#U.S. government racism & corruption

[serious2020]

The U.S. government spends billions historically globally deepening food insecurities & keeping genocidal thugs & pogroms n power …/

[robertreich]

Why We Need to Ban College Legacy Admissions

Children of the super rich are more than twice as likely to get into America’s most elite universities as middle-class students with the exact same test scores. This fast-tracks them to become the next generation of CEOs and lawmakers, and helps keep wealth and power in the hands of people who started out wealthy and powerful.

A big reason rich kids have such an advantage is so-called “legacy admissions” — the preference elite schools give to family members of alumni.

The vast majority of Americans, across the political spectrum, think this is unfair. An astounding 68% of all voters support banning legacy admissions outright. This is the strongest bipartisan agreement I think I’ve ever seen on an issue that boils down to who gets special privileges in America.

Now I went  to an Ivy League school (Dartmouth), followed by Oxford, and Yale Law. I wasn’t rich. My father ran a clothing store.

That was a half-century ago — before inequalities of income and wealth exploded in America, before the middle class began shrinking, before the American oligarchy began corrupting American politics with a flood of big money donations. Today, it’s much harder for a middle-class kid to get the same opportunities that I had.

New research conducted at Harvard (ironically) looked at 16 years of admissions data from the Ivy League schools, plus Stanford, Duke, MIT, and the University of Chicago.

The research reveals that one in six students at these prestigious schools comes from the richest 1% of American families.  

Why are so many rich kids getting in? It’s not because they’re better students.

Children from the top 1% were 34% more likely to be admitted than middle-class students with the same SAT or ACT scores.

Those from the top ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT were more than twice as likely to get in.

Legacy admissions are one of the biggest reasons. Nearly 30% of Harvard’s Class of 2023 were legacies.

It's a vicious cycle that consolidates wealth and power in the hands of a few.

Less than 1% of Americans get into one of these top schools, but their graduates account for 12% of the Fortune 500 CEOs,  a quarter of all U.S. senators, and more than a third of all Americans with a net worth over $100 million.

And because these graduates are in the winner's circle, their children have every advantage in the world — even before they get legacy preferences into the same prestigious universities, which in turn hand them even more advantages.

You see how this entrenches an American aristocracy? Concentrated wealth at the top leads to even more and more wealth concentration with each new generation.

It also perpetuates racial discrimination. Since non-white students were barred from most colleges for much of America’s history, legacy students are by definition more likely to be white.

The Ivy League’s legacy policies were introduced during the Jim Crow era, with the specific intent of limiting the number of students of color and Jewish students who could be admitted.

To this day, about 70% of Harvard’s legacy admissions are white, which is why the U.S. Department of Education is now investigating Harvard for potential violation of civil rights.

And with the Supreme Court's ruling against affirmative action, this systemic racism is likely to get worse. The Court is pretending to make college admissions "race-blind," while preserving systems that advance wealthy white students over all others.

It’s time for the government to ban legacy admissions.

[follow-up-news]

Russia has helped amplify and spread false and misleading internet claims about recent hurricanes in the United States and the federal government’s response, part of a wider effort by the Kremlin to manipulate America’s political discourse before the presidential election, new research shows. The content, spread by Russian state media and networks of social media accounts and websites, criticizes the federal response to Hurricanes Helene and Milton, exploiting legitimate concerns about the recovery effort in an attempt to paint American leaders as incompetent and corrupt, according to research from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue. The London-based organization tracks disinformation and online extremism. In some cases, the claims about the storms include fake images created using artificial intelligence, such as a photo depicting scenes of devastating flooding at Disney World that never happened, researchers say. The approach is consistent with the Kremlin’s long-standing practice of identifying legitimate debates and contentious issues in the U.S. and then exploiting them. Previous disinformation campaigns have harnessed debates about immigration, racism, crime and the economy in an effort to portray the U.S. as corrupt, violent and unjust.

[eretzyisrael]

by Amelie Botbol

Pretoria serves as a “crucial base of operations” for Islamic terror groups, according to a soon-to-be released report by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy.

The report’s publication comes in the wake of the International Court of Justice’s latest ruling against Israel’s military offensive in Rafah, in a case brought before the court by South Africa.

On Friday, the court ruled by 13 to 2 that the Jewish state must “immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”

“The ICJ’s ruling is a stark reminder that South Africa has become a hub for extremist activities across the African continent,” said ISGAP Executive Director Charles Asher Small. 

“South Africa embraces antisemitic ideologies, supports state-sponsored terror, maintains close ties with and acts on behalf of Iran, Qatar and Hamas,” he added. 

According to ISGAP’s report, Pretoria serves as a “crucial base of operations for Islamic terror groups, facilitating connections with networks throughout Africa.”

The report states that “despite long-standing U.S. sanctions, international Islamist entities with terror links continue to operate freely within South Africa, evading global scrutiny.” 

It argues that the “Financial Action Task Force (FATF) [which leads global action to tackle money laundering, terrorist and proliferation financing] noted South Africa’s failure to effectively identify, investigate, or prosecute terrorist financiers, revealing critical gaps in its anti-terrorism financing measures.”

Addressing Pretoria’s governing party, the report claims that “the African National Congress (ANC) maintains close relationships with Qatar, Iran and terror groups like Hamas.”

The report also highlights “the possibility that Iran funded South Africa’s ANC party in exchange for favorable outcomes in ICJ cases, especially since the ANC’s sudden financial stabilization in early January 2024, after years teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, remains shrouded in mystery and devoid of any detailed explanation.”

According to Small, “South Africa has become a leading voice for terror. By bringing this case against Israel and in favor of Hamas, South Africa further positions itself as a bad actor on the global stage.”

The time has come for the international community “to recognize and address South Africa’s alarming connections with terror-supporting states and entities,” he added.

ISGAP is an international organization that works on mapping, decoding and combatting contemporary antisemitism. 

Earlier this year, Small told JNS that the South African government was acting in complete opposition with South Africa’s freedom charter and  Nelson Mandela’s vision of democracy by embracing the Iranian revolutionary regime, Qatar and Hamas.

“For the ANC and the South African government of 2024, which inherited the work of Nelson Mandela, Oliver Tambo and Walter Sisulu among others who sacrificed their lives for social democracy, to be in bed with Hamas, the Iranian revolutionary regime and the Qatari Muslim Brotherhood regime is an affront to the South African people,” he said. 

“For Pretoria’s ruling party, the corrupt party of 2024, to be in bed with the disciples of true apartheid, true Nazism and true racism, to invite Hamas after they committed a racist massacre based on the ideology of Nazism and Fascism of Europe, is an affront to what the ANC is supposed to represent,” he added. 

[theflamingmisfit404]

I know I don't have a huge Tumblr Following but I need to get this out there.

Watch it. Watch how Biden is just as bad as fucking Trump.

I have also reblogged these two posts by @hammercarexplosion talking about this.

The pro Biden crowd needs to swallow their fucking racism and realize Biden is just as bad as Trump.

You guys complain about what's happening in Florida, in Idaho, in other these other states with Anti-Trans laws, the second post literally has someone pointing out how this was Attempted before, but what stopped it? Obama, who is also a shit person everything you can find where he was founding isntreal bc the U.S. government has been backing them since its conception, threatened to Defund the entire school system if they did. Where has been Biden doing that?

Biden is just as bad as Trump and he's setting the foundations for either trump or himself to continue to be corrupt.

If you refuse to wake up and still cling to voting for a genocidal leader, you're racist and think the Face Eating lions won't eat your face because you're so convinced the face eating lions are safer than the face eating tigers.

They're the same fucking thing.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

He's such a shallow thinker that you can always trust Kendi to blurt out the quiet part.

But what's interesting is the projection. He's correct, but not in the way he thinks. Because he's talking about himself and his own personality flaws and mental disorders. This is a quote from his best-selling screed:

I DID NOT knock on Clarence’s door that day to discuss Welsing’s “color confrontation theory.” Or Diop’s two-cradle theory. He had snickered at those theories many times before. I came to share another theory, the one that finally figured White people out.

“They are aliens,” I told Clarence, confidently resting on the doorframe, arms crossed. “I just saw this documentary that laid out the evidence. That’s why they are so intent on White supremacy. That’s why they seem to not have a conscience. They are aliens.”

-- Ibram X. Kendi, "How to Be an Antiracist"

"White supremacy" in this sense isn't the KKK or the Nazis. It's "the white man's science," and "objectivity is white supremacy," and "merit is white supremacy," and "math is white supremacy," and "the U.S. Constitution is a tool of white supremacy."

David Duke didn't get millions of academic funding and an entire institute created for him by Boston University. David Duke didn't get a $10m donation from a co-founder of one of the most powerful social media platforms. David Duke's didn't publish a bestsellng insane manifesto. David Duke's ideology hasn't permeated K-12 in every state in the country. David Duke's ideology hasn't been the basis for reeducation programs conducted through everything from the medical profession to soft drink manufacturers to government nuclear laboratories.

When people insist that "woke" is "just about being kind" or "just about being aware of racism," they're lying. I don't mean they're mistaken, I mean they're lying. It's been a third of a decade since activists cut the brake-line and pulled out all the stops. The idea that we don't know what this is, what's going on, is dishonest.

Next time you hear it, show the person this video and ask them, do you agree with Kendi? They won't know what to say. It's the same as when you ask a moderate Xian whether they agree with their god that you deserve to be tortured for eternity. They know there's an ideologically correct answer, "yes," and they know there's a morally correct answer, "no." They'll refuse to answer the question: "I don't make the rules, god does," and "you send yourself there" are classic tactics to avoid being honest.

This is the same thing. They have to agree with him ideologically, because they can't claim he's Not a True Scotsman. But if they do agree with him, they've exposed the whole "it's just about being kind" lie.

Of course, this won't work on the fundamentalist True Believers. If you ask someone from Westboro the hell question, they won't even blink, they'll say, "yes, absolutely." Again, same thing applies.

It's one thing for Kendi himself to have these ideas. A much larger problem is the fact that the thunderous applause from the audience shows how far and how normalized the moral corruption has set in.

People who endorse Kendi should be regarded by society in the same way as those who endorse David Duke.

[mightyflamethrower]

At the nexus of most of America’s current crises, the diversity/equity/inclusion dogma can be found.

The southern border has been destroyed because the Democratic Party wanted the poor of the southern hemisphere to be counted in the census, to vote if possible in poorly audited mail-in elections, and to build upon constituencies that demand government help. Opposition to such cynicism and the de facto destruction of enforcement of U.S. immigration law is written off as “racism,” “nativism,” and “xenophobia.”

The military is short more than 40,000 soldiers. The Pentagon may fault youth gangs, drug use, or a tight labor market. But the real shortfall is mostly due inordinately to reluctant white males who have been smeared by some of the military elite as suspected “white supremacists,” despite dying at twice their demographics in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they are now passing on joining up despite their families’ often multigenerational combat service.

The nexus between critical race theory and critical legal theory has been, inter alia, defunding the police, Soros-funded district attorneys exempting criminals from punishment, the legitimization of mass looting, squatters’ rights, and general lawlessness across big-city America.

The recent epidemic of anti-Semitism was in part birthed by woke/DEI faculty and students on elite campuses, who declared Hamas a victim of “white settler” victimizing Israel and thus contextualized their Jewish hatred by claiming that as “victims,” they cannot be bigots.

There is a historic, malevolent role of states adjudicating political purity, substituting racial, sex, class, and tribal criteria for meritocracy. They define success or failure not based on actual outcomes but on the degree of orthodox zealotry. Once governments enter that realm of the surreal, the result is always an utter disaster.

After a series of disastrous military catastrophes in 1941 and 1942, Soviet strongman and arch-communist Joseph Stalin ended the Soviet commissar system in October 1942. He reversed course to give absolute tactical authority to his ground commanders rather than to the communist overseers, as was customary.

Stalin really had no choice since Marxist-Leninist ideology overriding military logic and efficacy had ensured that the Soviet Union was surprised by a massive Nazi invasion in June 1941. The Russians in the first 12 months of war subsequently lost nearly 5 million in vast encirclements—largely because foolhardy, ideologically driven directives curtailed the generals’ operational control of the army. After the commissars were disbanded and commanders given greater autonomy, the landmark victory at Stalingrad followed, and with it, the rebound of the Red Army.

One reason why the dictator Napoleon ran wild in Europe for nearly 18 years was that his marshals of France were neither selected only by the old Bourbon standards of aristocratic birth and wealth nor by new ideological revolutionary criteria, but by more meritocratic means than those of his rival nations.

Mao’s decade-long cultural revolution (1966–76) ruined China. It was predicated on Maoist revolutionary dogma overruling economic, social, cultural, and military realities. An entire meritocracy was deemed corrupted by the West and reactionary—and thus either liquidated or rendered inert.

In their place, incompetent zealots competed to destroy all prior standards as “bourgeois” and “counter-revolutionary.” It is no surprise that the current “people’s liberation army,” for all its talk of communist dogma, does not function entirely on Mao’s principles.

Muammar Gaddafi wrecked Libya by reordering an once oil-rich nation on Gaddafi’s crackpot rules of his “Green Book.” At times, the unhinged ideologue, in lunatic fashion, required all Libyans to raise chickens or to destroy all the violins in the nation. I once asked a Libyan why the oil-rich country appeared to me utterly wrecked, and he answered, “We first hire our first cousins—and usually the worst.”

There were many reasons why the King-Cotton, slave-owning Old South lagged far behind the North in population, productivity, and infrastructure. But the chief factor was the capital and effort invested in the amoral as well as uneconomic institution of slavery.

After the Civil War, persistent segregationist ideology demanded vast amounts of time, labor, and money in defining race down to the “one drop” rule—while establishing a labyrinth of segregation laws and refusing to draw on the talents of millions of black citizens.

Yet here we are in 2024, ignoring the baleful past as the woke diversity/equity/inclusion commissars war on merit. Institutions from United Airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration to the Pentagon and elite universities have been reformulated in the post-George Floyd woke hysteria. And to the delight of competitors and enemies abroad, they are now using criteria other than merit to hire, promote, evaluate, and retain.

The greatest problem historically with hiring and promoting based on DEI-like dogma is that anti-meritocratic criteria mark the beginning, not the end, of eroding vital standards. If one does not qualify for a position or slot by accepted standards, then a series of further remedial interventions are needed to sustain the woke project, from providing exceptions and exemptions, changing rules and requirements, and misleading the nation that a more “diverse” math, or more “inclusive” engineering, or more “equity” in chemistry can supplant mastery of critical knowledge that transcends gender, race, or ideology.

But planes either fly or crash due to proper operation, not the appearance or politics of the operator. All soldiers either hit or miss targets, and engineers either make bridges that stand or collapse on the basis of mastering ancient scientific canons and acquired skills, training, and aptitude that have nothing to do with superficial appearance, or tribal affinities, or religion, or doctrine.

The common denominator of critical theories, from critical legal theory to critical social theory, is toxic nihilism, which claims there are no absolute standards, only arbitrary rules and regulations set up by a privileged, powerful class to exploit “the other.” Yet, not punishing looting has nothing to do with race or class, but everything with corroding timeless deterrence that always has and always will prevent the bullying strong from preying on the weak and vulnerable.

Defunding the police sent a message to any criminally minded that in a cost-to-benefit risk assessment, the odds were now on the side of the criminal not being caught for his crimes—and so crime soared and the vulnerable of the inner city became easy prey.

Another danger of DEI is the subordination of the individual to the collective. We are currently witnessing an epidemic of DEI racism in which commissars talk nonstop of white supremacy/rage/privilege without any notion of enormous differences among 230 million individual Polish-, Greek-, Dutch-, Basque-, or Armenian-Americans, or the class, political, and cultural abyss that separates those in Martha’s Vineyard from their antitheses in East Palestine, Ohio.

Moreover, what is “whiteness” in an increasingly intermarried and multiracial society? Oddly, something akin to the old one-drop rules of the South is now updated to determine victims and victimizers—to the point of absurdity. Who is white—someone one half-Irish, one half Mexican—who is black—someone one quarter Jamaican, three-quarters German? To find answers, DEI czars must look to paradigms of the racist past for answers.

Moreover, once any group is exempted and not held to collective standards by virtue of its superficial appearance, then the nation naturally witnesses an increase in racism and bigotry—on the theory that it is not racist to racially stigmatize a supposedly “racist” collective. And we are already seeing an uptake in racially motivated interracial violence as criminals interpret the trickle-down theory of reparatory justice as providing exemption for opportunistic violence.

Throughout history, it has always been the most mediocre and opportunistic would-be commissars that appear to come forth when meritocracy vanishes. If there was not a Harvard President and plagiarist like Claudine Gay to trumpet and leverage her DEI credentials, she would have to be invented. If there was not a brilliant, non-DEI economist like Roland Fryer to be hounded and punished by her, he would have to be invented.

The DEI conglomerate has little idea of the landmines it is planting daily by reducing differences in talent, character, and morality into a boring blueprint of racial stereotypes. Punctuality is now “white time” and supposedly pernicious. The SAT, designed to give the less privileged a meritocratic pathway to college admissions, is deemed racist and either discarded or warped.

In its absence, universities are quietly now “reimaging” their curriculum to make it more “relevant to today’s students” and, of course, “more inclusive and more diverse.” Translated from the language of Oceania, that means after admitting tens of thousands to the nation’s elite schools who did not meet the universities’ own prior standards that they themselves once established and apprehensive about terminating such students, higher education is now euphemistically lowering the work load in classes, introducing new less rigorous classes, and inflating grades. In their virtue-signaling, they have little clue that inevitably their once prized and supposedly prestigious degrees will be rendered less valued as employers discover a Harvard, Stanford, or Princeton BA or BS is not a guarantee of academic excellence or mastery of vital skill sets.

Toxic tribalism is also, unfortunately, like nuclear proliferation. Once one group goes full tribal, others may as well, if for no reason than their own self-survival in a balkanized, Hobbesian world of bellum omnium contra omnes. If our popular culture is to be defined by the racist hosts of The View, or the racist anchorwoman Joy Reid, or members of the Congressman “Squad,” or entire studies departments in our universities that constantly bleat out the racialist mantra, then logically one of two developments will follow.

One, so-called whites in minority-majority states like California will copy the tribal affinities of others that transcend their class and cultural differences, again in response to other blocs that do the same for careerist advantage and perceived survival. Or two, racism will be redefined empirically so that any careerist elites who espouse ad nauseam racial chauvinism—on the assurance they cannot be deemed racists—will be discredited and exposed for what they’ve become, and thus the content of our character will triumph over the color of our skin.

Finally, do we ever ask how a country of immigrants like the United States—vastly smaller than India and China, less materially rich than the vast expanse of Russia, without the strategic geography of the Middle East, or without the long investment and infrastructure of Europe—emerged out of nowhere to dominate the world economically, financially, militarily, and educationally for nearly two centuries?

The answer is easy: it was the most meritocratic land of opportunity in the world, where millions emigrated (legally) on the assurance that their class, politics, religion, ethnicity, and yes, race, would be far less a drawback than anywhere else in the world.

The degree to which the U.S. survives DEI depends on either how quickly it is discarded or whether America’s existential enemies in the Middle East, China, Russia, and Iran have even worse DEI-anti-meritocratic criteria of their own in hiring, promotion, and admissions—whether defined by institutionalized hatred of the West, or loyalty oaths to the communist party, or demonstrable obsequiousness to the Putin regime, or lethal religious intolerance.

Unfortunately, our illiberal enemies, China especially, at least in matters of money and arms, are now emulating the meritocracy of the old America. Meanwhile, we are hellbent on following their former destructive habits of using politics instead of merit to staff our universities, government, corporations, and military.

Our future hinges on how quickly we discard DEI orthodoxy and simply make empirical decisions to stop printing money, deter enemies abroad, enforce our laws, punish criminals, secure the border, reboot the military, regain energy independence, and judge citizens on their character and talent and not their appearance and politics—at least if it is not already too late.

[reasoningdaily]

Outrage over racial profiling and the killing of African Americans by police officers and vigilantes in recent years helped give rise to the Black Lives Matter movement.

But tensions between the police and black communities are nothing new.

There are many precedents to the Ferguson, Missouri protests that ushered in the Black Lives Matter movement. Those protests erupted in 2014 after a police officer shot unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown; the officer was subsequently not indicted.

The precedents include the Los Angeles riots that broke out after the 1992 acquittal of police officers for beating Rodney King. Those riots happened nearly three decades after the 1965 Watts riots, which began with Marquette Frye, an African American, being pulled over for suspected drunk driving and roughed up by the police for resisting arrest.

I’m a criminal justice researcher who often focuses on issues of race, class and crime. Through my research and from teaching a course on diversity in criminal justice, I have come to see how the roots of racism in American policing – first planted centuries ago – have not yet been fully purged.

Slave Patrols

There are two historical narratives about the origins of American law enforcement.

Policing in southern slave-holding states had roots in slave patrols, squadrons made up of white volunteers empowered to use vigilante tactics to enforce laws related to slavery. They located and returned enslaved people who had escaped, crushed uprisings led by enslaved people and punished enslaved workers found or believed to have violated plantation rules.

The first slave patrols arose in South Carolina in the early 1700s. As University of Georgia social work professor Michael A. Robinson has written, by the time John Adams became the second U.S. president, every state that had not yet abolished slavery had them.

Members of slave patrols could forcefully enter anyone’s home, regardless of their race or ethnicity, based on suspicions that they were sheltering people who had escaped bondage.

The more commonly known precursors to modern law enforcement were centralized municipal police departments that began to form in the early 19th century, beginning in Boston and soon cropping up in New York City, Albany, Chicago, Philadelphia and elsewhere.

The first police forces were overwhelmingly white, male and more focused on responding to disorder than crime.

As Eastern Kentucky University criminologist Gary Potter explains, officers were expected to control a “dangerous underclass” that included African Americans, immigrants and the poor. Through the early 20th century, there were few standards for hiring or training officers.

Police corruption and violence – particularly against vulnerable people – were commonplace during the early 1900s. Additionally, the few African Americans who joined police forces were often assigned to black neighborhoods and faced discrimination on the job. In my opinion, these factors – controlling disorder, lack of adequate police training, lack of nonwhite officers and slave patrol origins – are among the forerunners of modern-day police brutality against African Americans.

Jim Crow Laws

Slave patrols formally dissolved after the Civil War ended. But formerly enslaved people saw little relief from racist government policies as they promptly became subject to Black Codes.

For the next three years, these new laws specified how, when and where African Americans could work and how much they would be paid. They also restricted black voting rights, dictated how and where African Americans could travel and limited where they could live.

The ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 quickly made the Black Codes illegal by giving formerly enslaved blacks equal protection of laws through the Constitution. But within two decades, Jim Crow laws aimed at subjugating African Americans and denying their civil rights were enacted across southern and some northern states, replacing the Black Codes.

For about 80 years, Jim Crow laws mandated separate public spaces for blacks and whites, such as schools, libraries, water fountains and restaurants – and enforcing them was part of the police’s job. Blacks who broke laws or violated social norms often endured police brutality.

Meanwhile, the authorities didn’t punish the perpetrators when African Americans were lynched. Nor did the judicial system hold the police accountable for failing to intervene when black people were being murdered by mobs.

Reverberating Today

For the past five decades, the federal government has forbidden the use of racist regulations at the state and local level. Yet people of color are still more likely to be killed by the police than whites.

The Washington Post tracks the number of Americans killed by the police by race, gender and other characteristics. The newspaper’s database indicates that 229 out of 992 of those who died that way in 2018, 23% of the total, were black, even though only about 12% of the country is African American.

Policing’s institutional racism of decades and centuries ago still matters because policing culture has not changed as much as it could. For many African Americans, law enforcement represents a legacy of reinforced inequality in the justice system and resistance to advancement – even under pressure from the civil rights movement and its legacy.

In addition, the police disproportionately target black drivers.

When a Stanford University research team analyzed data collected between 2011 and 2017 from nearly 100 million traffic stops to look for evidence of systemic racial profiling, they found that black drivers were more likely to be pulled over and to have their cars searched than white drivers. They also found that the percentage of black drivers being stopped by police dropped after dark when a driver’s complexion is harder to see from outside the vehicle.

This persistent disparity in policing is disappointing because of progress in other regards.

There is greater understanding within the police that brutality, particularly lethal force, leads to public mistrust, and police forces are becoming more diverse.

What’s more, college students majoring in criminal justice who plan to become future law enforcement officers now frequently take “diversity in criminal justice” courses. This relatively new curriculum is designed to, among other things, make future police professionals more aware of their own biases and those of others. In my view, what these students learn in these classes will make them more attuned to the communities they serve once they enter the workforce.

In addition, law enforcement officers and leaders are being trained to recognize and minimize their own biases in New York City and other places where people of color are disproportionately stopped by the authorities and arrested.

But the persistence of racially biased policing means that unless American policing reckons with its racist roots, it is likely to keep repeating mistakes of the past. This will hinder police from fully protecting and serving the entire public.

[canichangemyblogname]

Heard a woman unironically say that she has turned to reading the National Review, a site called (I think) The Christian Monitor or something, and watching Fox News because, “No one else cares about antisemitism” in regards to the violence in Israel-Palestine.

And I was like… you did not turn to a Conservative Christian news site for a nuanced understanding of antisemitism. You turned to these outlets for confirmation of your Islamophobia. You could have easily turned to NPR, who just today interviewed two Rabbis to discuss how Jewish communities process and handle grief.

The National Review recently claimed that standing for Israel is standing for “western values.” I want to ask you: since when have the people who scream about the degradation of such things as “Judaeo-Christian values” or cry about attacks on “Western values” ever been *not* antisemitic and racist?

Fox News employs Greg Gutfeld, the man who said that Jewish people “had to be useful” to the Nazis to survive the Holocaust. The network frequently platforms men like Joe diGenova, who on Nov. 13, 2019 got onto the “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on the Fox Business Network, and maligned progressive activist George Soros, a Jewish man. DiGenova claimed that Soros controls the Foreign Service and State Department, and that he is a corrupting influence on the U.S. government. Col. Douglas MacGregor got onto the same show and claimed “Soros in particular has funded or helped fund these massive migrations out of Central America.” He described Soros as having tentacles. Plus, former host Tucker Carlson also frequently accused Soros of using his wealth to change American society and also lionized Henry Ford, the man who inspired Adolf Hitler and published the anti-Semitic screed, The International Jew.

Fox News is WELL KNOWN for being one of the many reasons for rises in antisemitism in the United States. They are a contributing factor. Why would you go to a well known antisemitic network for “unbiased” reporting on Israel? You’re only going to be exposed to vile antisemitic propaganda. Like, if this is where you’re going for non-antisemitic news, you’re going to be sorely disappointed.

The reason you’ve found yourself drawn to these media networks for their coverage of Israel is because they confirm for you that which you want to hear about Arab people and Palestinian Liberation as these same networks are also well known for their Islamophobia and for contributing to Islamophobic violence in the US, most recently with the stabbing of a 6 y/o boy in the Chicagoland.

Let’s be real here. No one legitimately turns to notorious antisemites for non-antisemitic news. You’re looking for the religious bigotry and racism they peddle.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Plutocratic Power and Its Perils  ::  April 17, 2023

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

The rich are different from you and me: They have immensely more power. But when they try to exercise that power they can trap themselves — supporting politicians who will, if they can, create a society the rich themselves wouldn’t want to live in.

This, I’d argue, is the common theme running through four major stories that have been playing out over the past few months. They are: the relationship between Justice Clarence Thomas and the billionaire Harlan Crow; the rise and seeming decline of Ron DeSantis’s presidential campaign; the trials (literally) of Fox News; and the Muskopalypse at Twitter.

First, some notes on the role of vast wealth in a democracy.

People on the right often insist that expressing any concern about highly concentrated wealth is “un-American.” The truth, however, is that worrying about the dangers great wealth poses for democracy is very much part of the American tradition. And our nation basically invented progressive taxation, which was traditionally seen not just as a source of revenue but also as a way to limit excessive wealth.

In fact, if you read what prominent figures said during the Progressive Era, many expressed views that would be hysterically denounced as class warfare today. Theodore Roosevelt warned against “a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power.” Woodrow Wilson declared, “If there are men in this country big enough to own the government of the United States, they are going to own it.”

How does great wealth translate into great power? Campaign finance is dominated by a tiny number of extremely rich donors. But there are several other channels of influence.

Until recently I would have said that outright corruption — direct purchase of favors from policymakers — was rare. ProPublica’s revelation that Justice Thomas enjoyed many lavish, undisclosed vacations at Crow’s expense suggests that I may have been insufficiently cynical.

Beyond that, there’s the revolving door: Former politicians and officials who supported the interests of the wealthy find comfortable sinecures at billionaire-supported lobbying firms, think tanks and media organizations. These organizations also help shape what military analysts call the “information space,” defining public discourse in ways that favor the interests of the superrich.

Despite all that, however, there’s only so much you can achieve in America, imperfect and gerrymandered as our democracy may be, unless you can win over large numbers of voters who don’t support a pro-billionaire economic agenda.

It’s a simplification, but I think fundamentally true, to say that the U.S. right has won many elections, despite an inherently unpopular economic agenda, by appealing to intolerance — racism, homophobia and these days anti-“wokeness.” Yet there’s a risk in that strategy: Plutocrats who imagine that the forces of intolerance are working for them can wake up and discover that it’s the other way around..

For a while DeSantis seemed to be surging in the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Much of his apparent rise reflected support from big G.O.P. donors, who saw him as a saner alternative to Donald Trump — someone who would serve their financial interests while attracting working-class support with his social conservatism and willingness to play footsie with conspiracy theories.

But some of those donors are now bailing, because it looks increasingly as if DeSantis’s intolerance and conspiracy theorizing weren’t a political show — they’re who he really is. And the big money was looking for a charlatan, not a genuine fanatic.

Among the forces pushing a DeSantis candidacy has been Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News. Fox was essentially founded to carry out the right-wing strategy of pushing plutocratic policy while winning over working-class whites with intolerance and conspiracy theories. But emails and texts uncovered by the defamation suit by Dominion Voting Systems show that Fox has become a prisoner of the audience it created. It found itself endorsing claims about a stolen election, even though its own people knew they were false, because it feared losing market share among viewers who wanted to believe the Big Lie.

And does anyone doubt that if the Republican primary goes the way it seems to be heading, Fox will soon be back in Trump’s corner?

Rupert Murdoch’s organization, then, has effectively been taken hostage by the very forces he helped conjure up.

But Elon Musk’s story is, if anything, even sadder. As Kara Swisher recently noted for Time magazine, he’s become “the world’s richest online troll.” The crazy he helped foment hasn’t taken over his organization — it has taken over his mind.

I still believe that the concentration of wealth at the top is undermining democracy. But it isn’t a simple story of plutocratic rule. It is, instead, a story in which the attempts of the superrich to get what they want have unleashed forces that may destroy America as we know it. And it’s terrifying.

[zvaigzdelasas]

At his initial court appearance, Castillo looked downcast as he gave simple yes or no answers and his attorney argued that he had been arbitrarily ousted from Peru’s presidency on trumped-up charges of rebellion.

The U.S. condemned Castillo’s power grab as illegal and even leftist allies have refused to speak out against his overthrow. A major exception was Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who called Castillo’s removal a “soft coup” fueled by deep-seated racism against the former school teacher from the heavily indigenous Andean highlands.

“It is no longer military intervention,” said López Obrador. “It’s done with control of the media by the oligarchs, undermining legal and legitimately constituted authorities, especially if they want to do something for the benefit of the long-suffering people who do not belong to the elites.”

Meanwhile , Castillo’s successor, like many Peruvians, seemed eager to turn the page. In comments to journalists Thursday, Dina Boluarte, who served as Castillo’s vice president, appealed for a “truce” from the political feuding that has paralyzed Peru for years so that she can “reorient” the country. With polls showing Peruvians despising Congress even more than they do Castillo, she suggested that she would consider holding early elections — something that requires approval of a hard-to-muster constitutional amendment. [...]

But once in office he cycled through dozens of inexperienced Cabinet choices, a number of whom have been accused of wrongdoing. He also faced a hostile Congress, which first tried to impeach him last December. At the time, a relatively small group of opposition lawmakers cited an investigation by prosecutors into illicit financing of the governing party. To remove the president requires two-thirds of the 130 lawmakers to vote in favor. Only 46 voted in favor.

Congress tried to impeach Castillo again in March for “permanent moral incapacity,” a term incorporated into Peruvian constitutional law that experts say lacks an objective definition and that Congress has used more than a half dozen times since 2017 to try to remove presidents. The effort failed, this time with only 55 votes in favor.

On Wednesday, Peru was girding for a third impeachment vote. The night before, the president said in an unusual midnight address on state television that a certain sector of Congress had it out for him and that he was paying for mistakes made due to inexperience. [...]

The president can dissolve congress to end a political standoff but only in limited circumstances — after losing two votes of confidence in Congress, which last occurred in 2019, when then President Martin Vizcarra dismissed lawmakers. [...]

Despite the high political drama, only small clashes erupted between a handful of Castillo supporters and riot police on guard outside.

Boluarte, a 60-year-old lawyer, was sworn in as Peru’s first female president. She said her first order of business would be to address corruption, ostensibly what led to Castillo’s downfall. [...]

López Obrador said Thursday that he had greenlighted Castillo’s request for asylum that he made in a phone call to the Mexican president’s office. But he said those plans were frustrated when Castillo was intercepted by police on his way to the Mexican Embassy in Lima, where a group of protesters awaited.

Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro said Castillo had committed “political suicide” by weaponizing a seldom-used clause of the constitution to combat his adversaries in Congress, who he said never allowed Castillo to govern.

Anti-democracy can’t be fought with more anti-democracy,” he said, echoing similar comments by Brazil’s incoming president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

8 Dec 22

[jamesgierach]

Good Morning America and Beyond!

Thank you for accepting my invitation. I sought to add you as a colleague and friend because you minister to congregations in neighborhoods that see too much gun violence.

I am a former Cook County prosecutor, defense attorney, municipal attorney and drug policy reform activist. I’m for legalized drug markets, labels, licensing, government inspection of drugs, etc. I’m against drug use and never used a controlled substance.

It’s a World War on Drugs. UN drug-prohibition treaties that the U.S. sponsored mandated drug-prohibition laws in 186 nations. And those laws, unintentionally, result in a world with more drugs, more crime and more corruption. It is the law that takes youngsters from their books, that arms kids with guns, that gets 4,000 Chicagoans shot yearly. It makes healthcare unaffordable and drug overdose a norm. It’s the basis and justification for abusive policing, the promoter of corruption, and the last best refuge for racism in America.

Rather than me rattling on here. I wrote a book that was released Tuesday, November 21, 2023, that discusses these matters. It’s called “The Silver Bullet Solution: Is it time to end the War on Drugs?” Counterintuitively, the answer is YES.

https://histriabooks.com/product/the-silver-bullet-is-it-time-to-end-the-world-war-on-drugs/

Over the years, I have received help with my message from the Hon. R. Eugene Pincham, Ald. Rev. Deville and other leaders in the Black community. But the job is yet to be accomplished. Black Chicagoans, like all Chicagoans, need to help change public opinion regarding drug policy to ameliorate a dozen crises including drugs, overdose, AIDS, gangs, guns, violence, immigration, racism, criminal justice and freedom.

Maybe take a look at my “radical” book and let me hear from you if you’d like to help. Or if I can help.

Kind regards,

Jim Gierach

1-708-951-1601

Palos Park, Illinois

#ministry #drug-policy #crime #drugs #gangs #violence #immigration

[frillability]

I am Cuban American, the first generation of my family to be born in the US. My mother and her side of the family immigrated at great cost. We are so fortunate to be here. My family wasn't wealthy. Many Americans who travel to Cuba are only shown specific areas of Cuba; they are reserved for tourists and only tourists. My mother and I cannot go to Cuba right now because there is a chance she would not be admitted back into the US as her birth certificate is Cuban, (despite being a US citizen,) at the will of the Cuban government.

"Cuba does not recognize the U.S. citizenship of Cuban-born U.S. citizens who maintain residency status in Cuba. The Cuban government requires Cuban dual nationals to enter and depart Cuba using Cuban passports. Cuban-born U.S. citizens who maintain their residency status in Cuba will be treated as Cuban citizens and may be subject to Cuban restrictions and legal obligations. "

So, if the government wasn't feeling particularly honest and decided it could prove she had been maintaining residence in Cuba all this time, even though that is not true, it could be within its power to not recognise my mother's US citizenship.

Same sex marriage was not legalised until 2022. Fidel does not deserve any of the credit. This article from 2008 cites the beginning of the decline of his health. He wrote a letter 18 February 2008 stating his intentions to step down from leadership, his brother, Raúl, to officially take his place.

Lydia Smith of The Independent writes in 2018, "In a country which incarcerated LGBT people for most of Fidel Castro’s rule, the island’s capital now has gay clubs and bars and celebrates Pride every year."

"Cuba has changed drastically. In 1959, Castro came to power after leading a revolution that toppled the corrupt government of Fulgencio Batista.

Soon afterwards, police began to round up gay men. In the 1960s and 1970s, many LGBT people were imprisoned or forced into 're-education camps'.

Homosexuality was viewed as going against the ideal of the hypermasculine revolutionary – and was therefore deemed incompatible with the regime.

Homosexuality was viewed as going against the ideal of the hypermasculine revolutionary – and was therefore deemed incompatible with the regime.

'We would never come to believe that a homosexual could embody the conditions and requirements of conduct that would enable us to consider him a true revolutionary, a true communist militant,' Fidel Castro told an interviewer in 1965."

Many articles I skimmed through boasted Cuba's free trans surgical healthcare introduced in 2008. Mariela Castro, Raúl's daughter, was the director of The National Center for Sex Education and was the individual who advocated for it. If anyone, she should be credited, if my reading is correct. It only became possible after Raúl took office.

However, there is a very important note in a Wikipedia article that I would like to confirm. (If anyone has more information on it, please DM me, it has no citation, and I couldn't find further research.) In the article on LGBT rights in Cuba, contained the main table, and under the Gender identity heading reads:

"Gender change allowed since 2008; Surgery not required since 2013."

Surgery seems to have been required for gender change in Cuba until 2008. Being gay was a crime until 1979. He seems to blame his imprisonment of gay people on "Keeping one step ahead of the CIA."

Cuba also still deals with a significant amount of racism and classism. You don't hear about it because powers that be don't want you to. They want you to think that the revolution worked. They'll make you believe it when you visit. But unless you are Cuban and you weren't given an early pass out, you don't know our families' nightmares. Want to see the real Cuba? Ask a Cuban who wants to show you.

Imma get called a tankie for this even tho it's not really a tankie opinion but I always find the bizarre vitriol for Castro weird cuz yeah the dude had problems but he's also like the only politician to be like "Hey I fucked up homophobia fucking sucks I'm so sorry for that I'm going to fix that" and proceeded to make such great changes to lgbt rights in Cuba that they have some of the most progressive LGBT laws in the world and possible some of the best trans care in the world. Like, what USA politician has been like "yeah I fucked up that was wrong of me and I'm gonna change that" and tangibly changed shit for the better. You just don't get that here.

[pagebypagereviews]

Unveiling the Heart of Democracy: A Deep Dive into "We're Better Than This: My Fight for the Future of Our Democracy" "We're Better Than This: My Fight for the Future of Our Democracy" is a timely and profound chronicle that holds a mirror up to the current state of American democracy. Written by Elijah Cummings, the former U.S. Congressman and social justice powerhouse, this book emerges as both a battle cry and a blueprint for restoring the integrity and promise of democracy. Lost in the cavalcade of political turmoil, this narrative not only highlights the urgency of institutional reform but also resonates with the conscience of every reader committed to the cause of justice and equality. Elijah Cummings' impassioned tale addresses systemic issues plaguing American governance, from voter suppression and corruption to the relentless fight against systemic racism. His firsthand experiences and poignant anecdotes compellingly illustrate the pressing need for action and reform. "We're Better Than This" is a candid, no-holds-barred call to arms, challenging readers to envision and actively pursue a future free of the injustices that Cummings spent his life combating. This book is not just a recounting of past struggles but a clarion call for future change, demanding that we—collectively—do better for the sake of our democracy's survival. Plot In "We're Better Than This: My Fight for the Future of Our Democracy," Elijah Cummings takes the reader on a journey through his lifelong battle for justice, equality, and democratic values. The plot weaves between his personal experiences, which shaped his understanding of civil rights and his professional journey as a U.S. Congressman. Cummings delves into landmark events such as the Civil Rights Movement, the fight against voter suppression, and the investigations into government misconduct. Through it all, he emphasizes the need for honesty, integrity, and a commitment to public service as foundations for a thriving democracy. Characters The central character of the book is Elijah Cummings himself, who serves as both the protagonist and the narrator. His charismatic leadership and dedication to democratic principles make him a compelling figure. Other significant personalities include members of his family who inspired and supported him, civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr., and key political figures he interacted with over the years, like Donald Trump and his contemporaries in Congress. Each character's influence on Cummings adds depth to his story and underscores the collective efforts required to protect democratic values. Writing Style Elijah Cummings' writing style is candid, passionate, and eloquent. He uses a first-person narrative to offer a deeply personal perspective on the events he describes. His language is both powerful and accessible, making complex political issues understandable to a broad audience. Cummings employs anecdotes and personal stories effectively to illustrate broader societal challenges and triumphs. His style is also marked by a sense of urgency and a call to action, urging readers to engage in the democratic process actively. Setting The setting of "We're Better Than This: My Fight for the Future of Our Democracy" spans various significant locations in American history and politics. It begins with Cummings' upbringing in Baltimore, Maryland, a city rife with racial tensions and economic challenges. The narrative then moves to Washington, D.C., where Cummings' career as a congressman unfolds. Key settings include the halls of Congress, the streets of Baltimore during protests, and various pivotal locations related to events like the Civil Rights Movement. These settings provide a rich backdrop for understanding the social and political climates that shaped Cummings' experiences and advocacy. Unique Aspects A unique aspect of "We're Better Than This" is its blend of personal memoir and political analysis. Cummings provides not only a recounting

of his life and career but also a broader critique of systemic injustices and the state of American democracy. His perspective as an African American leader who directly experienced racial prejudice offers valuable insights into the ongoing struggle for civil rights. Additionally, the book's timing, released amid significant political upheaval, resonates deeply with contemporary issues such as voter suppression and governmental accountability. This combination of personal narrative, historical context, and urgent political commentary distinguishes Cummings' work from other political memoirs. In-depth Discussion One significant subtopic in "We're Better Than This" is the impact of systemic racism on both Cummings' personal life and his political career. Growing up in a segregated Baltimore, Cummings faced numerous obstacles that shaped his understanding of social justice. He relates poignant stories of facing racial discrimination in education and the workforce, which fueled his determination to fight for equality. For example, Cummings recounts an incident where he was denied a chance to participate in an oratory contest because he was Black, an experience that ignited his passion for public speaking and advocacy. Another critical subtopic is Cummings' role in various high-profile investigations, particularly during his tenure as chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee. He offers an insider's perspective on the Benghazi investigation, the Flint water crisis, and the Trump administration's actions. These sections provide readers with a behind-the-scenes look at the complexities of congressional oversight and the challenges of holding powerful figures accountable. The book uses specific case studies, such as the Flint water crisis, to illustrate the consequences of government neglect and the importance of vigilant oversight for protecting public health and safety. Additionally, the book addresses the importance of voter rights and the threat of voter suppression. Cummings shares his experiences growing up in an era when African Americans faced significant barriers to voting and draws parallels to contemporary efforts to restrict voting access. He highlights specific legislative battles and grassroots movements aimed at protecting voter rights, underscoring the ongoing nature of this struggle. By providing historical context and contemporary examples, Cummings reinforces the idea that active participation in democracy is crucial for preventing the erosion of civil rights. In discussing these topics, Cummings frequently returns to themes of integrity, courage, and compassion. He argues that these values are essential for any public servant and that the health of democracy depends on citizens and leaders who are committed to these principles. Throughout the book, Cummings' reflections on his personal experiences and professional challenges serve to illustrate the broader societal issues he addresses, making his arguments both compelling and relatable. Pros of "We're Better Than This: My Fight for the Future of Our Democracy" Book Review Clear and Engaging Writing Style The book review benefits from a clear and engaging writing style that allows readers to easily understand the critical points presented. This readability enhances the overall user experience by keeping the audience engaged and making complex political issues accessible. The absence of jargon or overly academic language ensures that the review appeals to a broad spectrum of readers, from casual enthusiasts to seasoned political analysts. Comprehensive Coverage of Key Themes The book review provides detailed coverage of the key themes discussed in Elijah Cummings' memoir, such as democracy, social justice, and political integrity. This thorough analysis helps users gain a deep understanding of the book's core arguments and the author's perspectives. By breaking down these essential topics, the review offers valuable insights, enriching the reader's comprehension and appreciation of the book's significance.

Insightful Personal Reflections The book review incorporates insightful personal reflections and anecdotes from Elijah Cummings' life, which add a human element to the analytical aspects. This approach makes the review more relatable and compelling, enhancing the user experience by connecting them emotionally to the narrative. Readers can better appreciate the challenges and convictions that drove Cummings, making the review not just informative but also emotionally impactful. Balanced Critique The review maintains a balanced critique, acknowledging both the strengths and potential weaknesses of the book. This impartiality adds credibility to the analysis, making it more trustworthy. Readers appreciate reviews that do not excessively praise or harshly criticize, as it indicates a fair assessment. This balance ensures that users feel they are getting an honest evaluation, which is crucial for deciding whether to read the book. Cons of "We're Better Than This: My Fight for the Future of Our Democracy" Book Review Lack of Comparative Analysis The book review may fall short in providing comparative analysis with other similar works. This gap can limit users' understanding of how "We're Better Than This" stands within its genre or against other political memoirs. A comparative perspective could enhance the reader's decision-making process by offering a broader context, helping them assess whether this book meets their expectations based on comparisons with other notable works. Insufficient Critical Depth While the review touches on various themes, it may lack critical depth in certain areas. Readers seeking a more profound scholarly analysis might find the review somewhat superficial. This limitation could affect user experience by leaving some readers wanting more substantive critique and deeper dissection of the book's arguments, potentially impacting the review's usefulness for more analytically inclined audiences. Overemphasis on Positive Aspects The book review might place too much emphasis on the positive aspects of the memoir, which can sometimes come across as biased. Users looking for a balanced viewpoint might perceive this as a lack of objectivity, impacting their trust in the review's credibility. Overly favorable assessments can make readers skeptical about the review's impartiality, discouraging them from relying solely on this analysis for their reading choices. Limited Discussion of Style and Structure The review could benefit from a more detailed discussion on the author's writing style and the book's structural elements. These aspects play a crucial role in a reader's experience, and their absence from the review might leave users unaware of important considerations. Readers often look for information about narrative flow, coherence, and readability, and the lack of this analysis might lead to an incomplete understanding of the book's overall quality. FAQ What is "We're Better Than This: My Fight for the Future of Our Democracy" about? "We're Better Than This: My Fight for the Future of Our Democracy" is a memoir by Elijah Cummings that details his career in public service, his advocacy for justice, and his vision for the future of American democracy. The book offers insights into his personal experiences, political battles, and the principles that guided his leadership. Who is Elijah Cummings? Elijah Cummings was a prominent American politician who served as the U.S. Representative for Maryland's 7th congressional district from 1996 until his passing in 2019. He was a leading figure in the Democratic Party, known for his strong stance on civil rights and his role as Chair of the House Oversight and Reform Committee. Is "We're Better Than This" suitable for readers who are not well-versed in politics? Yes, the book is written in an accessible manner that allows readers from various backgrounds to understand the core messages. It offers both political insights and personal stories, making it engaging for those with varying levels of political knowledge.

What themes are explored in the book? The book delves into themes such as social justice, the importance of democratic institutions, the challenges faced by marginalized communities, and the role of public service in effecting change. It also reflects on the importance of integrity and ethics in leadership. How does the book address the current state of American democracy? Elijah Cummings offers a critical analysis of contemporary issues affecting American democracy, including political polarization, systemic racism, and the erosion of democratic norms. He shares his thoughts on how to overcome these challenges through unity, civic engagement, and adherence to democratic principles. Does the book provide any solutions or recommendations for improving democracy? Yes, Cummings emphasizes the value of civic participation, informed voting, and active community involvement. He advocates for policies that promote equality, justice, and transparency in government. Additionally, he underscores the importance of leadership that prioritizes the common good. What makes "We're Better Than This" a significant read today? Given the current political climate and the ongoing debates about the future of democracy in the United States, Cummings’ insights and experiences offer valuable lessons. His call for a collective effort to rebuild and strengthen democratic values is particularly relevant and inspiring in today's context. Are there any notable endorsements or reviews of the book? The book has received positive reviews from various critics and public figures. It is praised for its candid narrative, emotional depth, and powerful message. Prominent leaders and commentators have highlighted it as an essential read for understanding the challenges and opportunities facing American democracy. Is the book available in other formats besides print? Yes, "We're Better Than This: My Fight for the Future of Our Democracy" is available in multiple formats, including ebook and audiobook. These versions can be found on various online platforms and in bookstores. Where can I purchase "We're Better Than This"? The book is available for purchase at major bookstores, online retailers like Amazon, and through local independent bookstores. It may also be available at your local library. "We're Better Than This: My Fight for the Future of Our Democracy" by Elijah Cummings is an essential read for anyone interested in the fabric of American democracy and the principles of justice, equality, and integrity. This thought-provoking autobiography offers readers a rare glimpse into the life and career of a stalwart advocate for civil rights and a fervent proponent of democratic ideals. As the book navigates through the pivotal moments of Cummings' career, from his childhood in Baltimore to his influential tenure in Congress, it imbues readers with both historical context and timeless lessons in leadership and resilience. One of the foremost reasons to embrace "We're Better Than This" is its rich, first-hand account of the inner workings of government, blended with deeply personal anecdotes. Cummings' unique narrative voice brings to life his tireless efforts to combat systemic inequities, reinforcing why the fight for a fair and just society remains both crucial and urgent. Through his lens, we witness the intricate balancing act required to uphold democratic values in the face of relentless political pressure and societal challenges. Moreover, the book stands out as a beacon of hope and accountability. Cummings’ unwavering belief in the power of individuals to instigate meaningful change is evident throughout the text. His stories of collaboration, perseverance, and moral courage offer invaluable lessons for current and future leaders, citizens, and activists alike. The insights gained from Cummings' experiences are not only inspirational but also practical, showcasing actionable steps to foster a more inclusive and equitable society. Furthermore, "We're Better Than This" highlights the importance of systemic reform and collective action.

It emphasizes that democracy is not a static, self-sustaining entity but a dynamic process that requires continuous vigilance, participation, and improvement. Cummings' call to action resonates deeply, encouraging readers to remain engaged and proactive in the democratic process, thereby ensuring that the principles of justice and equality continue to advance. In conclusion, "We're Better Than This: My Fight for the Future of Our Democracy" is a compelling and timely read that offers profound insights into the ongoing struggle for democratic integrity and social justice. Elijah Cummings’ legacy serves as a powerful reminder that, despite the challenges we face, we have the capacity to achieve a more equitable and just society. Picking up this book is not just an opportunity to learn from an extraordinary leader; it is a chance to be inspired to contribute actively to the future of our democracy.

[ismaelfarmer]

The Dark Underbelly of America’s War on Drugs

The United States’ War on Drugs, a campaign initiated in the early 1970s, ostensibly aimed at eradicating illegal drug use and trade, has long been mired in controversy and criticism. Over the decades, it has become increasingly clear that this "war" is not only ineffective but also riddled with corruption, racial bias, and ulterior political motives. The complexities and failures of America's drug policies reveal a shadowy landscape where vested interests, systemic racism, and geopolitical strategies intersect.

Origins and Political Motives

The War on Drugs was officially declared by President Richard Nixon in 1971, labeling drug abuse as "public enemy number one." However, numerous reports suggest that the campaign was partly a political tool. Nixon’s domestic policy advisor, John Ehrlichman, later admitted that the real targets were anti-war protesters and African Americans, explaining that associating them with drugs allowed the administration to disrupt their communities and vilify them publicly .

Racial Disparities and Mass Incarceration

One of the most glaring issues with the War on Drugs is its racial bias. Despite similar rates of drug use across racial lines, people of color, particularly African Americans and Latinos, are disproportionately targeted and incarcerated. According to the NAACP, African Americans are incarcerated for drug offenses at nearly six times the rate of white people . This disparity extends beyond arrests to sentencing, where mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine (more commonly used by black Americans) were much harsher than for powder cocaine (more commonly used by white Americans) until the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.

Corruption and Scandal

The enforcement of drug policies has also been marred by significant corruption and scandal. Perhaps one of the most notorious examples is the Iran-Contra affair during the Reagan administration, where it was revealed that funds from illegal arms sales were used to support Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Reports suggested that the CIA turned a blind eye to Contra involvement in cocaine trafficking to the U.S. . Moreover, there have been numerous instances of law enforcement officers themselves being implicated in drug trafficking and other related criminal activities.

The Role of Big Pharma

While the government has aggressively pursued street-level drug dealers and users, it has often been lenient towards pharmaceutical companies whose practices contribute significantly to the drug problem. The opioid crisis, for instance, was fueled by the aggressive marketing of highly addictive prescription painkillers by companies like Purdue Pharma. Despite clear evidence of their role in fostering addiction, these companies have often escaped with fines rather than criminal charges .

Impact on Latin America

The War on Drugs has also had profound and often devastating impacts on Latin American countries. U.S. policies have encouraged militarized approaches to drug control, contributing to violence and instability in countries like Colombia, Mexico, and Honduras. These efforts have often led to human rights abuses, with civilian populations caught in the crossfire. The focus on eradicating drug crops has also harmed local economies and contributed to environmental degradation.

The Cycle of Poverty and Addiction

In many American communities, particularly impoverished ones, the War on Drugs has perpetuated a vicious cycle of poverty and addiction. Harsh punitive measures have done little to reduce drug use but have instead led to overcrowded prisons and broken families. The criminalization of drug addiction prevents individuals from seeking help and exacerbates the socioeconomic conditions that foster drug dependency in the first place .

Moving Towards Reform

Despite its long and troubled history, there are signs of change in the approach to drug policy in the United States. There is growing recognition that addiction should be treated as a public health issue rather than a criminal one. States like Oregon have decriminalized the possession of small amounts of all drugs, focusing instead on treatment and harm reduction. Additionally, the legalization of marijuana in several states reflects a shift towards more progressive drug policies.

In conclusion, the War on Drugs in the United States is a multifaceted failure that has caused extensive harm domestically and internationally. It highlights deep-seated issues of racial injustice, political manipulation, and systemic corruption. As the nation moves towards drug policy reform, there is hope that future strategies will prioritize health and human rights over punitive measures and that the lessons learned from past failures will guide more equitable and effective solutions.

[auncerra]

Is the algorithm becoming an active trigger warning, 6/17/2024

Streptococcal toxic shock syndrome in Japan (rates partially relative to the lifting of certain COVID regulations), U.S. military investment in the ongoing mass genocide in Palestine, the staggering rates of unemployment (often due to unrealistic employer standards, class division, and general competitive culture around hiring) and housing crisis, arguably 'constitutional' draft legislation in 2024 (expanding on trans-exclusionary ideologies, deferring to 'AMAB' despite the "progressive" incentives to allow for legal gender-identity-affirming changes) (was the polarizing Vietnam, and its compromising effects, not limited to decades of PTSD, not sample enough of the draft's ethical drawbacks/failure), bird flu discovered in the cattle industry in the U.S. (now attributable to dairy, cattle meat), major banks and their future questionable viability (particularly in regards to accessing checking accounts/account balances), the rise of arguably/allegedly unconstitutional, intellectual-property-exploitative AI-training initiatives via major players (Photoshop/Adobe, Instagram (Meta), potentially Google with new 'Gemini' updated browser, et cetera), California residents and the disproportionate/directional turn towards becoming unhoused when outside of a target income range, noted escalated climate change and broad fast-fashion implications, unrelieved and unaddressed student loan concerns... it draws on the question of where the climate of the United States is headed, beyond those issues being faced globally.

It's no revered secret the United States as a whole has seemed to turn on the ideology behind constitutional rights, behind a nation comprised of the voices of its citizens, behind understanding and reconciling the concern for certain liberties it was supposedly founded on, the growing unrest in the country, the vast political divides, the lack of understanding, tolerance, and ethical conduct (non-discriminatory) action of local, federal, and judicial entities, the uneven class system, historic and systemic racism, gender-based discrimination, transgender/LGBTQ++-centric discrimination, the list of out-of-touch and arguably endangering policies, and lack thereof, leans further into the core of this question: if it is not a nation inspired for the betterment, social, cultural, psychological, (often) medical, and material health of its citizens, is it any wonder generations today obligatorily turn to applications like TikTok as primary news sources, apps vulnerable to scrutiny, to a potential ban, because of their viability as a source of income and information where the government, where other corporations and apps have become demonstrably uncaring and not openly providing?

The general sense of acceptance around states of living that are unsustainable, the broad sense of distrust of those in positions of power to ensure communal safety from powers within and outside, the glacially-slow pace of important policies being acknowledged, integrated, where those critically lacking in moral/ethical foundation are passed blithely...

Yes, colonized land. Yes, class inequities. Yes, all aforementioned. Yes, for these reasons, a predictably intolerant military foundation (let's not even delve into the mental health ramifications of casually dismissing gender identity to supply archaic 'AMAB'/'AFAB' pretenses), (let's not even unravel the notion of incarceration as a penalty for morally or ethically objecting to engagement in a potential war, particularly one waged unethically and objectively opposed and the implications on an already strained workforce/employment opportunity of criminal records/felons), (let's not even dive into the already underfunded, corruption-susceptible, long-declining structure of the prison system)...

None of this is news, because the news stream is constant. The issues can sometimes feel verbatim, one after another, a teetering reality dependent partially on a restructuring that might only come with acknowledgment. Yes, maybe antibiotic treatment and bacterial-infection-protection measures can apply to a situation such as the one in Japan, but what about pre-exposure measures and incentives (in the general/broader future sense), equipping for potential disease/illness surges prior to their occurring; what about including legislation that might proactively help this country/the U.S. (not-disease-related), for example, policies around restrooms for non-binary/transgender-identifying citizens/individuals, policies around healthcare reforms, policies around landlords overcharging/elevating rents, policies around increased employment initiatives, policies around protecting independent artists/independently employed contractors and their creative licenses/labors/intellectual property with the invasive AI trend heightened investment, policies for domestic assault/abuse survivors, policies for marginalized communities, policies to analyze communal concern for funding-forward genocidal/heavily-unpopular initiatives outside of the U.S.'s borders, policies to protect against archaic, antiquated drafting measures that invite a host of theoretical/potential issues/disputes/complication.

Point being, news needs a facelift, policy a team of qualified surgeons, and certain politicians/agencies a mid-procedure wake-up crisis. Newsflash: listen to what funds. Listen to that population that comprises, regardless of 'class' 'stature'.