do???? Should I just resolve myself to accept that this person lives with me now?? I don't even live in a state with squatters rights, so I don't legally have to, but.. should I? (more thoughts and anecdotes if the tags if you feel like reading)

[filosofablogger]

Snarky Snippets Volume LXXXVIII

Filosofa is feeling just a wee bit snarky this morning … gee, I wonder why?  The daily news reads more like a Broadway playbill than actual news, our elected officials keep telling us to sit down and shut up while taking our hard-earned tax dollars for their own, and the world just seems to be upside-down these days.  Who wouldn’t be feeling a bit snarky?  Here are a few snippets from my bouncing…

[wilwheaton]

In the wake of a near-tragic assassination attempt of a widely reviled figure, some people who loathe him may be wrestling with or suppressing emotions that feel contradictory. But the notions that Trump is dangerous, and that attempting to murder him is also dangerous, are not in tension with each other. The ethics and the practicality of liberal democracy both affirm a strong norm against political violence. [...]    Even though American history has seen a long litany of murders and attempted murders — Gerald Ford survived two attempts on his life within a few weeks of each other — this one feels scarier. That is because our social peace has grown more precarious. An assassination attempt on Donald Trump is a far more dangerous thing than an attempt to kill Mitt Romney would have been a dozen years ago, or Al Gore a dozen years before that.    And while the responsibility for maintaining social peace and the norm of non-violence is shared equally across the political spectrum, the blame for its decay is not.    Trump stokes and feeds upon a lust for violence. He possesses a demagogue’s skill for manipulating his supporters’ most elemental emotions. As a private citizen he exploited a white woman’s rape in Central Park to demand the execution of innocent young men of color. He continues to call for various critics to be executed for their disloyalty. When a maniac attempted to kill Nancy Pelosi and smashed the skull of her husband, he cheered it on. He continues to glorify and promise to free the criminals who assaulted police in the attack on the Capitol in an attempt to seize an unelected second term.    It is not Trump’s fault that someone tried to kill him. It is absolutely his fault that it has immediately set off a widespread fear of reprisals and chaos.

Trump Shooting: He Must Be Defeated by Ballots, Not Bullets

Look, I can’t wait for the guy to die and be gone forever. I just want him to die in prison.

And he’s still a Fascist. Don’t let that get obscured in all of this. He’s still the same wannabe dictator, the same hateful liar, the same corrupt traitor, the same 34 time convicted felon, the same rapist.

Nothing about him has changed. Nothing about Project 2025 has changed.

Obviously, the national conversation is going to be focused on this for the near future, and we can’t forget or minimize that he remains a serious and dire threat to America, and the world.

[avi-on-jumblr]

awful tweet warning:

Before I describe everything that's wrong with this tweet, let me transcribe Stephen Fry's words:

I am Stephen Fry, and I am a Jew. The great Irish thinker and writer Conor Cruise O'Brien once said that antisemitism is a light sleeper. Well, it seems to have woken up of late. The horrendous events of October 7th, and the Israeli response, seem to have stirred up this ancient hatred. It's agonizing to see all violence and destruction that is unfolding, and the terrible loss of life on both sides brings me an overwhelming sadness and heartache. But whatever our opinions on what is happening, there can be no excuse for the behaviour of some of our citizens. Since October the 7th, there have been 50 separate reported incidents of antisemitism every single day in London alone, an increase of 1350%, according to the Metropolitan police. Shop windows smashed, stars of David and swastikas daubed on walls of Jewish properties, synagogues, and cemeteries. Jewish schools have been forced to close. There is real fear stalking the Jewish neighbourhoods of Britain. Jewish people here are becoming fearful of showing themselves, in Britain, in 2023.

(Then it cuts off.)

For those who still don't know why this tweet was ignorant and inane, let me explain.

"To hear him conflate antiZionism with antisemitism has shocked me."

Guess how many times Stephen Fry mentions zionism? Zero! Guess how many times he mentions the country of Israel? Zero! (Unless you count "the Israeli response" which is unrelated to the existence of the country, or Zionism at all.) What this person is saying, is that they consider the smashing of shop windows, and the vandalism and marking of Jewish property, to be anti-Zionism. Considering they are an anti-Zionist, by following their logic, we can conclude that they not only believe this destruction and harassment is acceptable, but they believe it is ethical.

Further, they accuse him of showing no care for the Palestinians, even though he explicitly states that the loss of life on both sides brings him overwhelming sadness.

Finally, they accuse him of "[Centring] people in this country". It is disturbing that this person believes one cannot be concerned over two issues at a time. It perpetuates the idea that we can only talk about the "worst oppression" and talking about anything else means you are complicit in "silencing" someone else. If this were true, we would not be allowed to talk about Gaza either, or Ukraine, or police brutality, racism, islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and so on and so on, because clearly there are other issues with hundreds of thousands more deaths, and millions more displacements, so why bring attention to it ever?

Unfortunately, people are not talking about those countries, like Syria, Yemen, Ethiopia, Congo, and more, and anyone who does is spammed with "free Palestine" comments. In fact, the most I've heard people talking about Sudan is when these TikTok geopolitical experts attempt to spam the Palestinian flag and get it wrong.

This is not new. This is obviously not new. I have seen tweets like these every single day in the hundreds for the last 80 days. It is not surprising that people think smashing windows is "anti-zionism", nor that they think it good. It is not surprising that they hear a Jew speak, and experience shock and disgust, regardless of what we say.

I do wonder if they would regard anything short of a second Holocaust as antisemitism.

[kcinpa]

TL;DR Project 2025

Project 2025 has crossed my dash several times, so maybe tumblr is already informed about the hellish 900-page takeover plan if Trump wins office again. But even the articles covering Project 2025 can be a LOT of reading. So I'm trying to get it down to simple bulleted lists…

Navigator Research (a progressive polling outfit) found that 7 in 10 Americans are unfamiliar with Project 2025. But the more they learn about it, the more they don't like or want it. When asked about a series of policy plans taken directly from Project 2025, the bipartisan survey group responded most negatively to the following:

Allowing employers to stop paying hourly workers overtime

Allowing the government to monitor people’s pregnancies to potentially prosecute them if they miscarry

Removing health care protections for people with pre-existing conditions

Eliminating the National Weather Service, which is currently responsible for preparing for extreme weather events like heat waves, floods, and wildfires

Eliminating the Head Start program, ending preschool education for the children of low-income families

Putting a new tax on health insurance for millions of people who get insurance through their employer

Banning Medicare from negotiating for lower prescription drug costs and eliminating the $35 monthly cap on the price of insulin for seniors

Cutting Social Security benefits by raising the retirement age

Allowing employers to deny workers access to birth control

Laurie Garrett looked at the roughly 50 pages within Project 2025 that deal with Health and Human Services (HHS) and other health agencies, and summarized them on Twitter/X in a series of replies. I've shortened even more here:

HHS must "respect for the sacred rights of conscience" for Federal workers & healthcare providers and workers broadly who object to abortions, contraception, gender reassignment & other issues - ie. allow them to deny services based on religious beliefs

HHS should promote "stable and flourishing married families."

Require all welfare programs to "promote father involvement" �� or terminate their funding for mothers and children.

Prioritize adoptions via faith-based organizations.

Redefine sex, eliminating all forms of gender "confusion" regarding identity and orientation.

Eliminate the Head Start program for children, entirely

Ban all funding of Planned Parenthood

Ban birth control services that are "egregious attacks on many Americans' religious & moral beliefs"

Deny pregnancy termination pills, "mail-order abortions."

Eliminate Office of Refugee Resettlement; move all refugee matters to the Department of Homeland Security

Healthcare should be "market-based"

Ban all mask and vaccine requirements.

Closely regulate the NIH w/citizen ethics panels, ensuring that no research involves fetal tissue, leads to development of new forms of Abortions or brings profits to the researchers.

Redirect the Office of Global Affairs to promoting "moral conscience" & full compliance w/the Mexico City policy

The CDC should have no role in medical policies.

"Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism," HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence & by what method.

I'm still looking for a good short summary of the environmental horrors that Project 2025 would bring if it comes to fruition…

[burr-ell]

Ngl your probably one of the only profiles I've seen know that the gods are nuanced but also not forget to say what they did to aeor is indeed majorly fucked and should be enknowledged. But also again not say "Their all evil. Selfish. Hate mortals, etc, etc" So Thank you! :3

Well, thank you anon! 😊

It would be easy to simply say Aeor was a totalitarian dictatorship that had it coming and maybe it wasn't great for the civilians but at least we got rid of Magic Big Brother, but that's not true; the citizens being oppressed by Aeor didn't deserve to die for their oppressors' crimes. It would be easy to pretend the gods crashed the city out of pure altruism and fear for Exandrian mortals if Aeor obtained more power, but that's not true; the ultimate concern for both the Prime Deities and the Betrayer Gods was for their own lives and their family's, enough to call a truce in a war that was otherwise destroying the land and its people.

On the other hand, Pelor and Sarenrae explicitly wanted to find a way to save the city and destroy the Factorum Malleus at the same time, and indeed could possibly have found a way to do so if Asmodeus hadn't schemed to ensure Aeor fell. All of the Prime Deities were grieved by it, and this was the tipping point for them to realize their efforts to protect Exandria were instead hurting it. This is the event that pushed them to seal themselves away from the home where they'd found a refuge after enduring tragedy themselves. And while I've said previously that any city having a weapon like that would be a bad thing, Aeor is a city where someone had to embezzle money to fund a hospital; I wouldn't trust them with an off-brand water pistol.

That's what makes Downfall so compelling—there are no easy answers. Few important ethical questions have them. If it's a question of if the gods wanted to save their own lives, save Exandria, or just do what they could in the moment because they had one night, the fact that the answer is "yes" is a good thing. As far as I'm concerned, abdicating responsibility is worse than owning a shitty choice.

[simply-ivanka]

Manhattan DA's Office Sued for Trump Prosecution Records | Newsmax.com

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/afl-alvin-bragg-donald-trump/2024/09/16/id/1180537/

America First Legal filed a lawsuit against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office Monday, seeking communication records related to the prosecution of former President Donald Trump.

According to a release from the organization, AFL is seeking documents and communications between the Manhattan DA's office and the Biden-Harris campaign, the Democratic National Convention, Color of Change and CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington).

It is also seeking records related to campaign fundraising off of the prosecution of Trump in the New York case.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

When Donald Trump announces he’s running for the presidency, as he’s expected to do, a watchdog group plans to file a challenge under the 14th Amendment, which bars reelection of officials who engaged in or supported an insurrection.

“The evidence that Trump engaged in insurrection is overwhelming,” Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in a statement last week. “We are ready, willing and able to take action to make sure the Constitution is upheld and Trump is prevented from holding office.”

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War, bars any officials who have taken an oath of office to defend the government from reelection if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the government — or have “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

CREW sent a letter to Trump on Thursday alerting him to the planned challenge if he announces his candidacy for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

“CREW believes you are barred from holding office Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment because you engaged in insurrection against the government you swore to defend,” states the letter. “By summoning a violent mob to disrupt the transition of presidential power mandated by the Constitution after having sworn to defend the same, you made yourself ineligible to hold public office again.”

The “evidence that you engaged in insurrection as contemplated in the Fourteenth Amendment — including by mobilizing, inciting and aiding those attacking the Capitol — is overwhelming,” the letter adds.

“If you seek elected or appointed office despite being constitutionally disqualified ... we and others loyal to the Constitution will defend it,” the message warns.

Trump has not responded.

Though a similar action by a group of voters failed earlier this year to block Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) run for reelection, a challenge by CREW and other organizations succeeded against an official in New Mexico in September.

A judge in that state ruled in response to a lawsuit by CREW and others that Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin be removed from office, noting the attack on the U.S. Capitol was an insurrection and that Griffin’s participation in it disqualified him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

The decision marked the first time since 1869 that a court has disqualified a public official under the amendment — and the first time any court has branded the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol an insurrection, CREW noted.

[porterdavis]

[sonics-atelier]

To draw a parallel between Feyre's actions in the Spring Court and concepts such as colonization and mass genocide, it's important to analyze the nuances and consequences of her actions. Here’s a detailed breakdown :

( because you idiots can't comprehend it can you ? )

Reasons for the Parallel:

1. Disruption of Established Communities :

- Colonization : Historically, colonizers disrupt existing societies, imposing new rules and systems, often disregarding the welfare of the local population.

- Feyre’s Actions : By undermining Tamlin's rule and sowing chaos in the Spring Court, Feyre disrupts the lives of its inhabitants, forcing them to live in fear and uncertainty.

2. Exploitation of Power Dynamics :

- Colonization : Colonizers typically exploit their superior power to dominate and control indigenous populations for their own benefit.

- Feyre’s Actions : Feyre, leveraging her position and abilities, manipulates the internal politics of the Spring Court primarily to serve her personal vendetta against Tamlin, rather than considering the impact on the common citizens.

3. Cultural and Social Displacement :

- Colonization : Indigenous cultures and social structures are often eroded or obliterated under colonial rule.

- Feyre’s Actions : By destabilizing the Spring Court, Feyre causes significant social upheaval. The citizens’ trust in their leadership and societal norms are shattered, akin to the cultural displacement seen in colonized societies.

4. Infliction of Psychological and Physical Harm :

- Genocide : Beyond physical violence, genocide includes the infliction of psychological terror and destruction of ways of life.

- Feyre’s Actions : Although not a literal genocide, Feyre’s actions inflict psychological harm on the Spring Court’s residents, instilling fear, paranoia, and instability, which mirrors the psychological impacts of genocidal actions.

5. Manipulation and Betrayal :

- Colonization : Colonial powers often employ manipulation and betrayal to achieve their goals, breaking treaties and exploiting trust.

- Feyre’s Actions : Feyre deceives and manipulates Tamlin and his court, betraying any semblance of alliance or trust for her personal goals.

6 . Brought to my attention by @wingsdippedingold , Justification Given :

Political Leadership and Setting a Better Example:

1. Responsibility to Protect Civilians :

- As a political leader and High Lady, Feyre holds the responsibility to protect all civilians, including those in rival courts. Her actions should prioritize the welfare of innocents over personal grievances.

2. Ethical Use of Power :

- Leaders must use their power ethically, avoiding actions that harm innocent people. Feyre’s actions reflect a misuse of power for revenge, rather than for justice or the greater good.

3. Diplomacy over Sabotage :

- Effective leadership often requires diplomacy and conflict resolution rather than sabotage and subterfuge. Feyre could have sought diplomatic means to address her issues with Tamlin without causing widespread harm.

4. Setting Precedents :

- As a leader, Feyre’s actions set a precedent for future interactions between courts. By resorting to manipulation and causing civilian suffering, she undermines principles of justice and fair governance, encouraging a cycle of retaliation and conflict.

5. Moral Integrity :

- Leaders are expected to uphold high moral standards. Feyre’s actions, driven by personal vendetta, showcase a lack of moral integrity, damaging her credibility as a just leader.

Conclusion:

While Feyre's actions may not be a direct parallel to colonization and mass genocide in their most extreme forms, the underlying principles of causing widespread harm to innocent civilians for personal gain and disrupting societal structures draw notable similarities. As a political leader, Feyre’s actions should reflect a commitment to protecting all people under her influence, employing ethical and diplomatic solutions, and maintaining moral integrity to set a positive example for governance and conflict resolution.

[luulapants]

Where Illinois politicians stand on Palestine

I sent a letter to Senator Tammy Duckworth today. Illinois is a solidly blue state, and I've dutifully voted blue no matter who since I started voting. Droves of people here have been writing to her and our Congressional Representatives, begging them to support a ceasefire, and all we will get back is a canned party-line response about Israel's right to "self defense" and the need to eradicate Hamas.

They are able to do this, to disregard the outrage of their constituency, because they feel certain that no matter how many letters we send, we will show up and vote for them when the time comes. They are certain their actions have no consequences, and even if they did, they would tell us that it's all our fault for failing in our democratic duty to vote.

Senator Dick Durban received about $154.5k from Israeli lobby groups. He has publicly called for ceasefire anyway. Their money was not worth a genocide.

Senator Tammy Duckworth received over $212k from Israeli lobby groups. She refuses to call for ceasefire. This was her going rate to enable genocide.

In my letter, I told her that I could not see pictures of dead Palestinian babies and turn around and vote for someone, like her, who had their blood on her hands. I told her that "vote blue" cannot extend to genocide. My ethics do not stretch this far.

14/17 representatives for the state of Illinois are Democrats. Of these, only 5 have called for ceasefire.

Jonathan Jackson: $3k from Israeli lobby groups. He has publicly called for ceasefire anyway. Their money was not worth a genocide.

Robin Kelly: $21.5k from Israeli lobby groups. She refuses to call for ceasefire. This was her going rate to enable genocide.

Delia Ramirez: $0 from Israeli lobby groups. She has publicly called for ceasefire. They knew she could not be bought.

Jesus "Chuy" Garcia: $0 from Israeli lobby groups. He has publicly called for ceasefire. They knew he could not be bought.

Mike Quigley: $43.5k from Israeli lobby groups. He refuses to call for ceasefire. This was his going rate to enable genocide.

Sean Casten: $61.5k from Israeli lobby groups. He refuses to call for ceasefire. This was his going rate to enable genocide.

Danny Davis: $0 from Israeli lobby groups. Yet he refuses to call for ceasefire. You can have his cowardice for free.

Raja Krishnamoorthi: $61.5k from Israeli lobby groups. He refuses to call for ceasefire. This was his going rate to enable genocide.

Jan Schakowsky: $58.5k from Israeli lobby groups. She has publicly called for ceasefire anyway. Their money was not worth a genocide.

Brad Schneider: $54k from Israeli lobby groups. He refuses to call for ceasefire. This was his going rate to enable genocide.

Bill Foster: $65.5k from Israeli lobby groups. He refuses to call for ceasefire. This was his going rate to enable genocide.

Mike Bost is a Republican. $14.5k and obviously no ceasefire talk. He will not be moved.

Nikki Budzinski: $25.5k from Israeli lobby groups. She refuses to call for ceasefire. This was her going rate to enable genocide.

Lauren Underwood: $0 from Israeli lobby groups. She has publicly called for ceasefire. They knew she could not be bought.

Mary Miller is a Republican. $0 - they don't even have to pay her to toe the party line. She will not be moved.

Darin LaHood is a Republican. $27.5k and obviously no ceasefire talk. He will not be moved.

Eric Sorenson: $0 from Israeli lobby groups. Yet he refuses to call for ceasefire. You can have his cowardice for free.

The Republicans will be trash regardless, but we cannot let our Democrats skate by thinking there are no consequences for supporting a genocide. They are slaughtering people with your tax dollars, Americans. It's time to get serious. It's time to tell these people that they cannot have our votes for free. It's time to start talking about primary opposition and third party voting. It's time to start exercising our power as voting citizens.

[drdemonprince]

Hi, apologies in advance if this is something you've already discussed or addressed, but I was wondering about whether there is any kind of correlation between autism and increased sensitivity to tragic global events? Maybe I'm just burnt out, but the past couple weeks of turmoil and tragedy in Israel/Palestine has me completely immobilized with anxiety and despair. I don't have any profound connections to the region, Israeli citizens, or the Palestinian people, but my heart aches from it all, especially with the ongoing devastation in Gaza.

I had a similar experience in 2017 from Hurricane Maria, but I had lived for a year on the island where it first made landfall in PR, so I was personally invested and it was a place with which I was familiar. Asking other autistic friends if there's a higher chance of being hyperfixated on or extra sensitive to coverage of international tragedy, I was told my own personal history with trauma and violence/tragedy may just make me more empathetic to others' suffering.

How, as an autistic person, do you find ways to pull yourself out of despair for the state of the world and the suffering of others?

Many people find it compelling to draw a link between Autism and heightened empathy or sensitivity to matters of injustice, for understandable reasons, but the reality is far more complex.

In research, we see that Autistic people are more morally consistent than other people -- we are more likely to sacrifice resources or social standing in order to stand up for the things in which we believe. Because of masking pressures, many of us become highly attuned to the emotions of others -- or what we presume those emotions to be, because of course no person is a mind-reader. We can appear stubborn, to others, in holding steadfastly to our beliefs even when doing so is risky. We are also highly traumatized and thus suffer from hyper-vigilance, trauma triggers, and many other symptoms that may register as us taking emotional blows particularly hard.

It would be comforting to tell ourselves that such traits make us more connected to global events, or actually more morally or ethically invested. But that isn't necessarily the case. Having a strong moral consistency doesn't mean that a person's morals are the correct ones, being willing to make a sacrifice for a cause doesn't mean it was the right cause, and being highly sensitive to the plights of others doesn't mean we actually understand them or are feeling their feelings at all.

For myself, being Autistic is associated with being far less emotionally impacted by such global events than other people. I have very limited empathy, and in situations like these what empathy I do have is entirely cognitively mediated. Global catastrophes and massive injustices don't really emotionally affect me the way that I see them affecting other people -- I don't cry about such things or feel devastated by them, I just think about them a lot in a relatively dispassionate way, and many of the gestures people find moving surrounding such issues do nothing for me.

It doesn't mean I don't care. I actively make the choice to care because of my belief system and values. I have to decide intentionally to dwell on the emotional reality of what is happening. I have to force myself to imagine what others might be feeling, and what others are going through, in order to understand it. Otherwise, to me it is more of an intellectual abstraction, and my focus immediately goes toward what I think the logical solution or means of response might be.

This doesn't make my conclusions any better than anyone else's, mind you. Just because I'm thinking analytically doesn't mean I have the correct information or frame of reference -- in fact, in such matters it often leads me to be oblivious to what others need or what others would consider the morally right thing to do. There's a whole spectrum of human experience I can't access, and while I used to think it made me evil, it's doesn't. It just makes me different.

My friends and loved ones who are more emotionally open-hearted are the ones that remind me to pause, to honor people's grief, to make sense of the emotional and social needs of the moment as well as the ones that strike my numb self as more supposedly practical. My knee-jerk reaction to such situations is to try and jump into problem-solving mode, and I have had to learn from experience that I need to slow down, humble myself, and make space for the enormity of people's feelings and the horror of the things are happening that my body just cannot touch. Very emotionally obvious things, by the standards of other people, completely fly past me.

Still, I am also often frustrated and confused by the reactions other people have to crises -- as a very general rule, humanity tends to reach for means of addressing such events that are symbolic and emotionally satisfying but might not align with their professed ideologies or any kind of articulated strategy. The safety pin thing after Trump was elected, for example, or the blackout squares at the height of BLM. These movements felt good, I guess, to people who were in a state of genuine panic, but they actually did more harm than good.

It's difficult to be what often feels like the sole voice asking whether what the collective is doing really makes any sense. If often makes me seem like I am heartless, which I guess I am, but I am still highly invested in the side I believe to be just winning, and in my annoying fault-finding I'm simply trying to aid in that.

There's benefits and drawbacks to both approaches, is what I'm saying, and there are many routes to caring about an issue and many ways in which caring isn't the same thing as being helpful.

All of this is a bit ancillary to your question. Is it an Autism thing to be sensitive to global genocide? I think that's quite a human thing. Many Autistic people take such matters very very seriously, but some of us do so in ways that aren't as emotional as what you describe. Others are incredibly emotionally impacted by such matters, like you are -- and so are many non-Autistic people. It hardly matters whether it's normal or not though -- this is what is happening for you, and it matters, and you certainly aren't alone in it.

I wish I had advice that came from personal experience, but my experience is somewhat of the mirror image to yours. I find that when people care deeply about an issue, whether it's intellectually or emotionally, they compulsively consume information and upsetting imagery about the issue to a degree they find debilitating. I do this, and you probably do it as well, even if what happens to me is analysis paralysis and fault-finding and what happens to you is probably more like horror and despair.

I believe limiting one's intake is necessary. I believe humility is too. We are not the stars of this story, and we are not so important in the world as to expect ourselves to be experts or saviors. I find that stepping back and gaining historical knowledge places things in perspective. I have learned much by studying the political movements of the past. I have had to develop a true understanding of how the social change I desire really works -- thanks to historical reading, discussion with people I respect, and by consuming leftist theory.

I think it is vitally important to be able to disagree with people, at least in the privacy of your own mind and in your own conduct, so that even if someone is ringing an alarm bell and saying that a certain action is necessary, you have the power to determine if you actually agree. I think it's important to not constantly consume information. We have to learn to know which voices to completely disregard, by asking ourselves what belief system drives a person's claims, and whether they are positioning themselves as an expert for their own self-enrichment and betterment rather than for a just cause.

I think we can't just be moved by the emotional panic of the situation, because we are very easily manipulated, drained of energy, and led astray, and disempowered if we are. But I also think we can't be detached from the human emotional reality of the moment either -- no matter what I think is the rational course of action, the only way humans are ever going to organize and take that action is by speaking with one another, crying with one another, eating together, laughing together, and believing in something better together.

I don't know how to do any of that stuff. I only know tactics and history and theory and fault-finding. There is a place for me in the struggle. There is a place for you in it too. But we are small, and we have to make peace with our smallness and flaws and build a movement that accounts for them, and for a wide variety of gifts and perspectives.