#and might involve tax policy

[hyperlexichypatia]

The evolution of the word "rawdogging" to mean asceticism is genuinely so fascinating to me.

About 5 years ago, in January of 2020, "rawdogging" had one commonly-accepted meaning -- having sex without a condom. It was sometimes used in other contexts, but the metaphor was for having sex without a condom. That is not a particularly ascetic activity.

When COVID broke out and people started routinely wearing masks, people started referring to going maskless as "rawdogging," and this made sense as a logical extension of the concept -- a recreational interpersonal interaction without benefit of a protective barrier to reduce disease risk.

Then, this tweet went sort of viral.

It's from 2019, and maybe it was going around widely then, but I didn't start seeing it and variations everywhere until 2020. I would argue that the concept gained usage and cultural currency in the context of the maskless usage of "rawdogging" and a general cultural focus on disease risk and barriers.

Rawdogging-as-forgoing-drugs is a little bit more metaphorically removed from the original rawdogging-as-forgoing-condoms meaning, but the structure of the concept holds up -- drugs and therapies can be a barrier or a protective layer between the self and experienced reality, sure. That checks out. It's clever, and it's intuitive, and it evokes the "going out there with no layer of protection" sense.

But what's fascinating to me -- as a cognitive liberty absolutist, who believes that the distinction between "medicinal" and "recreational" drug use is largely arbitrary and at best situational -- is that the framing of "no therapy, not taking any prescribed or illicit drugs" provides a rhetorical bridge for "rawdogging" to leap from "forgoing a protective safety barrier" to "forgoing a recreational activity." It's all a barrier between the self and reality, whether it's considered "necessary" or "unnecessary."

This bridge of "rawdogging"-as-sobriety, and forgoing of potential enjoyment rather than potential safety, allowed the concept to be picked up by the "dopamine fast," anti-pleasure, hedonic Calvinist culture. From there, the door was wide open -- if "rawdogging" means "no relief from suffering" rather than (or in addition to) "no protection from disease", then "rawdogging" can mean not reading on a plane, and if it can mean not reading on a plane, than it can mean any kind of ascetic self-denial, until it gets picked up by Christian writers who completely omit the sexual meaning.

I wonder if something in this shift is "rawdogging" evoking the word "dogged" and differing connotations of dogs -- dogs-as-horny and dogs-as-loyal-and-hardworking.

There's probably something in there about gender, too; about how "rawdogging" was a term largely (but definitely not exclusively) by and about straight men having sex with women, and terms for condomless sex more common in the queer community, like "barebacking," don't have that crossover appeal, and how rawdog-asceticism is masculine-coded, because it's about being enough of a Manly Masculine Real Man to not need any sissy airplane reading, while feminine-coded cult-of-suffering culture is more about relentless reflective self-policing.

Or something.

The important thing is that a term to refer to wild, reckless, fucking like an animal is now used to refer to austere, somber self-denial.

[qqueenofhades]

I've seen a lot of doom today. Thank you for the bracing positivity!

Look man, idk if I would call it positivity. I'm fucking furious that the media and/or the billionaire class could have chosen at any time, ANY TIME, to carry out this coordinated ratfucking on Trump, and nope, they did it to Biden. Not coincidentally after he openly started espousing even more leftist/progressive tax and wealth policies. I'm also fairly certain that Putin (who is well used to playing the American elections ratfucking game) is involved here somehow, because he desperately wants Biden out and Trump back in. Two plus two, etc.

The elected Democrats who went along with this and/or who contributed to fucking Biden over also have a hell of a lot to answer for, and I hope we, the voters, let them fucking know. The only way this makes sense is if Biden is actively dying of Covid right now and/or if it's bad enough to permanently damage him. In that case, he might have had a modicum of actual say about this, rather than falling victim to the Anonymous Sources who stabbed him in the back every step of the way.

That said: Kamala is a genuinely good candidate. I am excited to have the chance to vote for her. This does turn the whole Referendum on Two Old White Men With Mental Issues narrative on its head. She might be able to reach some constituencies that Biden couldn't. I don't know for sure if all the Democratic/never-Trump GOP votes will translate, but I am so motherfucking tired of fascists thinking this will be a walk in the park. They asked for this, they fucking got it, people are really fucking mad (including me and like, everyone), and if all this maneuvering gets our first female AND Black president, the fascists are going to absolutely fucking lose it and cry for eons. And idk about you, but I want to see some sore loser fuckboys cry cry cry. I want revenge for 2016. I want Trump dead and fucking gone and yknow, Black women have played a huge role in his bad bad times so far. So it's only fair, I suppose, that Kamala gets the chance to finish the motherfucker off. I don't know if it's positivity, but that's what is fueling me right now. So yeah.

[simply-ivanka]

What Did the Biden Family’s Foreign Clients Get for their Money?

Hunter Biden pleads guilty to federal tax charges.

Wall Street Journal

By James Freeman

Hunter Biden has been convicted of federal crimes for not paying all the taxes he owed on his foreign income. But the most important question for Americans remains unanswered: What exactly did his overseas clients get in return for their money? His Thursday guilty plea on tax charges prevented testimony that may have gone some way toward providing an answer. This potential testimony may also explain why Hunter Biden waited until now to acknowledge his guilt.

The Journal’s Sara Randazzo, Ryan Barber and Annie Linskey report from Los Angeles:

Federal prosecutors signaled an aggressive strategy as the trial drew near, previewing an approach that would show how foreign interests paid the younger Biden to influence the U.S. government while his father was vice president during the Obama administration. Prosecutors said they planned to cast a light on a lucrative arrangement with a Romanian real-estate magnate who was facing a corruption investigation in his home country, along with his ties to the oil company CEFC China Energy and his tenure on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company. 

In court Thursday, [prosecutor Leo Wise] insisted on reading the entirety of the 56-page indictment into the record—over the objection of Biden’s lawyer—to establish the facts underlying the guilty plea. 

Alanna Durkin Richer reported last month for the Associated Press:

Hunter Biden’s lawyers say prosecutors are inappropriately trying to insert “politically-charged” allegations about his foreign business dealings into the upcoming federal tax trial against the president’s son.

Special counsel David Weiss’ team told the judge last week that they plan to call to the witness stand a business associate of Hunter Biden’s to testify about an arrangement with a Romanian businessman who was trying to “influence U.S. government policy” during Joe Biden’s term as vice president…

The Romanian businessman, Gabriel Popoviciu, wanted U.S. government agencies to probe a bribery investigation he was facing in his home country in the hopes that would end his legal trouble, according to prosecutors.

Prosecutors say Hunter Biden agreed with his business associate to help Popoviciu fight the criminal charges against him. But prosecutors say they were concerned that “lobbying work might cause political ramifications” for Joe Biden, so the arrangement was structured in a way that “concealed the true nature of the work” for Popoviciu, prosecutors alleged…

In fact, Popoviciu and Hunter’s business associate agreed that they would be paid for their work to “attempt to influence U.S. government agencies to investigate the Romanian investigation,” prosecutors said. Hunter Biden’s business associate was paid more than $3 million, which was split with Hunter and another business partner, prosecutors say.

Ms. Richer also noted that Hunter Biden’s defense lawyers “slammed prosecutors for showcasing ‘these matters on the eve of Mr. Biden’s trial—when there is no mention of political influence in the 56-page Indictment.’ ” The A.P. story continued:

“The Special Counsel’s unnecessary change of tactic merely echoes the baseless and false allegations of foreign wrongdoing which have been touted by House Republicans to use Mr. Biden’s proper business activities in Romania and elsewhere to attack him and his father,” the defense wrote.

But the defense has now opted not to defend.

Of course Romania is not the only foreign jurisdiction that proved fruitful for the Biden family business. The majority staff of several House committees recently reported:

From 2014 to the present… Biden family members and their associates received over $27 million from foreign individuals or entities…

Witnesses acknowledged that Hunter Biden involved Vice President Biden in many of his business dealings with Russian, Romanian, Chinese, Kazakhstani, and Ukrainian individuals and companies.Then-Vice President Biden met or spoke with nearly every one of the Biden family’s foreign business associates, including those from Ukraine, China, Russia, and Kazakhstan.

And of course let’s not forget Hunter Biden’s own deposition on Capitol Hill. This column noted in March that mere minutes after making yet another broad claim of not involving his father in the business, Hunter Biden confirmed the story of travelling with then-Vice President Joe Biden on Air Force Two to China and introducing his father to Jonathan Li in the lobby of the Bidens’ hotel. The following excerpt from the deposition suggests that the timing could not have been better:

[Committee member or staff]: At the time that you did introduce your father to Jonathan Li, did you or any of your business associates have any potential business with Jonathan Li?

[Hunter Biden]: I was working with Jonathan on a potential that he had an idea for creating a private equity fund based in China to do cross-border investments.

Nice. But good luck explaining what value Hunter Biden might be able to add to such an enterprise. Years later, his Chinese associates still hadn’t come up with a story. In 2019 Cissy Zhou and Jun Mai reported in the South China Morning Post:

BHR (Shanghai) Equity Investment Fund Management Company has grabbed global media attention for its links with Hunter Biden, the son of former United States vice-president Joe Biden, after US President Donald Trump fired a barrage of corruption allegations at him and requested China investigate the Bidens’ financial activities in the country.

The company has repeatedly declined to elaborate on the younger Biden’s role at the firm when contacted by the South China Morning Post via phone, mail and visits to the office. But Jonathan Li Xiangsheng, the firm’s chief executive and Hunter Biden’s partner, has said the company was working on an explanation about the American’s role.

Li refused to comment on the younger Biden when reached by the Post on Monday.

A recent visit to the firm’s registered address in Beijing found a small, plainly decorated office, where a receptionist said she had never seen Hunter Biden.

Is there anything Joe Biden said about the family business in 2020 that has turned out to be true?

Meanwhile as Vice President Kamala Harris seeks a promotion, perhaps she ought to disclose if she ever questioned anyone or learned anything about the Biden family business and its implications for American foreign policy. One would guess she was at least curious. Did she ever talk to anyone about the ethical standards for Hunter Biden’s art sales, which turned out to be a sham while she was serving alongside Joe Biden?

Vice President Harris is not just a lawyer but a former prosecutor and a former state attorney general, for goodness sake. Wasn’t she the least bit concerned?

***

Spokespeople for both the president and the vice president say that they won’t be pardoning Hunter Biden. But then why is Hunter Biden’s lawyer still making what seems like a political argument rather than a legal one?

Jack Morphet and Priscilla DeGregory report for the New York Post on comments from defense lawyer Abbe Lowell:

“Hunter decided to enter his plea to protect those he loves from unnecessary hurt and cruel humiliation,” Lowell said.

“This plea prevents that kind of show trial that would not have provided all the facts or served any real point in justice. He will now move on to the sentencing phase, while keeping open the options to raise the many clear issues with this case on appeal.”

He’s going to appeal a case in which he just pleaded guilty to all the charges? Sounds like an argument built for the White House briefing room, not a courtroom.

***

James Freeman is the co-author of “The Cost: Trump, China and American Revival” and also the co-author of “Borrowed Time: Two Centuries of Booms, Busts and Bailouts at Citi.”

[eightyonekilograms]

Obviously, JD Vance's proposal to give parents additional votes stirred up a furor from progressives saying it's anti-feminist, reactionary, trying to keep women in the kitcen, etc.

And I agree with them. Frankly I wouldn't shed a single tear if Trump "who will rid me of this meddlesome running mate"-d a second VP in a row and I never had to hear from Vance or his 2010!NRx ideas ever again. But I have a more prosaic objection also: if implemented, I don't think this plan would actually work?

Like, as I understand it, there are two proposed justifications for how this might be a good idea, but I don't think either of them stand up to scrutiny.

The first (and less plausible) one is, people who selfishly want more votes will have more children in order to get more political leverage for [whatever they want]. Even though they're doing it for selfish reasons, children are a public good, and so on net this is good for society.

I think this theory can be dispensed with pretty easily. It sounds just like one of those $1000 payments for having another child that budges the birth rate not at all because it's way too small a reward for the expense involved. Even speaking as someone intensely annoyed by trendy anti-electoralist cynicism, I know the EV of an additional vote is microscopic compared to the expense of having children. It won't move anyone except at the very bleeding edge of the margin.

But that's the easy case. The much more interesting theory of the Vance Plan is that of fixing broken incentives. The story goes like this: one feature of democracy, for better or worse, is that it rewards those who show up. If you have no vote (or don't use your vote), you are invisible to democracy, so your wants will be systematically underrepresented. This is why wealthy first-world countries are increasingly gerontocratic in both legislative makeup and resulting policy: old people reliably vote, young people don't, so even with no conspiracy involved, democracy gravitates to favoring the wants of the old. Vance says, hey, children cannot vote, so just as you'd predict, their interests (as a class!) get ignored, so we end up with a legislative landscape that doesn't favor children and makes it harder to raise them.

It makes perfect sense on paper! But I think in the real world it falls apart.

What are the actual bits of legislation and policy which discourage people from having more children? I mean, people can and do argue furiously over this question, but IMO three of the most significant ones are:

NIMBY localist housing policy locking young potential parents out of the housing market

More localist tax and education policy making competition for "good schools" a Red Queen Race which drives up house prices still further, requiring two working parents

Safetyist legislation which, while well-intentioned, is making everything from cars to child care more expensive than it necessarily needs to be

In order to believe that giving parents additional votes will cause a more child-friendly society to emerge via electoral pressure, you have to believe that parents are more likely than non-parents to oppose 1, 2 and 3. And that just... doesn't seem true? At best there's no difference, and to be blunt, I think as a class parents tend to be worse than non-parents on all three. #NotAllParents, of course, there are plenty of people with kids who still want good abundance policy, but averaged over everybody I think it's hard to deny that parenthood tends to push people toward defensive, loss-averting "protect the children" mentalities which, on a global scale, fuck everyone else over. That talking point you constantly see among the Very Online Right that parents are more likely than non-parents to think Beyond Themselves and want to build a stable world for the long term, just seems obviously false to me. Or at least if it is true, it's true in a way which is mostly irrelevant, since these "long-view parents" don't know how to turn those wants into policy which actually achieves them.

Frankly, I think it's easy to envision a world where the Vance Plan makes all policy around child-rearing worse instead of better, and depresses the birth rate even further.

[yourlocalmeta1head]

I hate seeing these fucking videos of people who voted for Donald Trump regretting voting for him. If they had just done more research and didn't vote for him just because then the can "afford gas and groceries" they would've learned that if you are the average American your taxes will be higher and you will have larger bills. Donald Trump's tax plan does include a few cuts for the middle class but 83% of tax cuts that are included in Donald Trumps tax plan go to the people that are making over half a million dollars a year. Kamala Harris's tax plan would've been better because 100% of the tax cuts in her plan would go to members of the middle and low class.

Donald Trump has also reported "not being associated with project 2025" and "having nothing to do with project 2025" which is obviously false seeing that many people who are involved in project 2025 have served Donald Trump in one way or another. For example; Paul Dans, who is a former chief of staff at the U.S. Office of Personal Management under Trump is leading the project. In addition, Trumps campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt has appeared in Project 2025 promotion videos.

Here are ways project 2025 could affect you and your personal life. Project 2025 would stop people from earning overtime pay. He wants to undo recent policy that made over 4 million people newly eligible for overtime. Project 2025 also wants to weaken child labor protections. In quote "The young people should be able to work inherently dangerous jobs" and work in rolls that are not allowed thanks to protections from the department of labor.

Project 2025 also says that they will quote "Secure the border, finish building the wall, and deport illegal aliens" Donald Trump is planing on doing mass deportations. He declared that once he takes office that he will use military to do mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.

They want to make it harder for women to get abortions by removing it from laws and taking away approval for abortion pills. They want to stop some services that give out birth control and instead suggest less reliable methods. That might take away funding from clinics that provide abortions which could also affect other services those clinics offer. They want to promote traditional roles for men and women. They will take away protections and programs that help gay people, thus making it harder for them to be treated fairly and get the support they need. They might cut back on programs that help poor people get healthcare and other support meaning it could be harder for poor families to get the help they need.

These are some of the ways project 2025 will affect the climate. Project 2025 would rewrite the most legal tool we have for protecting wildlife in ways that would harm imperilled species. For example, it specifically calls for removing protections from gray wolves and Yellowstone grizzlies. They also propose to repeal the Antiquities Act, which would strip the president of the ability to protect the public land and waters of national monuments. Project 2025 would have agencies that manage the federal lands and waters to maximise corporate oil and gas extraction. Speaking of oil, the agenda directly aims to expand the Willow Project which the largest proposed oil and gas undertaking on the U.S. public land. This also calls for drilling into Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and mining into Minnesota’s Boundary Waters wilderness.

If you go to a public school congratulations. You are now required to take the military entrance exam. Page 134/ 135, "Improve military recruiters’ access to secondary schools and require completion of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery—the military entrance examination—by all students in schools that receive federal funding." "Increase the number of Junior ROTC programs in secondary schools"

If you voted for Trump I promise you will regret it in the next 4 years.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Kurt Eichenwald at The Threats Within:

In the latest episode of Seriously, Is This Real Life?, businessman and Shark Tank star Kevin O’Leary has revealed that President-elect Donald Trump isn’t just fantasizing about turning Canada into America’s 51st state—he’s actually hosting discussions about it at Mar-a-Lago. Yes, while most people might spend their time planning sensible policies or staffing a competent cabinet, Trump is apparently doodling maple leaves on “Make Canada American, Eh?” baseball caps and strategizing annexation over shrimp cocktails. Trump singing the praises for his idea (of course) on his puttering Twitter rip-off, Truth Social (of course again): “If Canada merged with the U.S., there would be no Tariffs, taxes would go way down, and they would be TOTALLY SECURE from the threat of the Russian and Chinese Ships that are constantly surrounding them.” Because clearly, Canadians are lying awake at night, trembling in fear of rogue fishing boats and theoretical invasions. Let’s be clear: this isn’t diplomacy. It’s the political equivalent of showing up uninvited to your neighbor’s barbecue, demanding their beer fridge, and explaining it’s for their own good. Trump’s pitch is less about partnership and more about a hostile corporate takeover, with all the charm of a bad infomercial. And it’s safe to say Canadians, who already politely endure their proximity to the U.S., are not clamoring for an upgrade to full membership in Trump’s America. Starting off - health care. Canadians may grumble about wait times, but they’d take their universal system over America’s medical Hunger Games any day. A recent poll found that 86.2% of Canadians support strengthening public healthcare instead of expanding for-profit services. Trump’s version of “freedom” might involve a $10,000 ambulance ride, but Canadians prefer their version, which lets them hit the slopes without worrying about whether a broken leg will also break the bank. Sorry, Donald, but paying $300 for an Advil isn’t exactly what they’d call “great again.”

And let’s talk about social progress, a subject that would likely give Trump and his base a collective nosebleed. Canada legalized gay marriage way back in 2005, leaving the U.S. scrambling to catch up a full decade later. And in 2017, the Canadian Human Rights Act was updated to protect gender identity and gender expression, making Canada a global leader in LGBTQ+ rights. Canadians support protecting transgender people in housing, employment, and public spaces, while Trump’s crowd throws around the term “groomer” like it’s a national sport. The idea of merging these two wildly different value systems is as absurd as serving poutine with ketchup instead of gravy—an insult to both sides.

Of course, don’t forget the gun thing. Trump’s America treats guns like a sacred birthright, while Canadians approach firearms with the kind of cautious distance usually reserved for overly friendly raccoons. The U.S. has more guns than people; Canada regulates them with a level of care that would make even Switzerland blush. Canadians aren’t about to give up their relatively low gun violence rates to adopt a system where a trip to Walmart can involve dodging an active shooter.

There’s also the cultural chasm that is Trump-style politics, which would leave Canadians feeling like they’ve stepped out of the library into a WWE wrestling match. Canadian politics may be dull by comparison, but that’s kind of the point. Canadians are happy to settle disputes over coffee and donuts, not angry tweet storms and “Stop the Steal” rallies. Watching Trump declare “CANADA IS A DISASTER, I’LL FIX IT!” would likely send Canadians scrambling for the border—just not in the direction he’s hoping for. And guns—oh, the guns. America has more firearms than people, and Trump seems to think that’s a feature, not a bug. Canadians, on the other hand, treat guns with the same wary respect they reserve for grizzly bears: necessary in some situations, but not something you invite into your home for fun. The idea of adopting the U.S.’s trigger-happy culture would likely send Canadians running—not walking—to the border.

Being apart from the US is the whole raison d’être of Canada’s being, and almost nobody in that nation would want Canada to be dragged into the USA.

[phoenixyfriend]

Suggested topics to call your reps about today, 1/30/24!

I’ve been doing two subjects per call recently; one is almost always about the events in the middle east, and then one is domestic policy. I’m including a bit of verbiage you can use as basis for what you say (if you agree with me), for a few of these.

BOTH SENATE AND HOUSE:

Foreign Policy: Reinstate funding for UNRWA. While the claims made by Israel that employees of the relief agency were involved in Oct. 7th are troubling, this arm of the UN is currently providing food, water, shelter, and medical care to the 2.3 million displaced peoples of Gaza. It is especially disturbing and concerning that the many children of Gaza, who are already suffering due to this conflict, are now having this support revoked.

Warn Congress to reaaaaally think about whether a strong response to the incident in Jordan, currently attributed to an Iraqi group backed by Iran, if we're truly looking to avoid a wider regional war as claimed. There is already growing unrest in Yemen and the threat of another civil war, fire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and now the situation with the Islamic Resistance. Caution them against an overreaction of the kind that the US has a tendency towards.

FOR THE SENATE: Urge your senator to put their support behind Bernie Sanders and his motion to restrict funding to Israel until a humanitarian review of the IDF’s actions in Gaza has been completed.

FOR THE HOUSE: Urge your representative to put their support behind Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s petition for the US government to recognize the IDF’s actions in Gaza as ethnic cleansing and forced displacement, and put a stop to it.

Domestic Policy

House of Representatives:

Expansion of the child tax credit. The House of Representatives is currently voting on whether or not to expand the child tax credit that was instated during COVID-19. This credit offers a return on taxes for individuals with children, but currently does not apply to families that are too poor to qualify. During COVID, this tax credit was expanded to include those families, and child poverty fell to record lows, but as it was a temporary measure, those children are getting left behind again. Given the effectiveness the expansion of this tax regulation showed in the past, it would be a net positive for the country as a whole to codify it more permanently.

Other things coming up in the next week if you think your rep might be receptive:

H.R. 6976: Protect Our Communities from DUIs Act: Vote no. This act is discriminatory and enforces harsher penalties on immigrants than in legal citizens. While DUIs are a significant issue, enacting stronger guidelines on a small portion of the population that is already at risk from discriminatory police action is not a solution.

H.R. 6679: No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorists Act - Vote no or dismiss if possible. Terrorism is already considered a reason to reject immigrants. This bill is pointless peacocking. You have better things to do with your time.

H.R. 6678: Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act - Vote no. This proposed act is discriminatory and enacts unduly harsh sentences against minorities. The system already has punishments for fraud; this specific act is unnecessary.

H.R. 5585: Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act - Are you sensing a pattern? It's discriminatory! Evading law enforcement on a motor vehicle is already illegal, you do not need to ADD IMMIGRATION PENALTIES.

Senate:

Abortion rights. Domestically, for the senate, push for abortion rights.

Specific things coming up in the next week if you think your Senator might be receptive:

H.R. 6914: Pregnant Students’ Rights Act - Call to ask that the resolution EXPLICITLY include abortion access, or otherwise vote against. This passed the house on strict party lines; other than a handful of abstentions, the vote was all republican for and all dems against. The text of the proposal is explicitly anti-abortion.

H.R. 6918: Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act - same as above, it was very partisan in the house vote, though less explicitly anti-abortion in the text. Nonetheless, it focuses explicitly on protecting funding to "pregnancy centers," which are often anti-choice and dedicated to pushing patients towards keeping a baby they don't want.

DOMESTIC POLICY, BOTH BRANCHES OF CONGRESS: Border policy is currently being hotly debated and negotiated. A very strong policy in favor of the Republican party is the status at the moment. Even some democrats are in favor of it due to small border communities being ill-equipped to handle large numbers of migrants, and states usually removed from the situation getting migrants bussed in from Texas despite telling Texas to knock it off. Despite some Republicans saying that they have gotten everything they could want out of the current deal, the party at large is refusing to pass it as the politics of the debate are more useful to the coming election than actually passing policy. This is also causing delays in passing the federal budget.

I... don't actually want to tell anyone WHAT to think of the border policy since I do not have any real knowledge on the budget impacts and resources dictating the actual problems (nor the racism or xenophobia, that part is obviously bullshit). I can recognize that too some degree, there is a genuine issue of manpower and budget restriction impacting the ability to house and process immigrants.

However, DREAMers are not being considered in the current deal, the delays in the deal are impacting the federal government and threatening a partial shutdown, and people are STILL getting hurt and even dying at the border.

I would focus on protection for DREAMers, chastising the Republicans for deliberately delaying the budget in order to use the border as a reelection premise instead of actually working on the policy they claim to want (emphasize that they are going to lose votes for focusing on reelection at the expense of their people), and protection for children, parents with those children, and nonviolent migrants in general.

[marta-bee]

John Oliver said something about voting last night, that I've been struggling with how to talk about. Namely, that when you vote it doesn't have to be for someone you mostly agree with or even just agree more with than the other candidate; sometimes it can just be the person you'd most like to hold accountable.

I like Harris in a lot of ways. Her message of inclusion is one I think a lot of Americans need just now. Her big beautiful blended family (and her biracial self!) resembles America more than any presidential candidate we've seen. Her policies aren't sweeping, they're practical and specific in a way I think sees what working people are struggling with. And there are things I like much less. Her "public-private partnerships" buy into capitalism and free market as the solution for everything, to give one example. Not every problem can be solved with a tax break or even a check. But this is America, so what do you expect, and also her tax breaks are at least targeted toward people who most need them. Her immigration policy might be a bit too heavy on enforcement for my tastes and not enough on better welcoming my new neighbors in a way that lets them fully participate in society, but on the other hand, she's not talking revulsion and promising the purge.

With Gaza, it's hard to judge because so much of foreign policy happens behind closed doors. Joe is clearly no fan of Netanyahu and has tried to restrain him, Kamala too, but they've clearly not had much impact on him. What they're doing out of the public eye, how much worse things would be for Gaza without their involvement, it's impossible to say. I do hate Harris feels like she had to be more inclusive for conservatives and probably that's why she was less working publicly with the uncommitted movement. It sucks. It's been a weird election all around, and the traditional conservatives who feel like they've lost their party to Trump aren't the only ones suffering: traditional liberals, much less leftists, have lost the coalition that should be advocating and organizing around their priorities. Hopefully we'll soon have a reasonable opposition we can work with rather than a single functioning party forced to be too big a tent than would be ideal versus a dangerous madman on the other side. We'd all be better off.

But my point on Gaza, and this circles back to Oliver. Bernie Sanders has promised to introduce legislation barring more sale of weapons to Israel in the next Congress. And I know what president I'd want to be working with on that. Even if Gaza is the only issue you're concerned about, even if you think Harris is inexcusable here, you can still see her as the lever of power you'd rather hold accountable.

God (or whatever secular impulses and institutions we've set up in His stead) bless the United States of America. God save us all. If anyone wants to talk about anything privately to help you work out how you want to square your conscience with your vote, I'm around today and my Tumblr messages are open. And if not, I'll see you all on the other side.

[probablyasocialecologist]

To achieve ecological justice beyond expansion, degrowth not only demands secure provisioning, income, and work for all, but also focuses on the opposite: redistribution aimed at taxing the rich out of existence, reappropriation, and caps on maximum reductions in income and wealth disparity. As Thomas Piketty, Yannick Oswald, Joel Milward-Hopkins, and others argue, curtailing the wealth of the rich might be among the most effective levers to reducing emissions. A recent study found that at current trends, the emissions of the world’s millionaires alone would deplete 72 percent of the remaining carbon budget for staying within the 1.5°C limit. The demand for maximum income and wealth, a key component in the political repertoire of the degrowth spectrum, can be thought of as capping incomes at two, five, or ten times the “basic income” of society—or, during a transition phase, at x times the minimum income in a specific business or sector. In addition, degrowth also advocates fundamental changes to the way private ownership structures society. These include taxation of inheritances, since these stabilize inequalities and class hierarchies over generations. Curtailing the license to pollute for the rich—the only social group within Europe whose carbon footprint expanded over the last decades—is central. Scaling down private jets, yachts, cruises, large mansions, and the production of positional goods are not only steps that by reducing aggregate energy use make fast decarbonization much easier, but they are also preconditions to making society-wide sustainability changes that involve sufficiency acceptable. So, degrowth advances policies for collectively defined minima and maxima for rights of access to societally available resources, energy, and output—democratically determined “consumption corridors” built around notions of global environmental justice and well-being.

Matthias Schmelzer and Elena Hofferberth, Democratic Planning for Degrowth

[xxxjarchiexxx]

My husband asked for my help with talking to someone in one of his IRL communities about the level of involvement that the USA has in the ongoing genocide because they didn't believe that the US was more culpable than other countries, so I made this reference sheet updated as of today (March 2nd 2024) and thought I might as well post it to put some of the information in one place

Point: The USA is the #1 supporter of Israel and the IOF by a lot in the international sphere

Proof:

US military funding of Israel (3.8 billion per year of tax money) (compared to EU’s 1.8 million per year friendly neighbor policy of funding to Israel)

US actively suppresses anti-zionist movement (which also happens in Germany in somewhat comparable amounts)

US has repeatedly veto-ed ICJ rulings regarding Israel’s genocide (1) (2) (3) (Uganda did vote against it but does not have veto power)

US is the #1 weapons supplier/funder of Israel stretching back years since 2004 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

The US has increased support since October 7th (also true of Germany)

The President purposefully spreads Zionist propaganda that has been debunked (1) (2) (3) (4)

American media has become propaganda-- CNN now runs everything by the IOF by law, media blackouts occur around protest movements, streaming services based in America run propaganda ads, Paramount+ and CBS cut off anti-Zionist statements during the Grammys, etc

USA is looking at punishing South Africa on an international level over genocide trial

USA continues to not punish Israel for civilian harm (1) (2)

House of Representatives publicly chastised a Representative for being anti-zionist

Biden ran on a Zionist campaign

US military preparing to support Israel on the ground with some reports of there already being military support (1) (2) (3) (4)

The US has instituted unprecedented amounts of Zionist laws aimed at suppressing boycott work since 2014

The US has done nothing regarding the rise in hate crimes against Arab people since October 7 (source on hate crimes, no source on doing nothing because they haven’t done anything and have ignored it)

The US has been bombing Palestinian allies

Biden was judged as complicit in genocide, and then the case was forcibly waved (1) (2)

The US has had a stock of weapons stored in Israel, and allows Israel to use their stock

The US has blocked the UNSC’s ability to condemn mass civilian violence done by Israel

[cazort]

Whenever I post about how I am voting for Kamala Harris and think it's important to vote for Democrats, and my post starts blowing up, I get a lot of negative comments from people who claim to be progressive, saying things like "Voting doesn't matter." or" Both parties are the same".

And here's the thing. I always check out these people's blogs.

And you want to know what? I never, not once, have found any of these people posting anything actionable to move beyond the two-party system. None of them mention or talk about ranked choice voting (RCV) or total vote runoff (TVR). None of them talk about the laws and structural factors that keep the two party system in power. None of them even have a candidate that they recommend voting for as a protest vote. None share and link to articles in high-quality media sources that break out of the right-left binary. And the ones that are calling for really radical solutions like revolution, none of them have a constitution, none of them have a proposed tax policy, none of them have a proposition of the way a radically different (such as growth-free) currency system could work.

And here's the thing. I do all of these things. I've been doing it for decades, since before I was even on Tumblr.

I'm not just voting blue. I'm voting blue AND advancing RCV and TVR. I have written pages and pages on tangible tax policy reform, on local zoning reform (I'm active locally pushing for such reform), transportation funding reform (pushing for it for 20+ years now). I've been involved in prison reform and abolition activism at the local and federal level. I even started a community currency 16 years ago.

Listen to me and listen to other people who are doing the work. We are all saying the same thing. Don't listen to these people who aren't doing the work. They claim to be radical but they're not doing anything at all. I don't know if they're real people or not, but they're butting into my posts and they're telling me and other people not to vote because it doesn't make a difference and doesn't do enough, but like...they're not doing anything at all to push society in a good direction, to solve problems, to build a better world. They're just posting negative stuff on some blog and they're not even posting information on their blog that might help tear down the systems they're supposedly opposed to.

I don't trust any of these people and I don't want you to either.

Seriously, if someone is telling you not to vote, telling you that your vote doesn't matter, scrutinize them. Who are they? What are they advocate? If they are telling you not to vote, what do they want you to do?

99% of the time they don't actually encourage you to do anything positive. And I have a sneaking suspicion that these people don't actually want to tear down the systems they are superficially criticizing, they are secretly trying to support them. I suspect that they actually want you to feel negative about voting and disengage. They want you to feel helpless, and to step back from the political system, to step out. They are serving the people who benefit when you don't vote. And that's the far-right authoritarians.

If you, like me, want a better society in a deeply flawed two-party system, you vote for the better of the two parties AND you take other measures too, supporting RCV (which had massive wins in both Maine and Alaska and could be implemented in more states if we work towards it) and TVR (far superior to the IRV used in Maine and Alaska), and researching and talking about issues and getting involved in issues that aren't being discussed. Join the Strong Towns movement and work to move beyond car dependence. Join the movement to expose the injustice of payroll tax and abolish all payroll taxation including FICA and all the smaller ones too and replace them with other taxes such as carbon tax or other, progressive consumption-based taxes. Start thinking critically about currency, maybe read Greco's book "Money: Understanding and Creating Alternatives to Legal Tender".

I am outside the two party system and have been so my whole life. I am doing the work and have been doing the work for decades now. So listen to me when I tell you to vote blue. Vote not just for Harris but research and look up your house and senate races and your state and local races as well and vote in all of them. It's a small but important step. And don't just stop there, do all of these other things I'm telling you about too. It's a "both...and" scenario.

Don't submit to these people trying to tell you not to vote. Scrutinize them. You will see what they are really about and once you see it you will not be manipulated by them.

[sky-cow0]

Any leftists hating on libertarians are leftist in identity only. Libertarians are not your enemy, they don’t even have enough power to threaten democrats. If you are upset because they are the only group who fight the entire concept of taxes, there is no way in the world elected libertarians would be able to end taxation. Waste your energy on fighting republicans who resent raising taxes on the wealthy because they might one day be wealthy. Libertarians are your allies on many fronts (assuming you are talking about actual libertarians and not republicans not wanting to be called authoritarian who pick up the taxation is theft mantra and think it makes them a libertarian).

Libertarians are your ally in fighting for social freedoms. They believe that if it doesn’t harm other people, it should be legal. They think government should have nothing to do with healthcare. And they definitely believe the police should be defunded.

They fight civil asset forfeiture and laws that make it either illegal or too risky for people and companies to give away unwanted food and merchandise. They definitely have better immigration stances than leftists (get rid of ICE and their concentration camps). They support abortion and LGBT rights. They want everyone in jail on drug possession charges released.

Guess what, if you listen to libertarians, you might find ways to get involved in dismantling systems of power in your community. You might be able to join protests over the right to feed and house homeless people or join a writing campaign to end police pirating. You might learn of laws that are preventing the society you want to live in and an activist group already on the ground waiting for people like you to help.

Republicans complain about identity politics a lot, but they are definitely missing the point. Political identity is the largest issue preventing the US from enacting reasonable policies. Luckily the elected democrats have not sunk to the level of online-only-activist leftists who refuse to listen to other people. As soon as those voting for democrats demand them to “own the conservatives” as much as republicans ask theirs to “own the libs”, we will lose our ability to function as a nation.

So stop hating on people for believing differently than you. Keep conversations civil on your end by realizing that most people want the same things for themselves that you want for yourself. Don’t label people as irredeemable because they have the wrong political label. Obviously block harassment and jerks, but realize that beliefs change over time. Maybe the picture you paint of society may be what helps them change theirs because you refused to condemn them for being wrong on the internet.

[mariacallous]

While maintaining its reliance on Russian gas and oil will bring short-term gains for Hungary’s government, experts warn that over the longer term the political price for defying its Western allies could be far higher.

Never waste a good business opportunity, is a maxim of the Hungarian prime minister. Even as Viktor Orban endlessly blames the war in Ukraine for all the economy’s woes, Hungary’s government and local energy companies are now among the biggest war profiteers, energy experts claim.

“Hungary has become a trading hub for Russian gas,” Attila Holoda, a former deputy state secretary of energy and former executive of the Hungarian oil and gas company MOL, tells BIRN. “While Europe drifts away from Russian energy sources, Hungary is going in the opposite direction.”

Russian pipeline gas has not been sanctioned by the EU, but there was a fast decoupling in most EU countries after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, reducing the bloc’s pipeline gas imports from 40 per cent in 2021 to 8 per cent in 2023. There is a tacit expectation that even those countries that still rely heavily on Russian pipeline gas – Hungary, Slovakia and Austria – will reduce their imports by 2027.

But, to the surprise of many, the Hungarian government has actually doubled down on its energy dependence on Russia.

In October, Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Peter Szijjarto proudly announced that his country would increase its annual gas imports from Russia by more than 2 billion cubic metres (cm/y). Under a long-term gas contract signed in 2021, Hungary was already buying 4.5 billion cm/y of gas from Gazprom; now that figure is on track to rise to 6.7 billion cm/y – a trend that flies in the face of EU policies to reduce Russian gas purchases.

“All storage facilities are almost full in Hungary, the country’s energy security does not justify the extra purchases,” Holoda says. “Our gas demand is around 8.3 billion cm/y, but last year 17 billion cm of gas passed through the country, which proves our growing transit role. This is a huge business opportunity for everyone involved in the gas trade.”

Profits flow from the south

Most of the gas is delivered from the south, via the TurkStream pipeline that runs under the Black Sea to Turkey and then passes through Bulgaria and Serbia. This pipeline, which became operational in 2020, was part of Russian efforts to bypass Ukraine, originally the main transit route for Russian gas to Europe.

While prices in Hungary’s long-term gas contract are pegged to the Dutch TTF and are relatively expensive, the extra amounts of gas will come with a hefty discount of 13-15 per cent, Holoda says.

Hungarian independent news site Valasz Online reported it was Gazprom that came up with the idea of selling extra gas to Hungary at a discounted price more in line with the regional market price, rather than agree to a discount on the existing long-term gas contract. This agreement is a win-win situation: Gazprom can sell surplus gas, gas traders in Hungary profit from the resale, and the government collects a large chunk of the money in taxes.

It’s certainly been a boon for Hungary’s state-owned energy company and main gas importer MVM Group. MVM announced that lower prices caused revenue from gas sales in the first half of 2024 to fall by 23 per cent year-on-year to 1.124 billion forints, but this was partially offset because the “volume of natural gas sold was higher than in the previous year”.

“The company is earning at least 500-600 million euros on the Russian gas trade,” an insider speaking on condition of anonymity, tells BIRN.

The gas is mostly sold in neighbouring countries, but some speculate it might even be ending up in Germany, which has officially cut all Russian gas imports. “Hungary has become a gas hub in the region, which gives the Hungarian government special leverage and importance over neighbouring countries,” the source says.

No wonder that Hungary is visibly dragging its feet when it comes to diversification. Foreign Minister Szijjarto – a frequent visitor to Moscow – likes to emphasise that Hungary is physically linked to Russian energy supplies by pipelines and there are basically no – or only very costly – alternatives to  those well-established routes.

“It would be certainly possible to import gas from the West,” Andras Gyorgy Deak, an energy expert and senior research fellow at the Institute of World Economics, points out. “But the Hungarian government is right when it says that currently all alternatives to Russian gas or oil are more expensive.”

To be fair, Deak adds, countries like Germany have increased service fees for gas transit, and others are also contemplating it, which further raises the cost of diversification and can have a disincentivising effect for countries to give up their Russian ties.

Hungary also benefits from loopholes in the system. “Pipeline gas is easily rebranded, depending on the trading company. If it happens to be a company headquartered in, say, Morrocco, it is sold as Moroccan gas, even if it originally comes from Russia,” Deak points out. “Europe is now keen to buy Azeri or Turkish gas to diversify, but it is hard to prove what is exactly in the pipeline.”

US pressure

While the EU is currently being soft on sanctions against Russian gas, and data shows Western Europe is buying more liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Russia, the US ramped up the pressure in November when the Treasury Department introduced new sanctions on Russia that targeted Gazprombank, the financial institution which handles gas payments to Russia.

Experts warn that any foreign financial institution doing business with Gazprombank now risks being sanctioned by the US government.

Sensing trouble, Szijjarto swung into action. “We filed our request with the relevant American authorities for an exception from sanctions when it comes to payments for natural gas to Gazprombank,” he said on December 4 in Brussels, on the sidelines of a NATO meeting.

Szijjarto insisted it is not only Hungary but also Slovakia, Serbia and Turkey that would be affected by any sanctions. In any case, he added, the US has already created loopholes for itself and is buying uranium from Russia via non-sanctioned Russian banks.

Szijjarto said that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken had signalled to him his openness to striking a deal.

“This is primarily a financial sanction and it could hit Hungary hard,” the former MOL executive Holoda warns. “There could be ways to get around it, like via Turkish or other Russian banks, but it certainly makes deals more complicated.”

Hungary’s government is aware that the US could quickly put an end to its lucrative gas dealings with Russia. One way out would be to ask for a transitory period and hope to play its ‘Trump card’ after the new president takes office in 2025. However, it is yet to be seen whether Orban’s close relationship with Donald Trump could be leveraged into receiving special treatment over its gas deals with Russia.

Pouring oil on the fire

Experts agree that decoupling from Russian energy sources has been somewhat faster in the oil sector, although ambitions here are also low.

The EU banned all Russian seaborne oil in 2022, but allowed temporary exemptions for landlocked countries like Hungary. MOL is slowly reducing its Russian oil exposure, down now to 70 per cent.

“With a bit more effort, it could go faster,” believes Deak, the energy expert, who adds that “after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there was a huge price advantage for Russian crude oil, but this is no longer the case.”

Gyorgy Bacsa, executive vice president of MOL, told Politico in an interview in November that the company would be ready to switch from Russian crude to other types by 2027 if the EU helps foot the bill for the transformation of its oil refineries. MOL’s two oil refineries in Szazhalombatta and in Bratislava, Slovakia are optimised to process heavy Russian crude, and they need to be retrofitted to process lighter types. The costs are estimated to be around 500 million dollars, which MOL would have to pay for out of its own pocket.

Holoda believes the business sector would have been ready for more diversification, “but politics set another path”. Orban and his government had their eyes on the badly needed extra cash: most of the extra revenue that MOL earned from the spread between Brent crude and Urals crude was siphoned off into the state budget in the form of extra taxes.

Yet oil diversification would be fairly straightforward, experts agree. Croatia’s Adria pipeline is reckoned to have the capacity to fully supply Hungary with non-Russian oil coming via ship to Croatian ports. However, this would come at a price that MOL (and the Hungarian government) is reluctant to pay.

Furthermore, Hungary and Croatia have been at loggerheads for more than a decade, since MOL bought a 49 per cent stake in Croatia’s state energy company INA, including management rights. The Croatian government accused MOL CEO Zsolt Hernadi of bribing former Croatian prime minister Ivo Sanader back in 2009. Sanader was sentenced to prison, while an international arrest warrant was issued for Hernadi.

The MOL chief executive claims the case against him is politically motivated and denies any wrongdoing, but his international travels have been seriously hampered by the case.

“Relations with Croatia need to be normalised, but Zagreb will ask for a price to be paid,” Holoda reasons.

Some experts wonder how the Hungarian government, which is so keen on its national sovereignty, can turn a blind eye to the security risks stemming from its over-reliance on Russian energy.

“The problem with the Hungarian strategy is that the government is not taking into account political and security risks,” an insider speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue.

Only recently, Slovakia’s interior minister, Matus Sutaj Estok, warned that “terrorist groups” were planning an attack on the Druzhba oil pipeline, Hungary’s main supply line. Sabotage of energy infrastructure or an accidental attack on the oil pipeline in Ukraine cannot be ruled out. And then there is the more-or-less articulated desire of the EU to wean itself off Russian fossil fuels completely by 2027.

“Relying on Russian oil and gas may bring short-term gains for the government, but over the longer term the political price Hungary pays for defying its European allies will be higher,” the source warns.

[rachellaurengray]

The Hidden Impacts of Government Secrecy: How Unspoken Policies Affect Individuals

In every democracy, transparency is often considered a cornerstone of governance. Citizens trust that their elected officials will make decisions in their best interest, and they rely on public institutions to provide accurate information about how policies are shaping their lives. However, there are numerous instances where governments, both democratic and authoritarian, choose to withhold critical information from the public. The consequences of these actions may not always be immediately apparent, but their effects can be long-lasting and profoundly impact individual lives.

Here, we explore how the things governments are not saying—or things they are keeping hidden—affect citizens on a personal level. From surveillance programs to economic policies, these hidden realities shape our daily lives in ways that are often outside of our control.

1. Surveillance: The Price of "Security"

In many countries, surveillance programs run by government agencies are extensive and intrusive. While officials argue these measures are essential for national security, especially in the wake of terrorism and cyber threats, citizens often don’t realize how much of their personal data is being collected. From phone records to browsing history, governments may be tracking and storing vast amounts of information on their citizens.

Impact on the Individual: Constant surveillance can erode personal privacy, leading to a society where individuals feel they are always being watched. This can have a chilling effect on free expression—people may be less likely to voice dissent or engage in political discourse if they fear their communications are being monitored. Over time, this can undermine the freedoms that democracies claim to protect.

Long-Term Effects: A lack of transparency about surveillance creates a culture of mistrust, both toward the government and toward fellow citizens. As the scope of surveillance increases, individuals may start questioning whether they can truly trust their personal interactions, especially in the digital space. More dangerously, such data can be hacked, stolen, or misused in ways that further threaten personal security.

2. Covert Military Operations: Global Risks with Local Consequences

Military operations, particularly those involving covert actions, are rarely disclosed to the public. Governments often conduct military strikes, intelligence gathering, or covert operations in foreign countries, all in the name of national security. While these operations are often framed as protecting citizens, the reality is far more complex.

Impact on the Individual: While most individuals might not directly feel the effects of covert military actions, these operations often come with unintended consequences, such as the destabilization of foreign governments, the rise of terrorist groups, or retaliatory attacks. The financial burden of maintaining such operations is also felt through budget deficits, increased taxes, and the shifting focus of public spending.

Long-Term Effects: The hidden costs of these operations can eventually manifest as economic strain or even threats to domestic security. Public trust in the government may decline as individuals feel that their safety has been compromised by foreign entanglements. In the worst-case scenario, domestic terrorist attacks or acts of violence may be a direct result of government actions abroad.

3. Corporate Influence: The Silent Puppeteers

Corporate lobbying is a well-known practice, yet its true extent and influence on government policy are not always fully disclosed. Multinational corporations wield considerable power, often shaping laws, tax policies, and regulations to benefit their bottom lines. This influence can lead to policies that prioritize corporate profits over the well-being of individuals, from environmental deregulation to labor law adjustments.

Impact on the Individual: The most direct consequence of corporate influence on policy is the erosion of workers’ rights and consumer protections. For instance, deregulating industries like energy or finance can lead to environmental degradation, unsafe working conditions, or exploitative business practices. Individuals may find themselves paying higher prices for goods and services that fail to meet adequate safety standards.

Long-Term Effects: Over time, this corporate influence can lead to widening inequality, where the wealthiest corporations and individuals thrive while the average citizen struggles. Public services may be cut, taxes may be raised on the middle class, and the environment may suffer—yet all these outcomes often go unnoticed by a public distracted by other issues.

4. Public Health: The Hidden Truths

Governments often withhold or manipulate public health data to avoid panic or political fallout. Whether it's downplaying the risks of a new disease, hiding the true efficacy of a vaccine, or underreporting health crises, these actions can have significant consequences for the health and safety of citizens.

Impact on the Individual: Without full transparency, individuals cannot make fully informed health decisions. Misinformation about the safety of vaccines, for instance, can lead to unnecessary health risks, both for individuals and communities. Additionally, if the government withholds data on environmental or lifestyle risks (such as the dangers of smoking or pollution), individuals may unknowingly expose themselves to harm.

Long-Term Effects: In the absence of accurate health information, individuals may suffer from preventable diseases or medical conditions. A government that manipulates or suppresses health data also damages its relationship with the public, eroding trust in medical authorities and public health policies.

5. Economic Secrecy: The National Debt and its Hidden Costs

Governments are often less than transparent about the true extent of national debt and unfunded liabilities. While debt accumulation can be necessary for funding infrastructure or responding to crises, the long-term costs are frequently hidden from the public. Governments may downplay the impact of their financial decisions, making it appear that the economy is healthier than it truly is.

Impact on the Individual: Citizens may not realize that the national debt, inflation, or public borrowing will ultimately be paid for through higher taxes or reduced public services. Rising public debt can lead to austerity measures that disproportionately affect the most vulnerable members of society—cutting healthcare, education, or social services while corporate tax breaks remain in place.

Long-Term Effects: Over time, these financial decisions can lead to slower economic growth, increased inequality, and reduced public welfare. As governments struggle with debt repayments, citizens may feel the weight of those decisions through cuts to essential services or increases in the cost of living.

6. The Hidden Costs of Immigration and Border Policies

The topic of immigration is often clouded by political rhetoric, and governments may downplay or distort the impact of immigration policies. While immigrants contribute significantly to economies and cultures, the full implications of immigration policy—whether open borders or strict enforcement—are rarely discussed openly.

Impact on the Individual: Individuals living in areas with significant immigrant populations may face competition for jobs, housing, or social services. However, the benefits of immigration, such as cultural diversity and economic growth, may be overshadowed by fear-mongering or misinformation.

Long-Term Effects: The failure to address the full scope of immigration policy can lead to social tensions, discrimination, and unrest. If governments do not effectively manage immigration, local economies can be strained, and social services may become overburdened. Yet, without proper disclosure, citizens may not understand the full scope of these issues.

7. The Impact of Austerity Measures: Cutting the Safety Net

Austerity measures, often introduced during economic downturns or in response to national debt, are rarely fully explained to the public. These measures involve significant cuts to public services, such as healthcare, education, and welfare, with the goal of reducing the national deficit.

Impact on the Individual: For many, austerity means longer wait times for medical treatments, increased tuition fees, and reduced social services. Individuals may find it harder to make ends meet as governments scale back programs that offer a safety net.

Long-Term Effects: The effects of austerity are felt most acutely by low-income and vulnerable populations. Over time, austerity can lead to increased inequality, social unrest, and even public health crises, as the lack of access to healthcare or education undermines the well-being of citizens.

The Need for Transparency and Accountability

Governments are meant to serve the people, and transparency is essential for maintaining trust between citizens and their leaders. When vital information is hidden or manipulated, the consequences often ripple out to affect the very fabric of society. From personal privacy to economic stability, the policies governments choose not to disclose have far-reaching implications for individuals.

For democracy to thrive, citizens must demand greater transparency and accountability. Understanding the unseen forces shaping our lives can empower us to make informed decisions, push for necessary reforms, and protect our freedoms in an increasingly complex world.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Relationship Between Temporal Discounting and Ethics

Temporal discounting is a cognitive phenomenon where people tend to value immediate rewards more highly than future ones. This tendency to devalue rewards as they move further into the future has significant implications for decision-making, especially in the context of ethical behavior and moral reasoning. Understanding how temporal discounting influences ethical choices can shed light on why individuals might prioritize short-term gains over long-term ethical principles and the broader impact on society.

Understanding Temporal Discounting

Temporal discounting is the preference for smaller, immediate rewards over larger, delayed ones. It is a well-documented phenomenon in psychology and behavioral economics, reflecting how individuals often struggle with self-control and long-term planning. The degree to which individuals discount future rewards can vary, with some showing a stronger preference for immediacy than others.

Ethics and Temporal Discounting

Immediate Gratification vs. Long-term Consequences: Ethical decisions often involve weighing immediate benefits against long-term consequences. For instance, cheating on a test may provide immediate academic success but can undermine personal integrity and trust in the long run. Temporal discounting can lead individuals to prioritize immediate gratification, ignoring the ethical implications of their actions over time.

Environmental Ethics: Temporal discounting significantly impacts environmental ethics. Decisions that favor short-term economic benefits, such as overfishing or deforestation, can have devastating long-term environmental consequences. Ethical considerations require valuing the future health of the planet and the well-being of future generations, which temporal discounting can undermine.

Financial Ethics: In financial contexts, temporal discounting can explain why individuals might engage in unethical behaviors like fraud or embezzlement to gain immediate financial rewards. These actions can lead to severe long-term repercussions, including legal consequences and damaged reputations, highlighting the ethical tension between short-term gains and long-term integrity.

Health and Well-being: Health-related decisions are also influenced by temporal discounting. For example, indulging in unhealthy behaviors for immediate pleasure can lead to long-term health problems. Ethical decision-making in this context involves recognizing and valuing the future health consequences of present actions.

Public Policy and Governance: Policymakers often face ethical dilemmas where short-term political gains are weighed against long-term societal benefits. Temporal discounting can lead to policies that favor immediate results, such as tax cuts or deregulation, while neglecting the long-term ethical considerations of economic stability and social welfare.

Addressing Temporal Discounting in Ethical Decision-Making

Education and Awareness: Increasing awareness about the effects of temporal discounting can help individuals recognize their biases and make more informed ethical decisions. Education programs that highlight the long-term consequences of actions can encourage a more future-oriented perspective.

Incentive Structures: Designing incentive structures that reward long-term ethical behavior can counteract the effects of temporal discounting. For example, offering financial incentives for sustainable practices or long-term health goals can align immediate rewards with ethical principles.

Cognitive Behavioral Strategies: Techniques such as mindfulness and cognitive behavioral strategies can help individuals manage impulsive tendencies and consider long-term consequences more effectively. These strategies can support ethical decision-making by reducing the impact of temporal discounting.

Policy Interventions: Governments and organizations can implement policies that promote long-term ethical behavior. For example, regulations that enforce environmental protections or corporate governance standards can help mitigate the influence of temporal discounting on unethical practices.

The relationship between temporal discounting and ethics underscores the challenges individuals face in balancing immediate desires with long-term ethical principles. By understanding this cognitive bias and its implications, we can develop strategies to promote ethical decision-making that values future consequences. Whether through education, incentive structures, cognitive strategies, or policy interventions, addressing temporal discounting is crucial for fostering a more ethically responsible society.

[lawbyrhys]

"Prosecutor v. Felon" Debate Notes: 09/10/2024

These are notes from an attorney written in my personal shorthand as it pertains to the 2024 Presidential debate between former prosecutor Kamala Harris and 34-time convicted felon Donald Trump. Again, these notes are written in my shorthand has I watch the debate live, and typos may be edited lightly, if at all. I might write a formal long-form post about the debate in addition to these notes, but these are the raw notes taken by me in the moment of the debate itself. Please note that not everything written here—especially Trump's points—is guaranteed factual, but are all taken from the debate itself.

Let's get into the debate by way of my notes.

Economy

Harris: raised as middle class kid, plans to lift middle class. Believes in dream of the people. Opportunity economy. Aims to extent tax cuts of $6k child tax credit for families. Passion is small business. Give $50K tax deduction to small business. Points out Trump billionaire tax cut, Trump sales tax. TST would create $4K increase of middle class taxes.

Trump: Rebuts sales tax, discusses payback tarifs especially from China. He doesn't understand tarifs. We have inflation worse than ever. Defends ever class. Talks about people pouring in from asylums taking jobs from minorities. Says they're violent, says Biden Harris let them in. Have to get them out fast.

Harris response: Lists all of Trump wrongdoing. Says they have cleaned up his mess and built on hopes of people. Calls out his name calling and P25. Talks being president for all.

Trump: Rebuts involvement in P25. Says he's open book will cut taxes create a great economy. Says wrong year of Spanish flu. Talks about covid shit he didn't do lol. He says he created them

Harris: Trump has no plan. Ec plan all about tax breaks for wealthy. Best economists reviewed her plans and says better, Trump worse. Trump exploit deficit. Trump interested in defend himself. Trump interrupts her and talks about himself. Says Kamala copied 4 sentences of Biden plan.

Trump on tariffs: China rips us off for years, will have higher tariffs. We will take in $100B, says he had no inflation. Polls 80/90% on his side

Harris rebut: trade deficit by Trump. He sold US chips to China to improve military there, sold us out. Says Trump thanked Xi.

Trump rebut: we hardly make chips, says Harris has no policy. Trump was gonna send maga hat to Harris. Calls her Marxist. Talks about millions of immigrants pouring in. Criminals etc. Bad for economy. Worse thing to happen to economy.

Abortion

Trump: Says abortion in 9th month, cites former WV gov BS execute bby law. Bashes Waltz, says he condunes execution after birth. Trump takes pride in getting rid of RvW by genius heart and strength of SCOTUS. Believes in exceptions. Says legal scholars, etc wanted issue brought to states. Each state votes, vote of people. Did great service, credits 6 justices.

Harris rebut: calls out bunch of lies. Trump picked SCOTUS conserv justices, 20 states bans. Cites no conserv exceptions as immoral. Not abandon faith to believe in women freedom. Pledges to sign protections into law, says Trump will nationally ban abortion under P25 monitor.

Trump calls it lies, says he won't sign ban. Legal scholars wanted it brought back to states. He did something nobody thought possible. Says not in favor of ban, taken by states doesn't matter. Cites Congress now, not potential after election. Rambles about catastrophe of loans. Slams Biden for beach day.

I took a piss break while he went in circles

Harris rebut: refutes 9mo abortions as insulting, never happens. Couples denied IVF, working women barely afford child care have to travel for healthcare. Majority of Americans believe in woman's rights and red and blue votes agree.

Trump calls this a lie. Says he's leader on IVF. Says Dems will allow 7-9mo abortions.

Immigration and Border Security

Harris: Only person on stage prosecuting trans national criminals. Talks bipartisan border security bill she supported. Allowed to stem flow of fentanyl. Trump called conservative Congress and killed this bill. Says we need a leader, not a Trump who runs on a problem. Invites us to attend Trump rally as it's interesting—Hannibal, windmill cancer, people leaving. He won't talk the American people.

Trump rebut: Responds rallies, says nobody goes to Harris rallies. Says people wanna take country back, says we are failing country 3.5 years and gonna get into WWIII. More immigrants. Springfield OH is eating people's pets. Trump supports like MAGA, says Harris destroys this country. We will be Venezuela on steroids

Mod calls BS on Springfield claims. Trump argues

Harris rebut: laughs about extremity. Talks endorsement of 200 Republicans including Cheneys. Ask former Trump associates about him.

Trump rebut: he's different kinda person. He fired people, but Biden Harris didn't. Bashes Afghanistan withdrawal. Talks smear books. Says BH never fire anybody and rambles. Good way not to have books. Got more votes than any republican or sitting prez by far.

Trump on immigration again back on track: He'd deport higher than 11M immigrants, talks crime drop in Venezuela because criminals are here. Destroying fabric of country. World crime down but here it's through the roof. Migrant crime. Refutes FBI claims of dropping crime as fraud.

Harris rebut: rich for prosecuted criminal, goes through his record. Brings up Nov court case. It's important to move forward, turn the page, address American people needs.

Trump rebut: all cases started against repub by dems, says he's winning most. Weaponized DOJ.

Harris rebut on weaponization: SCOTUS Immunity Ruling, discusses Trump termination of Constitution if elected, weaponize DOJ.

Trump says she weaponized, not him.

Harris on policy shifts: values haven't changed. Fracking won't be banned, we have to invest in diverse energy. We have largest increase in domestic oil prod in history. Middle class hard worker. Calls out Trump privilege and 6-time bankruptcy. Discusses focus on protecting most vulnerable. Values have not changed. Lift people up, not beat people down. Leaders understand.

Trump rebut: Says not given $400M, only a fraction built into billions. Defend police was given up wrongly by Harris. She gave up 12-15 policies. Raised money in MN. Trans operations on immigrants. Says he'll end fracking on day 1. Says Kamala would destroy oil, fuel, etc day 1.

Peaceful Transfer of Power

Trump on Jan. 6

Trump: Trump says he wanted peaceful and patriotic. Says conserv didn't hurt any dems. Rambles about immigrants again. Pelosi babble.

Harris rebut: Charlottesville, fine people on both sides Trump quote, proud boys stand back stand by Trump quote. Won't go back, turn page. Stand for democracy, rule of law

Trump: different term, energy bloodbath. Says Charlottesville was debunked by all news. Defects Capitol critiques with immigration. Says debate waste of time, Harris has been so bad.

Trump is forgetting what he said, says losing by a whisker comment was sarcastic. Our elections are bad, we need walls and borders. If you can't speak English, you shouldn't be able to vote. Refutes Trump election fraud claims as judges said they didn't have standing as fraudulent. We have to solve nation in decline problem.

Harris rebut: Trump was fired by 81M people and has difficulty processing that. We can't have prez who upends free and fair election. Discusses world views on Trump being disgrace. Discusses his lost court cases.

Trump: ass kisses Orban, says Trump is most respected most feared, Biden weak pathetic. Says Biden got 14M votes, Biden hates Harris.

Israel-Hamas War

Harris: Discusses 2023 conflict history. Hamas attack on Israel concert and Israel right to defend itself, but that far too many Palestinians have been hurt and war must end in ceasefire.

Trump: skips issue, discusses Russian-Ukrainian war and friendship with Putin. Says Harris wouldn't meet Netanyahu, Harris hates Israel. Says Harris also hates Arabs, she would blow it all up. Says it'd never happen under Trump. Rambles about middle east, he'd get it settled before he ever becomes president if elected.

Harris: voices support for Israel, calls out Trump dictator on day 1 comment, his friendship with dictators and autocrats.

Trump says 168 country sent us immigrants, says Putin endorsed Harris last week.

Russian-Ukranian War

Trump: wants war to stop, says numbers are all fake. Nobody asks Europe, says Biden Harris don't have the courage to ask. Calls them weak. Says Russian Ukranian leaders respect him. Hell settle the war as president-elect. Refutes if Biden is even a president or knows if he's alive. Says it's US best interest to get this war done.

Harris: reminds Trump he's not running against Biden. Alleges Trump would just give up the war. Discusses US support for Ukraine, bringing 50 countries together. If Trump were president, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv. Putin won't stop at Ukraine, praises NATO power.

Trump: Putin would be happier than he is now, he has nukes and might use them someday. Says Harris caused the war with weak negotiations.

Harris: Calls out all of Trump's lies, discusses our priority to stand up for our allies. Right to rely on president who understands US responsibility and not selling for benefit of personal flattery.

Afghanistan

Harris: Agreed with Biden pull out decision, American taxpayers save $300M/day and no soldiers in combat zone first time this century. Trump bypassed Afghan gov, negotiated with Taliban, lifted tariffs, invited them to Camp David.

Trump rebut: Defends negotiations with Taliban, rambles about head of Taliban, wouldn't have left $85M of military equipment behind. Blames Russian attack on Ukraine on Biden Harris weakness

Race issues

Trump: Doesn't care about Harris identity, refutes his quotes on Harris turning black recently.

Harris: Tragedy that Trump has used race as a division tool, Americans don't want this decision. Reminds us of Trump racist landlord past. Discusses Central Park 5. We don't want leaders who point fingers at each other. Regardless of color etc, we all have dreams and want president who invest in those.

Trump says this is most divisive presidency. Rambled about inflation, economy

Harris brief response: she isn't Biden or Trump, offers new generation of leadership to USA. Discusses tax plans for Americans again.

Trump interrupts about defund the policy, guns, fracking. Obamacare was lousy. He has concepts of a plan. Options of a plan.

Harris on insurance: supports private healthcare options, discusses guns and says she's not taking them away, Obamacare—defends McCain, Trump has no alternative plan. Reminds us about pre existing conditions. Access to healthcare is a right not privilege.

Trump says she made mistake. We can do better than Obamacare, says Harris won't approve private health insurance.

Climate change:

Harris: Trump says it's a faux but it's real. Denied home insurance or expensive insurance as a result. Young people care deeply. As VP invested $1T in clean energy, jobs, etc. Trump lost these. Endorsed by UAW, invest in American made.

Trump: Says manufacturing jobs leaving, owned by China in Mexico. Biden is paid off and corrupt.

Closing statements:

Harris: Mentions to very different visions for country. One on future, one on past. Mentions unity, coming together, having a plan, hopes and aspirations of American people. Investing in families, protecting seniors, giving breaks and bringing down cost of living. Earning respect, military strength. Protect women's rights. Talks legal career and one client; the people. Only cares if people are okay and nothing more. Intent to be president for all Americans.

Trump: Refutes Harris, says she hasn't done anything as VP. Why hasn't she done it? Says she should leave and go do it, but won't because American people don't believe in her ideals. Rips on bad vision. Why didn't she do it? Failing nation. Brags about friendships with leaders. Talks about what he did 4+ years ago, no plans for the future. Wasted entire closing statement.

There you have it—an attorney's real-time notes from the live 2024 Presidential debate. Please let me know what you thought of the debate!