#Kamala Harris UNITE HERE

[havegaysex]

Why are you telling people to vote for the guy committing genocide :/

because voting is not an endorsement it's harm reduction.

Trump is going to be at best doing the same as Biden and likely much worse for Palestinians and all the countries suffering from American Imperialism than Biden is.

Republicans want to bring back child labor and get rid of social security, medicare, Medicaid. As someone who is surviving on Medicaid and social security I don't want those taken away. The Republican majority house already put a lot of limits on food stamps in this past term and I don't think we'll still have food stamps if we get a republican Congress and a Republican president.

They've made it pretty clear that if they get a republican Congress and a Republican president they're going to enact project 2025 and call a conference of states and try and take our rights back to the days when only wealthy white men had any rights when women and racial minorities had no rights, they want to make it illegal for LGBT+ folks to safely exist in public and get lifesaving healthcare.

In short

Do I support every single thing Biden has done as president?

No.

Do I like him?

Not particularly. But I'm still voting for him because apathy is not a choice.

Do I think that Joe Biden having another term means that we can actually make more progress for labor rights, trans healthcare, abortion access, advancement of the rights and protections for disabled people and so much more?

Yes absolutely.

Do I think that the genocide in Gaza needs to end and the United States needs to stop sending weapons to israel?

Yes, I think that un restricted flow of humanitarian aid into Palestine needs to happen, the siege needs to stop, and the country of Israel and the United States need to be held accountable at an international level. I think that the soldiers of the IDF/IOF need to be held accountable for their war crimes and pillaging that they continuously post evidence of on social medias. I'm trying to put a read more here so ce I've put a few linked articles and quotes from them.

A quote from the article below:

"While our map focuses solely on high school aged youth (age 13-17), some states, such as Oklahoma, Texas, and South Carolina, have considered banning care for transgender people up to 26 years of age. "

I've seen lawmakers in some states try to make it felony punishable by life in prison to get your trans child healthcare to keep them alive because they want to make it illegal for us to exist and a legal for anyone who helps us exist.

some quotes from the article above:

"Led by the long-established Heritage Foundation think tank and fueled by former Trump administration officials, the far-reaching effort is essentially a government-in-waiting for the former president’s second term — or any candidate who aligns with their ideals and can defeat President Joe Biden in 2024. With a nearly 1,000-page “Project 2025” handbook and an “army” of Americans, the idea is to have the civic infrastructure in place on Day One to commandeer, reshape and do away with what Republicans deride as the “deep state” bureaucracy, in part by firing as many as 50,000 federal workers. “We need to flood the zone with conservatives,” said Paul Dans, director of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project and a former Trump administration official who speaks with historical flourish about the undertaking. “This is a clarion call to come to Washington,” he said. “People need to lay down their tools, and step aside from their professional life and say, ‘This is my lifetime moment to serve.’” The unprecedented effort is being orchestrated with dozens of right-flank organizations, many new to Washington, and represents a changed approach from conservatives, who traditionally have sought to limit the federal government by cutting federal taxes and slashing federal spending. Instead, Trump-era conservatives want to gut the “administrative state” from within, by ousting federal employees they believe are standing in the way of the president’s agenda and replacing them with like-minded officials more eager to fulfill a new executive’s approach to governing. The goal is to avoid the pitfalls of Trump’s first years in office, when the Republican president’s team was ill-prepared, his Cabinet nominees had trouble winning Senate confirmation and policies were met with resistance — by lawmakers, government workers and even Trump’s own appointees who refused to bend or break protocol, or in some cases violate laws, to achieve his goals. While many of the Project 2025 proposals are inspired by Trump, they are being echoed by GOP rivals Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy and are gaining prominence among other Republicans. And if Trump wins a second term, the work from the Heritage coalition ensures the president will have the personnel to carry forward his unfinished White House business. “The president Day One will be a wrecking ball for the administrative state,” said Russ Vought, a former Trump administration official involved in the effort who is now president at the conservative Center for Renewing America. Much of the new president’s agenda would be accomplished by reinstating what’s called Schedule F — a Trump-era executive order that would reclassify tens of thousands of the 2 million federal employees as essentially at-will workers who could more easily be fired. Biden had rescinded the executive order upon taking office in 2021, but Trump — and other presidential hopefuls — now vow to reinstate it."

"There’s a “top to bottom overhaul” of the Department of Justice, particularly curbing its independence and ending FBI efforts to combat the spread of misinformation. It calls for stepped-up prosecution of anyone providing or distributing abortion pills by mail."

Personally I think that voting for Joe Biden is better than someone who wants to enact this stuff on day one. It's like they read handmaid's tale and want to make that the reality of this country.

"Chapter by chapter, the pages offer a how-to manual for the next president, similar to one Heritage produced 50 years ago, ahead of the Ronald Reagan administration. Authored by some of today’s most prominent thinkers in the conservative movement, it’s often sprinkled with apocalyptic language." Ronald Reagan is a big reason we have a lot of problems we have today with our economy and with a lot more things. The people that supported Ronald Reagan do not need another term in office.

A quote from the article linked below:

"Trump has given no indication that he would be more sympathetic to Palestinian claims, nor that he would place more pressure on Israel to agree to a ceasefire. “The approach of the United States would be that Israel needs to win this war, it was attacked brutally,” Trump’s ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, describing how Trump would act. Friedman is now a campaign surrogate for Trump."

Personally I think Trump telling Israel to finish the job is indicators that another Trump presidency doesn't mean that weapons would stop being sent to Israel from United States

I fail to see how another term of Donald trump will be any better for the victims of the ongoing genocide in Palestine than President Joe Biden.

i think our system is absolutely messed up and broken but I don't think abstaining from voting is going to actually help.

[letters-to-lgbt-kids]

My dear lgbt+ kids,

Here are some good things that happened in 2022!

January:

Canada bans conversion therapy

Greece allows gay men to donate blood (for the first time in 45 years!)

Israel legalizes surrogacy for gay couples

People in Switzerland are now able to legally change their gender without having to undergo surgery first

February:

New Zealand bans conversion therapy

Nonbinary people in Columbia are now entitled to a birth certificate with a "nonbinary" sex marker

Nayarit (Mexico) allows same-sex couples to adopt

Kuwait overrules a law that has been used to criminalize transgender people

Jowelle de Souza makes history as the first openly transgender parliamentarian in the Caribbean (Trinidad and Tobago)

March:

Chile legalizes same-sex marriage

 France removes the deferral period for gay men donating blood

The United States announces an overhaul of TSA protocols to implement gender-neutral screening at checkpoints

Wales (United Kingdom) bans conversion therapy

Kristin Crowley makes history as the first openly gay (and the first female) chief of the Los Angeles Fire Department (United States)

Diana Zurco makes history as Argentina’s first openly transgender newscaster

April:

Santa Catarina (Brazil) now allows nonbinary people to change their gender marker without having to file a lawsuit

Jalisco (Mexico) bans conversion therapy

The United States issues the first passport with a nonbinary gender 'X' option

May:

Greece bans conversion therapy

Lithuania allows gay men to donate blood

Croatia allows same-sex couples to adopt

Austria removes the deferral period for gay men donating blood

June:

Hidalgo (Mexico) now punishes people offering conversion therapy with up to 3 years in prison

Quebec (Canada) allows people to be classified as a parent (rather than a mother or father) on their child's birth certificate

North Carolina (United States) no longer demands proof of surgery from people who wish to change their gender marker

Spain prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or HIV status

Kamala Harris made history by hosting the first Pride Month reception by a sitting vice president at their residence (United States)

July:

Switzerland legalizes same-sex marriage

Antigua and Barbuda legalize "same-sex behavior"

Andorra decides to legalize same-sex marriage (the law will come into effect in 2023)

Slovenia legalizes both same-sex marriage and adoption

Ariana DeBose makes history as the first queer woman of color (and the first Afro-Latina) to win an Oscar for acting (United States)

August:

India expands the definition of family to include "queer relationships"

Chile equalizes the age of consent

In Saint Kitts and Nevis, same-sex activity is no longer illegal.

Vietnam declares that homosexuality is not a disease and bans conversion therapy

Ellia Green makes history as the first Olympian to come out as a trans man (Australia)

September:

In India, the State Medical Councils can now take disciplinary action against doctors who provide conversion therapy

Cuba legalizes both same-sex marriage and adoption

 Durango (Mexico) legalize same-sex marriage

Canada removes the deferral period for gay men donating blood

Kim Petras and Sam Smith make history as the first openly transgender woman and the first openly nonbinary person to reach number one on the Billboard Hot 100 (United States)

October:

Latvia allows civil unions for same-sex couples 

Paraguay bans conversion therapy

Byron Perkins makes history as the first out football player at HBCU (United States)

Duda Salabert and Erika Hilton make history as the first two openly transgender people elected to the National Congress of Brazil

November:

Singapore decriminalizes gay sex

Singapore also lifts censorship of lgbt+ media

Hidalgo becomes the first state in Mexico to recognize nonbinary people

Ireland removes the deferral period for gay men donating blood

December:

 Barbados legalizes "same-sex acts"

Here is to more good news in 2023!

With all my love,

Your Tumblr Dad

[tanadrin]

Arguments that the Dems should replace Biden seem never to engage with the fact that 1) while “generic democrat” polls well vs Trump, you can’t put Generic Democrat on the ticket. Sooner or later you have to land on an actual candidate with both advantages and flaws, and AFAICT none of the mooted ones do any better vs Trump (many do worse). And 2) parties dumping their incumbent for a new Presidential candidate for a new candidate have always lost. It has not happened often, so the data here is patchy, but portraying this as a canny strategic move which should be obvious to the leaders of the Democratic Party is just dishonest. It would be really risky! If the Democrats could find a really popular candidate to unite behind it might work, but Biden’s flat approval ratings mirror Trump’s, and so might just be a fact of political polarization in the current environment. And there are no obvious charismatic replacements who either don’t have many of the same disadvantages as Biden (not very well liked or super old), or who have even worse ones (Kamala Harris).

[deadpresidents]

My inbox is filled with a ton of messages asking some form of this question, so here's what I would do it I was appointed the Pope of the Democratic Party and had the absolute power to shape what happens next.

First of all, I'd wait a few days until the news cycle is less of a hurricane. But once things calmed down a bit, I'd get a number of the past and present leaders of the party together to go visit President Biden and discuss the way forward. The best-case scenario would need the President to be on board with stepping aside, and I think that would require some serious conversations between Biden and his family and the party elders/leaders. The heavy-hitters would need to go see the President. I'd send President Obama and President Clinton and the other surviving past Democratic Presidential nominees: Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry. (Obviously, President Carter is still alive but he's 99 years old and in hospice care, so he wouldn't be involved.) They'd be joined by other Democratic heavyweights like Nancy Pelosi, Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Bernie Sanders, Jim Clyburn, etc.

It will be a difficult conversation because Joe Biden has spent his life wanting to be President of the United States, and he finally reached the pinnacle and nobody wants to give up that position if they don't have to. But I'd make sure they appeal to his sense of duty and patriotism -- the same things that led him to challenge Trump in 2020 when it seemed like Biden was finished with electoral politics in the wake of his son Beau's death. President Biden knows how dangerous Trump is and what this election truly means, and the Democratic leaders would need to hammer home the idea that while he was the person best able to defeat Trump in 2020, things have changed in the past four years and he's not that guy anymore.

In order for it to work, Biden would need to release his delegates and allow the Democratic National Convention to be an open convention. There are going to be many people and many reasonable arguments that Biden should endorse Kamala Harris since she is his Vice President. But the nominee would be chosen by the delegates to the Democratic Convention, so Biden couldn't just crown Harris as his heir. If he feels that she's the best choice to be the nominee and he feels a sense of loyalty to her, then I think Biden has to go further than stepping aside as the candidate. I think he would have to resign as President and allow Kamala Harris to assume the Presidency and go into the open convention as the incumbent President. That would give her a significant advantage and probably swing the nomination her way. But that's an even bigger thing to ask of President Biden, so I can't imagine being able to talk him into that. Even if he steps aside as the candidate, I think he's going to want to finish his term and he deserves that. I'm a longtime fan of Kamala Harris -- I campaigned with her for Barack Obama while she was still the DA in San Francisco. But I'm not sure she's the best candidate, either. Still, she will be in the mix and one of the favorites in an open convention.

I think an open convention would be really fascinating for people to see in 2024 since it hasn't really happened in 70+ years. It might be good for the Democratic Party and allow fresh candidates to come to the surface. I don't think there's any doubt Vice President Harris would be a candidate and it seems likely that California Governor Gavin Newsom and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer would be major possibilities. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Maryland Governor Wes Moore are rising stars, but I don't think they have the name recognition to be the nominee this year. I really like Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and think he has all of the tools necessary to be a good President, but I'm not sure where he would stand nationally. I don't think Michelle Obama is a possibility. I know she's the dream candidate for a lot of people, but I don't think she likes politics and I don't think she has any interest in running. I think a real dark horse would be Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear. The only Democratic Presidential candidate to win Kentucky since 1980 was Bill Clinton. Beshear has won three statewide races in that very red state, and he won the most recent election in Kentucky by running as a pro-choice candidate defending a women's right to choose. I've seen Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia mentioned, but I feel like his Senate seat is so important that he's needed there more than as President.

There are also two wild card candidates with such strong national name recognition that they would totally shake up the race. However, they'd also be controversial in many ways, but particularly because Biden would be stepping aside because of his age and these two candidates are roughly the same age as Trump. It would eliminate the argument of a fresh Democratic candidate taking Biden's place, but no one would question their experience or star power. The first one is a pretty obvious one: Hillary Clinton. I think she'd energize women voters even more than she did in 2016 because it would be a chance to get back at what happened that year. Plus, she did win the popular vote against Trump. I mean, it's a simple fact that more people voted for her in 2016 than the person that she lost to the election to. The other person also won the election that they "lost": Al Gore. I don't know if he'd do it, but you couldn't find a better advocate for fighting climate change as President than Al Gore. He's also been out of politics long enough that he might seem fresh, even if he's only two years younger than Trump. And it would be a great story -- redemption for the election that he lost at the Supreme Court rather than the ballot box.

I don't know who I would choose if I could pick the nominee, but I think an open convention would be healthy for democracy and for the Democrats. Either way, I think Biden would deserve the opportunity to save face by having him speak to the nation and explain that he is stepping aside as the nominee as an act of political courage and duty to a country facing an existential threat named Donald Trump. Let him talk about how proud he is of the things his Administration has accomplished and that he was able to stop Donald Trump once and by doing this, he is making sure America stops Donald Trump one last time. And guess what? Then he can do what I'm sure it is breaking his heart to not be able to do right now -- he can pardon his only surviving son because he'll be a lame-duck and won't have to worry about the political blowback.

[panimoonchild]

"Today it is Ukraine, and tomorrow it may be East Asia," said Fumio Kishida, the Japanese prime minister

The Peace Summit Declaration was supported by 80 countries and 4 organizations.

Earlier, Reuters published a draft declaration stating that Russia should hand over control of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant to Ukraine, open access to ports in the Black and Azov Seas, release all Ukrainian prisoners of war, and return children deported from Ukraine.

Among those who did not sign the declaration are Saudi Arabia, Thailand, India, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, and the United Arab Emirates.

The picture shows the countries and organizations that supported the declaration.

Important statements that were made: ▪️ "Putin has put forward proposals to resolve the war. But he's not talking about negotiations, he's talking about Ukraine's surrender," US Vice President Kamala Harris. For context, Putin was talking about the withdrawal of the Defense Forces from Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions, the lifting of sanctions, and Ukraine's refusal to join NATO.

▪️The president of Georgia confirmed that Russia plans to open a new naval base in Abkhazia. The Austrian chancellor called for pressure on Moscow to agree to a real peace process, while the Croatian prime minister added that his country is for peace where victims should not surrender.

▪️"Our efforts have led to the reunification of 34 Ukrainian children with their families. And we continue to work on the reunification of many others," the Prime Minister of Qatar.

▪️"The consequences of war are felt all over the world. Today, a farmer in Kenya knows about the war in Ukraine… This summit should not be a meeting of friends only, and both friends and enemies should be here," the President of Kenya. The need to involve Russia was also mentioned by a representative of Saudi Arabia, who said that "difficult compromises" are needed for the negotiations.

▪️"Today it is Ukraine, and tomorrow it may be East Asia… Peace in Ukraine should be based on international law and without changing borders," the Japanese prime minister said.

Zelensky responds to Putin's ultimatum

"This is a mistake that is useful for us. Here, behind the scenes, countries said that with this message, Putin conveyed to the whole world that everything he had said before about a real desire to end the war was multiplied by zero. All countries said this. Even those that have a different view, or had a different view. And this is also a success for us," the President said.

[determinate-negation]

Have you seen this article zionists are spreading around? https://archive.ph/2023.10.28-222013/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/decolonization-narrative-dangerous-and-false/675799/

You can tell these people don’t engage with the ideas they’re supposed to disagree with. Basically Israel isn’t a settler-colonial state because it was normal for Europeans to partition states. It goes on about how leftists think Israelis are white too. My favourite part is when they list a bunch of people from migrant backgrounds (Kamala Harris included) in the UK/US and say this: no one would describe them as “settlers.” Yet Israeli families resident in Israel for a century are designated as “settler-colonists." Pretty telling that they bring up migrants as a comparison instead of, y’know, European settlers. Who are still called settlers after hundreds of years here.

i started reading this but its so long and annoying i had to stop lmao. but yeah you can tell they dont really understand what theory of settler colonialism they are trying to disprove. also the partition of india which they mention resulted in mass death and rape and displacement, it was a horrific thing resulting from british colonialism like guess what i also think that was bad. i also think the united states shouldnt exist. the only real reason that american settlers stand out less sharply than israeli settlers as settlers in terms of military violence and active conflict with indigenous society and stuff is because the united states has had much longer to kill the indigenous population and build its parasitic settler society. the stage of settler colonialism we are trying to prevent. youll also notice theres not a single mention of the economic aspects of settler colonialism. pure ideology

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The fate of the Senate filibuster is on the ballot in the 2024 election as Democrats rally around weakening the 60-vote threshold to pass major legislation like codifying abortion rights and bolstering federal voting rights.

If President Joe Biden is re-elected and Democrats control the Senate, they would probably have the votes to change the filibuster. The cause has become a litmus test in the party, backed by senators who will remain in office next year, as well as the party’s candidates in key races that’ll decide which party controls the majority.

Meanwhile, Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., who cast decisive votes in 2022 to block Democrats from weakening the filibuster, are retiring. Manchin said he has “grave concerns” the filibuster will survive after he leaves.

Under the current filibuster, 60 votes are needed to begin and end debate on most legislation, meaning 41 senators can effectively veto bills. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said he’s optimistic Democrats will have enough support for “reforming the filibuster and imposing a talking filibuster” in the next Congress, so a minority can’t block bills without continuously holding the floor and talking.

“Unfortunately, two folks decided to support the no-effort obstruction, as opposed to the talking filibuster,” Merkley told NBC News. “But I think everyone who’s staying is pretty supportive of going through the process of making the Senate work again.”

It would have far-reaching impacts in establishing majority rule in a chamber that has normalized requiring a supermajority to pass most bills over the last two decades, with a key exception for temporary changes to taxes and spending. Such a change would be celebrated by progressives, who call the modern filibuster an undemocratic chokepoint for popular legislation.

Proponents call the filibuster a rare tool to encourage bipartisanship and promote stability in lawmaking. But even moderate Democrats say the modern 60-vote threshold makes the Senate dysfunctional.

“I’ve been here just over three years, and I’ve never seen an organization with rules like the United States Senate,” said Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., a former astronaut. “If NASA had these rules, the rocket ship would never leave the launchpad. So as changes to the rules come up, I’ll evaluate it based on the merits.”

Many Republican senators insist they’d preserve the filibuster, even if they capture control of the White House and Congress. They include conservative Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who said he “absolutely” supports the 60-vote rule.

“We’re united in that. We realize the tables will turn, and if they had ultimate control, this country would be over,” Johnson said, calling it a bulwark against “socialist and radical left policies.” He said that if Donald Trump wins the presidency, he could use executive power to secure the border if Democrats filibuster immigration bills.

DEMOCRATS' PATH TO AN ANTI-FILIBUSTER MAJORITY

Changing the filibuster rules would require a simple majority in the Senate. If Democrats end up with 50 or more seats and have Vice President Kamala Harris to break a tie, they'd most likely have the votes.

With Manchin retiring, West Virginia’s open seat is all but certain to flip to the GOP this fall. But Democrats have a plausible — albeit difficult — path to hold their remaining 50 votes.

It requires holding seats in red-leaning Montana and Ohio, as well as in the purple states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and Arizona.

The likely Democratic nominee to replace Sinema in Arizona, Rep. Ruben Gallego, promises that if he is elected he would support “waiving the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade.”

Democratic candidates for open seats in California (Rep. Adam Schiff), Michigan (Rep. Elissa Slotkin), Delaware (Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester) and Maryland (county executive Angela Alsobrooks) have all called for eliminating the filibuster.

“I am, like, loud and proud on reforming the filibuster so we can vote on gun laws, voter access, women’s rights,” Slotkin told constituents in a video she posted on Instagram. “All those things could be voted on tomorrow if we only needed 51 instead of 60.”

Alsobrooks, who won the Democratic primary in Maryland on Tuesday, says on her website: “Angela firmly believes that the filibuster in the Senate should be eliminated.”

Her GOP opponent, former Gov. Larry Hogan, said he’s “a big supporter of the filibuster.”

Schiff said he’d prefer major swings in policy to the current gridlock, emphasizing that killing the filibuster is the only way to pass abortion rights, gun safety and voting rights measures and to mitigate climate change. He said he doesn’t worry about Republicans’ using a filibuster-free Senate to reverse liberal gains when they take power.

“The Republican policies are so reactionary, backward and unpopular that should they ever really be in a position to put them into effect, they’ll be voted out of office in a heartbeat,” he said.

And the Democrats running in the red-leaning states of Texas (Rep. Colin Allred) and Florida (former Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell) have also championed exceptions to the filibuster to establish federal abortion rights. The GOP is favored in those states, but Democrats can hold the majority without them.

Biden has said he supports carve-outs to the filibuster to pass voting rights and abortion rights legislation. The White House declined to comment beyond his public remarks and didn't say whether that would extend to other priorities, like gun legislation.

TRUMP HAS PUSHED TO NUKE THE FILIBUSTER

If Trump and Republicans sweep the election, GOP senators would probably face pressure from Trump to do away with the filibuster. He repeatedly demanded that they nuke the 60-vote rule during his term as president. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., refused in 2017 and 2018. Although McConnell is stepping down as GOP leader, it's unclear whether Trump would be more successful this time.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he expects a push to kill the filibuster to toughen immigration laws if the GOP wins in November.

“Quite honestly, if we run the table politically in November and we have control of both chambers and President Trump has the White House, it wouldn’t surprise me if getting additional tools to get the border under control would be used as an argument for nuking the filibuster,” Tillis told reporters.

But he said he would adamantly oppose that.

“The day Republicans vote to nuke it is the day I resign,” Tillis said, arguing that it would “destroy the Senate.”

Trump campaign spokespeople didn’t reply to requests for comment.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said he’s open to potential changes.

“Never say never, but I can’t think of anything that comes to mind immediately,” he said. “The filibuster has meant different things over time. And there are different ways to implement it. So we could talk about how the filibuster is structured. Do you have to hold the floor or not, etc. We could probably have a conversation on that.”

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who faces a competitive re-election bid, said he’s committed to preserving the 60-vote rule even if his party sweeps the election and Democrats use it to stymie legislation.

“Yes,” he replied when asked.

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., who also faces re-election this fall, said, “I believe in the filibuster.”

Even if Republicans have control and it threatens their agenda?

“I believe in the filibuster,” he repeated.

[stephobrien]

According to Reuters: U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris urged Israel to craft a "credible" humanitarian plan before conducting major military activities in Rafah during a meeting with Israeli war cabinet member Benny Gantz.

Harris expressed her "deep concern" about humanitarian conditions in Gaza, where Palestinian authorities say more than 30,000 have been killed under a months-long assault by Israel in retaliation for the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, and the United Nations says many are on the brink of starvation.

The meeting comes as President Joe Biden and his administration face increasing pressure from the Democratic Party to back a permanent ceasefire, and push Israel to reduce the loss of civilian life in Gaza and allow aid to flow through in greater amounts.

In a sign of increasing desperation to get aid to Gaza residents, the U.S. military carried out its first air drop of food to Palestinians on Saturday. It plans more.

You can read the full article here.

Keep contacting your elected representatives. Keep urging them to push for a ceasefire, to vote in favour of sending aid to Gaza, and to vote against bills that put weapons in the hands of people who use them on civilians.

(And, a reminder for those who need it: send those messages to politicians who are in a position to actually do something about this, not to random Jewish people who aren't.)

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Robert Tait, Lauren Gambino, and Carter Sherman at The Guardian:

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris marked the second anniversary of the US supreme court ruling that overturned Roe v Wade with forceful campaign statements that laid the blame squarely on Donald Trump for ending the national right to abortion. In a video released on Monday, Biden pledged to restore the right to an abortion and “protect American freedom” if he is re-elected. The video, along with a campaign event headlined by the vice-president, came two years to the day since the court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization reversed nearly half a century of guaranteed federal abortion rights, and reflect the centrality of abortion in Biden’s presidential campaign.

In College Park, Maryland, Harris took the stage to chants of “four more years”. In her remarks, she laid out what she said were the stakes for abortion access if Trump is re-elected. “Understand as much harm as he has already caused, a second Trump term will be even worse,” she said. “His friends in the United States Congress are trying to pass a national ban that would outlaw abortion in every single state in states like New York and California, and even right here in Maryland.” She called Republicans who have passed state-level bans Trump’s “accomplices” and warned that he would go even further by curtailing access to contraception and IVF.

Pointing to the statistic that one in three American women live in a state with abortion restrictions, she said: “Today our daughters know fewer rights than their grandmothers. This is a healthcare crisis, and we all know who to blame: Donald Trump.”

[...]

Since Roe v Wade was overthrown in 2022, ballot measures in several states – including ones that tend to vote Republican – have upheld or enshrined abortion rights locally, signalling that the issue has popular resonance particularly among female voters. On Friday, a group of Montana abortion rights supporters became the latest to announce that they had secured enough signatures to hold a November ballot measure asking voters to enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution. Although that measure has not yet been confirmed by state officials, voters in roughly a dozen states are expected to weigh in directly on abortion rights this year, including in battleground states such as Nevada and Arizona.

Democrats are hoping that these measures will boost turnout in their favor. Several groups – including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Reproductive Rights and Reproductive Freedom for All – announced on Monday a $100m Abortion Access Now campaign across several states.

Since Roe fell, Biden has frequently promised to “codify” Roe’s protections into law. Although his administration has issued executive orders aimed at boosting access to reproductive healthcare, including contraception, as well as defended abortion access in two supreme court cases this year, Biden cannot re-establish a federal right to abortion without congressional support. Congress has repeatedly failed to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill that blocks states from totally banning abortion before fetal viability, or the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb.

President Joe Biden (D) and Vice President Kamala Harris (D) took aim at Donald Trump’s role in getting Roe overturned on the 2nd anniversary of the heinous Dobbs ruling.

[mariacallous]

The old man standing beside the prime minister on Wednesday, who spoke with pain and emotion about what happened in Israel on Saturday the 7th, was until 13 days ago one of the main targets of the rightist, Bibi-ist poison machine.

Ministers and lawmakers of the ruling party urged him to mind his own business, not to interfere with our lives and to respect our democracy.

Right-wing media personalities mocked his advanced age and moments of confusion. They rebuked him for not meeting the prime minister sooner. They reminded him that Israel wasn’t a banana republic and we have no need for his repeated preaching of “shared values.”

They received these messages directly from the most senior rank in Israel. The sentiment in the Prime Minister’s Office was this: Let’s hang in there until November 24, our dear brother Donald Trump will return and then we’ll be free.

Israel, as a nation, has much to be ashamed of this cursed year. The campaign against U.S. President Joe Biden is at the top of the list of shame. If he had been made of the same stuff as the vengeful, infantile Trump, who never forgave anyone for slighting him, he wouldn’t have rallied to our side in a way that was no less than historic. Nor would there have been a visit here. It’s extremely doubtful we would have seen the defense aid now being funneled to us in such quantity and quality. They don’t make friends of Israel like this anymore.

It’s not easy for a person who will turn 81 in a month’s time to fly to a place with a seven-hour time difference, open an intensive, exhausting schedule of discussions and meetings and then board the plane back to Washington again. He didn’t have to do it. His secretary of state spends many days here, the secretary of defense was here. He could have sent his vice president, Kamala Harris. She is also a staunch friend of Israel, and she was also subject to the inevitable shower of abuse (in the context of the judicial overhaul) from the cartoon foreign minister, Eli Cohen.

Biden came to Israel, a state at war, to express his love and commitment to the Jewish state, and also to warn enemies like Iran and Hezbollah not to join the war. So far he has done everything he could humanly do to strengthen Israel, from the aspects of security, strategy and leadership. Granted, it doesn’t harm his election campaign – quite the opposite. A survey released in the United States on Wednesday shows that for the first time in a long while, he is rising in the polls in contrast to Trump. His team, headed by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, is running the crisis in a much colder fashion than Biden’s emotionalism. For them this is an opportunity to prove to the Middle East – especially to Saudi Arabia – what a superpower looks like when it comes to the help of an ally in danger.

His and Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s involvement in the war cabinet discussions is unprecedented, like everything that is happening now. At this point, they’re more updated than the defense cabinet ministers in all the security details regarding Gaza and the northern border, should it conflagrate.

In the short term, this will help Israel prevent opening a northern front. In the long run, it could be a strategic problem. But sometimes what strengthens the United States could weaken Israel. The Abraham Accords, like the deal being formed with Saudi Arabia, which is now suspended, were based on the Sunni states’ recognition that Israel is the strongest state in the region. But when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls his parents when he’s beaten up at school, and they rush in to help, Israel looks weak.

Besides, Biden doesn’t trust Netanyahu and his cabinet, whose extreme members constitute a clear danger to the state’s – and region’s – security. The prime minister has proved in the nine months between January 4 and October 7 that he needs close supervision.

At countless crossroads, he acted irrationally and consistently ignored the warning signals raised in front of him. Again and again, he violated his commitment to the president to legislate in agreement with the opposition. He infuriated the Americans so many times that they find it difficult to believe he’s changed.

He hasn’t, and he won’t. So beside the huge carrots being granted to Israel, there’s also a big stick hovering above.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Mitt Romney

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

January 25, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JAN 26, 2024

Today a report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis showed strong economic growth of 3.3% in the U.S. in the fourth quarter of 2023, setting growth for the year at 3.1% (by comparison, in the first three years of Trump’s term, before the pandemic, growth was 2.5%). A year ago, economists projected that the U.S. would have a recession in 2023, and forecast growth of 0.2%. 

Meanwhile, unemployment remains low, wages are high, and inflation is receding. As Gabriel T. Rubin put it in the Wall Street Journal today, “The final three months of the year looked a lot like the soft landing Fed officials are seeking to achieve.” 

There is a major political story behind this impressive economic one. Since 1981, lawmakers have insisted that cutting taxes, regulation, and the social safety net would create much faster and more efficient growth than was possible under the system in place between 1933 and 1981.

In the earlier era, lawmakers regulated business, imposed progressive taxes, and supported workers to make sure that ordinary Americans had the resources to fuel the economy through their desire for homes, consumer goods, and so on. But with the election of Republican president Ronald Reagan, lawmakers claimed that concentrating wealth on the “supply side” of the economy would enable wealthy investors and businessmen to manage the economy more efficiently than was possible when the government meddled, and the resulting economic growth would make the entire country more prosperous. 

The problem was that this system never produced the economic boom it promised. Instead, it moved money dramatically upward and hollowed out the American middle class while leaving poorer Americans significantly worse off. 

When they took office, President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris rejected “supply side” economics and vowed to restore buying power to the demand side of the economy: ordinary Americans. They invested in manufacturing, infrastructure, small businesses, and workers’ rights. And now, after years in which pundits said their policies would never work, the numbers are in. The U.S. economy is very strong indeed, and at least some voters who have backed Republicans for a generation are noticing, as United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain made clear yesterday when the union made a strong and early endorsement of President Biden.  

So here is the political story: Republicans cannot run for office in 2024 by attacking the economy, although Trump has tested that message by saying the economy is “so fragile” and “running off the fumes” of his administration and that it will soon crash. He has promised to cut taxes again, which is not likely to impress many voters these days. Media stories are beginning to reflect the reality of the economy, and people are starting to realize that it is strong.

At the same time, the Republicans are in huge trouble over their overturning of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the constitutional right to abortion. A poll taken in June 2023, a year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe, showed that 69% of Americans want to see Roe reinstated. But, to appeal to their base, Republican leaders are backing more, rather than less, extreme measures: a federal prohibition of abortion. 

So the MAGA Republicans, who back Trump, need an election issue. They are trying to turn the migration influx at the southern border into an issue that can win for them in November. In December 2023, extremist House Republicans refused to pass a supplementary funding bill that is crucial to Ukraine’s effort to resist Russia’s 2022 invasion, insisting that the “border crisis” must be attended to first, although they refused to participate in the negotiations that Biden and senators promptly began.

Then, after news hit that the negotiators were close to a deal, House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Fox News Channel personality Laura Ingraham told the television audience that they had both spoken to Trump and he opposed a deal. Negotiations continued, and last night, journalists reported that Trump was pressuring Republican lawmakers to reject any deal because he wants to run on the issue of immigration and “doesn’t want Biden to have a victory.” 

Today, Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) told CNN’s Manu Raju that “the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and congresspeople that he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it is really appalling.” Attacking Romney on social media, Trump said: "[W]e need a Strong, Powerful, and essentially 'PERFECT' Border and, unless we get that, we are better off not making a Deal, even if that pushes our Country to temporarily 'close up' for a while, because it will end up closing anyway with the unsustainable Invasion that is currently taking place,” which he called “A DEATH WISH for the U.S.A.!...” 

Now, after insisting the border issue must be addressed and riling up their base to believe it is the biggest crisis the U.S. faces, MAGA Republicans are in the position of having to refuse to address the problem. So they are escalating their rhetoric, claiming that the bipartisan deal to address the border is not good enough. 

That dilemma is especially clear in Texas, where voters are very angry over reproductive rights in the face of Texas’s draconian laws, which have produced high-profile cases in which white suburban women—a key voting demographic—have been forced to leave the state to obtain abortions to protect their health. Texas governor Greg Abbott is also searching for a viable political issue since his signature policy, school vouchers, failed late last year. According to Patrick Svitek of the Texas Tribune, money has been pouring into the Texas primaries as Abbott and Texas attorney general Ken Paxton try “to unseat House Republicans who crossed them.” 

When the Supreme Court on Monday permitted the federal government to cut razor wire that was blocking federal agents from reaching parts of the border, including the crossing where three migrants died last week, MAGA Republicans urged Texas to “ignore” the ruling (although it came from a right-wing court), and Abbott launched a war of words against the federal government over management of the border. 

In a construction that appeared to echo Civil War–era declarations of secession, Abbott asserted Texas’s “constitutional authority to defend and protect itself.”

Twenty-five Republican governors have issued a joint statement supporting “Texas’ constitutional right to self-defense.” Their statement accuses Biden of attacking Texas, using the right-wing talking points that the administration is "refusing to enforce immigration laws already on the books" and leaving the country "completely vulnerable to unprecedented illegal immigration pouring across the Southern border."

House speaker Johnson has also posted: “I stand with Governor Abbott. The House will do everything in its power to back him up. The next step: holding Secretary Mayorkas accountable.” (Johnson refers here to the impeachment effort against Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in which the Republicans wrote articles of impeachment before holding any hearings.) Trump called for “all willing States to deploy their [national] guards to Texas.”

But Paxton (whose trial on charges of securities fraud is set to start in April), asserted this right in court last September, and Abbott suggested today that his moves are part of an attempt to create a record for a court case challenging the long-standing precedent that the federal government, not the states, has jurisdiction over border issues. 

Observers worry that Texas’s stance is a modern version of the secession of the American South from the Union in the months before the Civil War, and perhaps in one way, it is. In the 1850s, elite southerners’ management of the South’s economy had thrown huge numbers of poor white southerners off their land and enabled a few men to amass huge wealth and power. As dispossessed white men became restive against the economic policies of human enslavement, southern lawmakers shored up their own slipping popularity by warning of the dangers of federal government meddling in their business. 

Here’s another way in which that era might inform our own. In the 1860s, southern leaders’ posturing took on a momentum of its own, propelling fire-eating southerners into a war. As MAGA Republicans are talking tonight about fighting the federal government and as Trump calls for “all willing States to deploy their guards to Texas,” I think of those elite southerners in 1861 for whom threatening war was all a rhetorical game. 

Meanwhile, Ukraine is running out of ammunition.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[fandomshatepeopleofcolor]

I feel stuck in my head and I need to ask someone: what's gonna happen to us when biden's reelected? What can we do to stop the genocide? What can we do to get roe v wade back? How to we make things okay?

Answering the last question first — how do we make things okay? We get informed, and we get involved.

If you want to change how things work, first you have to understand why they work the way they do. I’m not saying you have to become an overnight expert, but you gotta know the basics. You have to know who *really* makes the decisions about the stuff you care about. And I’m not being snarky here, but there’s a very very very good chance that that person is not Biden.

(long-ish more in depth USA-specific thoughts under the cut)

Let’s look at the two specifics that you mention. Yes, the president may be commander in chief of the armed forces but that “just” (air quotes bc obviously that is hugely consequential power, but it’s not the only power at play) means he’s the guy who says yes or no, stay or go. A more effective tool to address the United State’s relationship to Israel? Money. You know who controls the federal money? Congress. You know which political body has elections twice as frequently as the president? Congress. Look into who your Senators and Representatives are, look into their voting records, look into their hiring choices, look into their public statements and appearances, look into the company the keep.

If you like what you find, let them know, and if you have the resources, donate money and/or volunteer your time to make sure they win reelection. If you do not like what you find, and you think they might be responsive to public pressure, let them know you didn’t like what you found. If you found it abhorrent or do not trust that they will adjust to their constituents expectations, figure out if they have a competitor, and if they don’t, make sure that someone steps up to the plate. That someone doesn’t have to be you, but while we live in an ostensible democracy, these people can lose their jobs if and when we vote them out.

Regarding Roe v Wade, this might be upsetting to hear but you need to get used to the idea that it’s not coming back, and if anything, things might get worse. If voting and the legal system is your jam, I can recommend researching the circuit and district judges that preside over your region. If organizing and direct action are more your thing, there’s probably a Nurse’s Union in your area that can point you in the right direction. If your school district has an elected body where you can run for a seat to make sure that kids in your area are getting appropriately scientific sexual health education, do that. If you feel brave enough to start actively having conversations about sexual health and reproductive rights among your daily/weekly social groups, and maybe even start a book club style study group to learn about the legal and medical aspects most relevant where you live, do that. Even on the most individual scale, if you can make it clearly known that you are a safe person for people to talk to about this stuff, that’s a great step in the right direction.

To wrap this up, I think I’ll just say that I think big picture, if Biden wins a second term, things will be fine. If anything, maybe his administration will be able to bolster the environmental wins in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) but at a basic level he will probably maintain the status quo and then after the four years are up, he’ll leave office.

Let’s please not pretend the same can be said about Trump.

But in the spirit of ending on a more hopeful note, if you do not want Kamala Harris to be the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party in 2028 (and/or if you want a third party other than the Democrats and the Republicans to stand a snowball’s chance in hell) the time to start organizing is now. We deserve better than the status quo, we can do this, let’s fuckin go 💪

mod dyr

[beardedmrbean]

A man has been charged with murder and hate crimes after allegedly stabbing a six-year-old boy to death because he was Muslim.

Joseph Czuba, 71, is accused of killing Wadea Al-Fayoume and seriously wounding his mother in Plainfield, Illinois.

The landlord allegedly targeted the pair, who were his tenants, because of their religion and the ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel.

President Joe Biden said he was "sickened" by Saturday's attack.

"This horrific act of hate has no place in America, and stands against our fundamental values: freedom from fear for how we pray, what we believe, and who we are," he said.

Hanaan Shahin, 32, was attacked by her landlord, who had a military-style knife, and ran to the bathroom to call the police, authorities said.

She suffered more than a dozen stab wounds but is expected to survive.

Her son, Wadea, was stabbed more than two dozen times in the attack and later died in hospital. A funeral service and burial will be held on Monday afternoon in the town of Bridgeview, which is sometimes referred to as "Little Palestine" because of its large Palestinian-American population.

On Monday, a makeshift memorial - which included a stuffed spider-man figure and other children's toys - stood at the scene of the crime.

Several crosses, apparently put up by Mr Czuba sometime before the incident, were also visible, along with a sign telling passers-by to "pray the rosary at 4:20".

He celebrated his sixth birthday just a few weeks ago. "He loved his family, his friends. He loved soccer, he loved basketball," the executive director of the Chicago office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Ahmed Rehab, said.

When officers arrived at the scene, about 40 miles (64km) south-west of Chicago, they found Mr Czuba sat on the ground outside the property with a cut to his face.

The victims, who were Palestinian-Americans, were found in a bedroom.

Mr Czuba was taken to hospital for treatment before being questioned by detectives. He was later charged with first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, hate crimes and aggravated battery.

While he did not make a statement, detectives said they were able to determine a potential motive.

"Both victims in this brutal attack were targeted by the suspect due to them being Muslim and the ongoing Middle Eastern conflict involving Hamas and the Israelis," the Will County Sheriff's office said.

The US Justice Department has also opened a federal hate crime investigation into the attack. In statements on Monday, both Vice President Kamala Harris and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas condemned the attack and rising incidents of hate.

"There is no humane world that can and should tolerate the murder of an innocent child because of his identity," Mr Mayorkas said. "The tragic events in the Middle East...have brought ideologies of hate to the fore across the world - notably antisemitism and Islamophobia. This must end."

At a news conference on Sunday, CAIR said Wadea was born in the US while his mother - originally from Beitunia in the West Bank - came to the country 12 years ago.

"[Wadea] paid the price for the atmosphere of hate and otherisation and dehumanisation that frankly I think we are seeing here in the United States," Mr Rehab said.

The boy's father, Oday al-Fayoume, was at the news conference and was in a state of shock, Mr Rehab said.

Neighbours such as Eva Case expressed disbelief at the violent attack. "I don't care what the situation was," she told the BBC's US partner CBS. "Don't take it out on somebody that innocent of life."

Others who lived nearby said the pair had moved into the home four years ago.

"It's sickening. I can't even imagine how anybody could do that to a little child," one neighbour said.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Susan Neiman

Published: Mar 18, 2023

It is 85 years since the great bluesman Lead Belly coined the phrase “stay woke” in “Scottsboro Boys”, a song dedicated to nine black teenagers whose execution for rapes they never committed was only prevented by years of international protests and the American Communist Party. Staying alive to injustice — what could be wrong with that? Apparently, quite a lot. In a few short decades, woke was transformed from a term of praise to a term of abuse. Still, the fact that politicians ranging from Ron DeSantis to Rishi Sunak deploy “woke” as a battle cry should not prevent us from examining its assumptions. For not only liberals, but many Leftists and socialists like me are increasingly uneasy with the form it has taken.

The woke discourse today is confusing because it appeals to emotions traditional to the Left: empathy for the marginalised, indignation at the plight of the oppressed, determination that historical wrongs can be righted. Those emotions, however, are derailed by a range of theoretical assumptions — usually expressed as self-evident truths — that ultimately undermine them.

Take a sentence the New York Times printed shortly after Biden’s election: “Despite Vice President Kamala D. Harris’s Indian roots, the Biden administration may prove less forgiving over Modi’s Hindu nationalist agenda.” If you read that quickly, you may miss the theoretical assumption: political views are determined by ethnic backgrounds. If you know nothing about contemporary India, you may miss the fact that the fiercest critics of Modi’s violent nationalism are themselves Indian.

Now, the New York Times is neither unique nor particularly leftist, but it does set standards for progressive discourse in more than one country. What concerns me most here are the ways in which contemporary voices considered to be progressive have abandoned the philosophical ideas that are central to any liberal or Left-wing standpoint: a commitment to universalism over tribalism, a firm distinction between justice and power, and a belief in the possibility of progress. All these ideas are connected. The Right may be more dangerous, but today’s Left has deprived itself of ideas we need if we hope to resist the lurch to the Right.

This Rightwards lurch is international and organised. The solidarity between them suggests that nationalist beliefs are only marginally based on the idea that Hungarians/Norwegians/Jews/Germans/Anglo-Saxons/Hindus are the best of all possible tribes. What unites them is the principle of tribalism itself: you will only truly connect with those who belong to your tribe, and you need have no deep commitments to anyone else.

It’s a bitter piece of irony that today’s Right-wing tribalists today find it easier to make common cause than those on the Left whose commitments traditionally stemmed from universalism, whether they recognise it or not. Woke discourse is confusing because so many of its goals are indeed shared by progressives everywhere. The idea of intersectionality might have emphasised the ways in which all of us have more than one identity. Instead, it led to a focus on those parts of identities which are most marginalised, and multiplied them into a forest of trauma.

Wokeness emphasises the ways in which particular groups have been denied justice, and seeks to rectify and repair the damage. But in the focus on inequalities of power, the concept of justice is often left by the wayside. Wokeness demands that nations and peoples face up to their criminal histories. But in the process, it often concludes that all history is criminal.

The concept of universalism once defined the Left; international solidarity was its watchword. This was just what distinguished it from the Right, which recognised no deep connections, and few real obligations, to anyone outside its own circle. The Left demanded that the circle encompass the globe. This was what standing Left meant: to care about striking coal miners in Wales, or Republican volunteers in Spain, or freedom fighters in South Africa. What united was not blood but conviction — first and foremost the conviction that behind all the differences of time and space which separate us, human beings are deeply connected in a wealth of ways. To say that histories and geographies affect us is trivial. To say they determine us is false.

The opposite of universalism is often called “identitarianism”, but the word is misleading, for it suggests that our identities can be reduced to, at most, two dimensions. In fact, all of us have many. As Kwame Anthony Appiah reminds us: “Until the middle of the 20th century, no one who was asked about a person’s identity would have mentioned race, sex, class, nationality, region or religion.”

The reduction of the multiple identities we all possess to race and gender isn’t about physical appearance. It’s a focus on those dimensions which experienced the most generalisable trauma. This embodies a major shift that began in the mid-20th century: the subject of history was no longer the hero but the victim. The impulse to shift our focus to the victims of history began as an act of justice. History was told by the victors, while the victims’ voices went unheard. To turn the tables and insist that the victims’ stories enter the narrative was just a part of righting old wrongs. The movement to recognise the victims of slaughter and slavery began with the best of intentions. It recognised that might and right often fail to coincide, that very bad things happen to all sorts of people, and that even when we cannot change that we are bound to record it. Yet something went wrong when we rewrote the place of the victim; the impulse that began in generosity turned downright perverse.

The limiting case of this trend is the story of Binjamin Wilkomirski, the Swiss man whose claims to have spent his childhood in a concentration camp turned out to be invented. Wilkomirski was hardly alone. In the two decades since, there has been a rash of contemporaries inventing worse histories than they experienced — a trend which runs counter to some of the heroes of postcolonial thinking, such as Frantz Fanon, whose Black Skin, White Masks proclaims: “I am not the slave of the Slavery that dehumanised my ancestors.”

Identity politics not only contract the multiple components of our identities to one: they essentialise that component over which we have the least control. I prefer the word “tribalism”, an idea which is as old as the Hebrew Bible. Tribalism is a description of the civil breakdown that occurs when people, of whatever kind, see the fundamental human difference as that between our kind and everyone else.

Universalism is now under fire on the Left because it is conflated with fake universalism: the attempt to impose certain cultures on others in the name of an abstract humanity that turns out to reflect just a dominant culture’s time, place, and interests. This happens daily in the name of corporate globalism. But let’s consider what a feat it was to make that original abstraction to humanity. Earlier assumptions were inherently particular, as earlier ideas of law were religious. The idea that one law should apply to Protestants and Catholics, Jews and Muslims, lords and peasants, simply in virtue of their common humanity is a relatively recent achievement which now shapes our assumptions so thoroughly we fail to recognise it as an achievement at all.

Let’s also consider the opposite: the Nazi legal theorist Carl Schmitt, who wrote that “whoever says the word ‘humanity’ wants to deceive you”. Instead we might say: “whoever says ‘humanity’ is making a normative claim.” To recognise someone as human is to acknowledge a dignity in them that should be honoured. It also implies that this recognition is an achievement: to see humanity in all the weird and beautiful ways it appears is a feat that demands you go beyond appearances.

Which do you find more essential: the accidents we are born with, or the principles we consider and uphold? Traditionally, it was the Right who focused on the first, and the Left who emphasised the second. This tradition has been inverted. It’s not surprising, then, that theories held by the woke undermine their empathetic emotions and emancipatory intentions. Those theories not only have strong reactionary roots; some of their authors were outright Nazis. Ideas influenced by Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger and their epigones take up plenty of room on the progressive syllabus. The fact that both men not only served the Nazis but defended doing so long after the war is old news. Outrage, today, is reserved for racist passages of 18th-century philosophy.

In fact, many of the theoretical assumptions which support the most admirable impulses of the woke come from the intellectual movement they most despise. The best tenets of woke, such as the insistence on viewing the world from more than one geographical perspective, come straight from the Enlightenment. Contemporary rejections of this period usually go hand in hand with not much knowledge of it. But you can’t hope to make progress by sawing at the branch you don’t know you are sitting on.

It is now an article of faith that universalism, like other Enlightenment ideas, is a sham that was designed to disguise Eurocentric views which supported colonialism. These claims are not simply ungrounded: they turn the Enlightenment upside down. Enlightenment thinkers invented the critique of Eurocentrism and were the first to attack colonialism — on the basis of universalist ideas. When contemporary postcolonial theorists rightly insist that we learn to view the world from the perspective of non-Europeans, they are echoing a tradition that goes back to 18th-century thinkers, who risked their livelihoods, and sometimes their lives, to defend those ideas.

This is not merely a historical matter: we need Enlightenment ideas if we have any hope of moving forward against what are politely called the authoritarian tendencies of the present. But there is no time for politeness when many elected leaders around the world are openly undermining democracy.

My book Left is not Woke sketches the theoretical underpinnings of much woke discourse, and argues for a return to those Enlightenment ideas which are crucial for any progressive standpoint: the commitment to universalism over tribalism, the belief in a principled distinction between justice and power, and the conviction that progress, while never inevitable, is possible. Such ideas are anathema to thinkers such as Michel Foucault, the most-cited philosopher in postcolonial studies, or Carl Schmitt.

Both rejected the idea of universal humanity and the distinction between power and justice, along with a deep scepticism towards any idea of progress. What makes them interesting to progressive thinkers today is their commitment to unmasking liberal hypocrisies. Schmitt was particularly scorching about British imperialism, and American commitment to the Monroe Doctrine; both, he argued, used pieties about humanity and civilisation to disguise naked piracy.

But Land and Sea, his book expanding these views, was published when Germany was at war with Britain and America. It’s an old Nazi trope. Schmitt wasn’t wrong that universalist claims of justice meant to restrain simple assertions of power have been abused for centuries. He concluded that unvarnished power grabs like those of the Nazis were not only legal but legitimate. You may think that’s the best we can do. Or you may go to work to narrow the gap between ideals of justice and realities of power.

As for Michel Foucault, his style was transgressive, but his vision was gloomier than any traditional conservative. You think we make progress towards practices that are kinder, more liberating, more respectful of human dignity — all goals of the Left? Look at the history of an institution or two. What seemed to be steps towards progress turn out to be more sinister forms of repression. All of them are ways in which the state extends its domination over our lives. Once you’ve seen how every step forward becomes a more subtle and powerful step towards total subjection, you’re likely to conclude that progress is illusory.

Woke activists fail to see that both these theories subvert their own goals. Without universalism there is no argument against racism, merely a bunch of tribes jockeying for power. Any by the fall of 2020 few voices defending Black Lives Matter, of whom I was initially one, were universalist. If that’s what political history comes to, there is no way to maintain a robust idea of justice, let alone coherently strive for progress.

Enlightenment thinkers, meanwhile, proclaimed that progress is (just barely) possible; their passionate engagement with the evils of their day precludes any belief that progress is assured. Still, they never stopped working towards it. As Kant argued, we cannot act morally without hope. To be clear: hope is not optimism. Hope makes no forecasts at all. Optimism is a refusal to face facts. Hope aims to change them. When the world is really in peril, optimism is obscene. Yet one thing can be predicted with absolute certainty: if we succumb to the seduction of pessimism, the world as we know it is lost.

You need not study philosophical debates about the relations between theory and practice to know at least this: what you think is possible determines the framework in which you act. If you think it’s impossible to distinguish truth from narrative, you won’t bother to try. If you think it’s impossible to act on anything other than self-interest, whether genetic, individual or tribal, you will have no qualms about doing the same.

It is often recalled that the Nazis came to power through democratic elections, but they never won a majority until they had already grasped power. Had the Left-wing parties been willing to form a united front, as thinkers from Einstein to Trotsky urged, the world could have been spared its worst war. The differences dividing the parties were real; blood had even been spilled. But though the Stalinist Communist Party couldn’t see it, those differences paled next to the difference between universal Leftist movements and the tribal visions of fascism.

We cannot afford a similar mistake.

==

left wing | ˌlef(t) ˈwiNG |  noun (the left wing)  1 the section of a political party or system that advocates for greater social and economic equality, and typically favors socially liberal ideas; the liberal or progressive group or section.

When you're more left than the Left, but they call you the Right.

-

Many activists on the identitarian left, in other words, share far more ideological common ground with the far right than they would care to admit. Both factions repudiate John Stuart Mill’s principle that ‘the individual is sovereign’ in favour of group identity; both are openly hostile to free speech and, irrespective of intentions, both are responsible for creating the conditions within which the far right can flourish. That said, to refer to the Critical Social Justice movement as the ‘identitarian left’ would be to accept their claim to be in any meaningful sense ‘left wing’. The new puritans have eschewed the traditional socialist goals of redressing economic inequality and redistributing wealth and replaced them with an obsessive focus on race, gender and sexuality. These are deemed to be the source of all disparities in power, in spite of the obvious truth that privilege is most commonly determined by money, class, heredity and nepotism.

-- Andrew Doyle, "The New Puritans"

Woke beliefs of invisible power dynamics and postmodern social constructivist philosophy originate from, and are propagated by, some of the most privileged academic elites on the planet.

They have the time, the resources and the ennui to spend on luxury beliefs about numinous supernatural demons woven into the fabric of society and the pretentious French philosophy that claims to hunt down the demons and exorcise them with magic spells of discourse and redefining words. These are not the concerns of people who need to worry about keeping food on the table and affording medicines this month.

They've completely abandoned their traditional constituency - the working class, those who don't have degrees in shallow luxury beliefs, those who have pragmatic concerns rather than academic hypotheticals and $10-word snobbery.

[deadpresidents]

After all these years on Tumblr, it's really interesting to see these stats (via this website tool). It's crazy that my first Dead Presidents post was in March 2008 -- George W. Bush was President, Barack Obama and Joe Biden were Senators, and Donald Trump was the host of a reality show. Here's an example of how wildly different life was for everyone at that point: Kamala Harris was the District Attorney of San Francisco and would drive herself up to Sacramento to help out at campaign events and small-time fundraisers that we'd hold at various locations for then-Senator Obama. Now she's Vice President of the United States. I barely had gray hair back then!