#even as advocate who must not promote any parties by law

[coochiequeens]

If critics are unhappy with surrogacy bans making it harder for gay men to have children because in Italy gay men can only have a civil union and not marriage which makes it harder to adopt then maybe advocates should work on marriage equality and adoption rights instead of......exploiting women

Italy’s new law classifies surrogacy as a universal crime on the same level as terrorism and genocide

Our expectations were low but oh my God.

By Benedetta Geddo Published: Oct 18, 2024 7:13 AM EDT

On Wednesday, October 16, the Italian Senate approved a proposed bill that was already passed last year by the lower house of the Parliament, making surrogacy “a universal crime” punishable according to Italian law no matter where Italian citizens are in the world when committing it.

This new law, whose creation and promotion were carried onwards by members of the Fratelli d’Italia party that is the current government majority, expands on an already existing law dating back to 2004, which bans surrogacy—usually referred to in Italy as “gestation for others” or “renting a uterus”—throughout the country. 

The ban is now placed on Italian citizens no matter where they are in the world, and that technically should go for both the aspiring parents seeking surrogacy as well as any medical staff who facilitates it—who would all face steep fines and even jail time. There remains the question of the practical application of several aspects of this new law, which are fuzzy at best according to several legal experts and even some politicians behind the bill and would present quite the challenge for Italian lawyers and judges during a potential court case.

While statistics reported by The Washington Post show that most of the Italian citizens who travel abroad to have a child are heterosexual couples dealing with infertility issues, this new law would disproportionally affect same-sex couples—particularly gay couples, who would have a harder time explaining their return to Italy with a newborn infant than other couples would. Same-sex couples, in general, are already banned from adoption in Italy—and from marriage since the only union available to them is “a civil union”—and this furthers narrows their chances at becoming parents in a feel that feels very much targeted and could very well be.

This new law is one of the West’s most restrictive ones on the matter, even in Europe where surrogacy is much more constricted than in the United States, and it does certainly send a message about the stance Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her party have on “traditional family values” and reproductive issues—which were already quite clear to begin with. Meloni herself called it “a law against the mercification of the female bodies and of children,” in a post shared on her X (formerly Twitter) account.

Then again, this is ultimately yet another step in a considerable effort to control the culture about reproductive rights—something that isn’t exclusive to Italy but is happening all around the world as policies tend to shift towards the right everywhere. While abortion is firmly allowed in Italy thanks to a law that dates back to 1978, accessing it is often a hard, frustrating, and emotionally painful trial thanks in no small part to the intervention of several pro-life groups right down to hospital’s waiting rooms

This law is another signal in that same direction. One that implies that even though the State doesn’t have any rights on a person’s organs even after their death—since organ donation must be agreed upon by either the person who would be doing the donation or their next of kin, in Italy just like in many other countries around the world—the only exception is a woman’s uterus. On that, apparently, the State has every right to interfere. And that is ultimately the real issue, independent of one’s own personal feelings and opinions about surrogacy.

[getbudslegalize]

Thailand Cannabis Regulations: Essential Weed Rules You Can’t Ignore

Thailand Cannabis Regulations: Essential Weed Rules You Can’t Ignore

Thailand’s cannabis industry is undergoing significant changes with new Thailand cannabis regulations coming into effect on January 1, 2025. While consumers will still have access to a variety of cannabis products, breaking these regulations could lead to serious consequences. In this article, we’ll cover everything you need to know to stay compliant with the updated rules.Understanding Thailand Cannabis RegulationsAs the Thailand drug laws 2024 tighten, it’s important to know the key guidelines that every resident and tourist must follow. Let’s dive into the most important rules to keep in mind.No Public SmokingSmoking cannabis in public spaces, including parks, streets, and crowded areas, will be strictly prohibited. Breaking this rule could lead to hefty fines or even jail time. To avoid trouble, limit your cannabis use to private, designated areas where consumption is allowed. The health ministry is expected to enforce these regulations vigorously, reflecting a broader commitment to public health and safety.THC Limits on ExtractsCannabis extracts containing more than 2% THC will require special permission to purchase or use. This regulation primarily targets high-potency concentrates such as oils, edibles, and tinctures. Always verify THC content when buying extracts to ensure you’re within the legal limit. This is crucial for consumers who may be accustomed to higher concentrations in countries with more liberal cannabis laws.Restrictions on Age and HealthCannabis consumption remains illegal for individuals under 20 years old, as well as pregnant and breastfeeding women. These restrictions are strictly enforced, and those caught violating them can face significant legal consequences, including fines and imprisonment. It’s vital to stay informed about these age restrictions to avoid any legal issues while enjoying the cannabis culture in Thailand.

Is Recreational Marijuana Still Legal in Thailand?Yes! While the government is introducing tighter regulations, there is no outright ban on recreational cannabis use. In a surprising twist, the Pheu Thai Party, which initially sought to reclassify cannabis as a narcotic, has shifted its stance under pressure from the Bhumjaithai Party, which supports the legal use of cannabis. This political back-and-forth reflects the complexities of Thailand legalization and the ongoing evolution of the cannabis landscape.Why the Reversal?The cannabis debate was a major political issue during the last election. The public’s growing acceptance of cannabis, alongside pressure from the Bhumjaithai Party (a major player in Thailand’s ruling coalition), has led to the decision to keep cannabis legal. Deputy Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, a key advocate for cannabis legalization, emerged victorious in this policy battle. This victory not only highlights the shifting attitudes towards cannabis but also sets a precedent for future policies.Cannabis and Healthcare: A Medicinal ApproachWhile recreational use remains legal, the government’s focus is on promoting cannabis as a medicinal herb, aligning with traditional Thai remedies and the global trend of incorporating cannabis into healthcare. Countries like Germany, Australia, and New Zealand have similarly relaxed their cannabis laws to promote its medicinal benefits. This dual approach of allowing both recreational and medical use positions Thailand as a potential leader in Asia's cannabis market.

Thailand’s Influence on Asia’s Cannabis MarketThailand’s progressive stance on cannabis could serve as a model for other Asian countries considering similar reforms. Cannabis advocates in the Philippines, Malaysia, and other parts of Asia are keeping a close eye on Thailand Cannabis News. Should these regulations prove successful, it may spark a green revolution across the region.Global Impact of Thailand’s Cannabis LawsThailand’s legal cannabis market is already attracting international interest, with potential investors and cannabis companies looking to expand into the Thai market. The country’s balanced approach to cannabis use—allowing for recreational use while emphasizing medicinal applications—could become a blueprint for other nations in Asia and beyond.What’s Next for Thailand’s Cannabis Revolution?Anutin Charnvirakul, leader of the Bhumjaithai Party, is pushing ahead with his party’s pro-cannabis agenda. His confidence in the new government’s support for cannabis policies means that Thailand’s cannabis industry is likely to grow stronger in the coming years.The Cannabis Control BillBack in July, Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin struck a deal with Anutin to advance a cannabis control bill. This bill is aimed at regulating cannabis for medical and research purposes, ensuring that the industry is well-regulated and transparent. The shift toward regulation marks a departure from the previous government's more conservative stance on cannabis.Overcoming OppositionWhile the Democrat Party may oppose some of these changes, Anutin remains optimistic. He believes the current Democratic leadership, under Chalermchai Sri-on, is more attuned to the public’s needs and may not have the influence to block the cannabis control bill. This optimism suggests a potential for continued progress in medical cannabis in Thailand.

Bhumjaithai’s Broader Policy AgendaCannabis legalization is just one part of the Bhumjaithai Party’s agenda. Other proposed policies include:- Decentralisation: Promoting more local autonomy in decision-making. - Equal access to education: Ensuring that education is accessible to all Thai citizens. - Better water management: Focusing on sustainable water use and distribution. - Clean energy: Supporting Thailand’s transition to renewable energy sources.Entertainment Complex and Legal CasinoIn addition to cannabis reforms, the Bhumjaithai Party supports the government's plan to develop an entertainment complex, potentially including a legal casino. Anutin has emphasized that any such project must benefit the general public and adhere to strict ethical guidelines.Conclusion: Stay Informed and Enjoy Cannabis SafelyAs Thailand cannabis regulations evolve, it’s essential to stay updated on the latest rules and guidelines. While recreational cannabis remains legal, violations of public smoking laws, THC limits, or age and health restrictions can lead to serious penalties. By following the rules, you can continue to enjoy Thailand’s vibrant cannabis culture responsibly.With the cannabis control bill and other progressive policies on the horizon, Thailand’s cannabis industry is poised to grow—potentially influencing reforms across Asia.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Thailand Cannabis Regulations Is cannabis still legal for recreational use in Thailand? Yes, recreational cannabis remains legal in Thailand. However, new regulations are in place regarding where and how it can be consumed, such as a ban on recreational public smoking and restrictions on THC levels in extracts. What happens if I smoke cannabis in public? Smoking cannabis in public places is illegal and can result in fines or imprisonment. Always use cannabis in private or designated areas to stay compliant with the law. Are there restrictions on THC content? Yes, cannabis extracts with more than 2% THC require special permission. Make sure to check THC levels before purchasing or using any cannabis product. Who is prohibited from using cannabis in Thailand? Individuals under 20, pregnant women, and breastfeeding mothers are prohibited from using cannabis. Violating these rules can result in legal penalties. Will cannabis become classified as a narcotic again? As of now, there are no plans to reclassify cannabis as a narcotic. The government is focusing on regulating its use for medical and research purposes while allowing recreational use under strict guidelines. What are the consequences of breaking Thailand’s cannabis laws? Penalties for breaking Thailand’s cannabis laws can include fines or even jail time, depending on the severity of the offense. How will the new cannabis control bill affect the industry? The new bill is expected to create stricter regulations around licensing and transparency in the cannabis industry, making it more professional and better integrated into the healthcare system. Is CBD legal in Thailand? Yes, CBD products are legal in Thailand, provided they contain no more than 0.2% THC. Is vaping legal in Thailand? Yes, vaping is legal in Thailand, but be mindful of regulations regarding e-liquids containing THC or nicotine.  ILGM Fertilizer 

- From seedling to harvest, give your plants everything they need. - Enough for feeding at least 5 plants. - Discounted Package Deal - Works well in soil, hydroponics, and other growing mediums. - The best way to treat your plants VIEW PRODUCTS & DETAILS Read the full article

[candy-crackpot]

So Hungary had elections Sunday with the variety of

- Nazi1, screeching that Bruxelles or the UN has no right order us around to accept migrants, erected fence around the southern border to keep them out because they they will terrorize us. Fun fact they did accept migrants IF they bought state issued bonds, so it's not that they cannot come, they have to buy their refugee status which is objectively disgusting. They rewrote the constitution so only men and women can wed and be family, they stood up by a sexiat singer who said "it's not a woman's job to earn as much as men, men have wide shoulders to work and women have wide hips to give birth" when he got public backslash. They're racist, sexist, mysoginist, LGBTAQ+phobic. The whole party is led by Viktor Orb@n who the west lovigly calls a dictator. They're not off the mark, they even legalised AN ILLEGITIMATE POLL (AS IT DID NOT REACH 50% OF THE ATTENDACE) TO THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA. You get it. They have 2/3 for the 3rd time.

- Nazi2 with the same agenda with even more antisemitism, added with holocaust sceptics and even more mysoginist views. A member of the party even verbally sexually threatened his secretary that he'd hit and rape her. They got 20%, they will be the second biggest party in the Parlaiment.

- There are some more known parties that is not full of beetles that have ~10%

- There's maybe 1 decent party which wished for openness for lgbtaq community and foreigners and those with multiple national identities. They didn't make it.

- There are fake parties that apply take the funds and disappear

- There's a party called Two Tailed Dog that was just a fucking troll party that promised immortality and the prime minister elect was a chicken mascot and it's 5 min speech was "kluk kluk kluk".

Like, I always knew that this country has always been a hateful shithole with no self-awareness at all but seriously? So many people bought that dumb shit shoved down their throats? And then they wonder why everyone fucking leaves. We're so fucked.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 19, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

This morning, on the Fox News Channel’s Fox & Friends, personality Steve Doocy told viewers to get the coronavirus vaccine because it would “save your life” and noted that 99% of the people now dying from Covid-19 are unvaccinated. Brian Kilmeade answered that not getting the vaccine is a personal choice and that the government has no role in protecting the population. “That’s not their job. It’s not their job to protect anybody,” he said.

It is, of course, literally the job of the government to protect us. The preamble to the Constitution reads: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

But Kilmeade’s extraordinary comment cuts to the heart of the long history from the New Deal to the present.

In the 1930s, to combat the Great Depression, Democrats under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had offered a “new deal for the American people.” That New Deal meant that the government would no longer work simply to promote business, but would regulate business, provide a basic social safety net, and promote infrastructure. World War II accelerated the construction of that active government, and by the time it was over, Americans quite liked the new system.

After the war, Republican Dwight Eisenhower rejected the position of 1920s Republicans and embraced the active government. He explained that in the modern world, the government must protect people from disasters created by forces outside their control, and it must provide social services that would protect people from unemployment, old age, illness, accidents, unsafe food and drugs, homelessness, and disease.

He called his version of the New Deal “a middle way between untrammeled freedom of the individual and the demands of the welfare of the whole Nation.” One of his supporters explained that, “If a job has to be done to meet the needs of the people, and no one else can do it, then it is the proper function of the federal government.”

In this, Eisenhower and his team were echoing Abraham Lincoln, who thought about government at a time when elite southern enslavers insisted that government had no role to play in the country except in protecting property.

As a young man, Lincoln had watched his town of New Salem, Illinois, die because the settlers—hard workers, eager to make the town succeed—could not dredge the Sangamon River to promote trade by themselves. Lincoln later mused, “The legitimate object of government is ‘to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves.’…Making and maintaining roads, bridges, and the like; providing for the helpless young and afflicted; common schools; and disposing of deceased men's property, are instances.”

So Eisenhower and his fellow Republicans were in line with traditional Republican values when they declared their support for an active government. But those who objected to what became known as the post–World War II liberal consensus rejected the idea that the government had any role to play in the economy or in social welfare.

In 1954, William F. Buckley, Jr., and his brother-in-law L. Brent Bozell, Jr., made no distinction between the liberal consensus and international communism when they defended Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy for his attacks on “communists” in the U.S. government. They insisted that the country was made up of “Liberals,” who were guiding the nation toward socialism, and “Conservatives,” like themselves, who were standing alone against the Democrats and Republicans who made up a majority of the country and liked the new business regulations, safety net, and infrastructure.

That reactionary mindset came to dominate the Republican Party after 1980, and now, forty years later, a television personality is taking the stand that the government has no role in protecting Americans against a worldwide pandemic that has killed more than 600,000 of us.

And yet, the idea that the government has a role to play in the economy remains popular, and this is creating a problem for Republicans. As soon as they took office, President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan without any Republican votes. About 60% of Americans liked the plan, and it is likely to be more popular still now that checks from the Child Tax Credit extended in it began hitting parents’ bank accounts on July 15. Even before that, at least 26 Republicans were touting the benefits of the measure to their constituents while neglecting to mention they voted against it.

Now, Congress is negotiating a two-part infrastructure plan. Biden and the Democrats have worked hard for three months to get at least 10 Republican senators to agree to a $579 billion measure that would provide hard infrastructure like roads, bridges, and broadband. Negotiators are still hammering out that agreement and Democrats are making concessions; yesterday, Ohio Senator Rob Portman, a Republican, told CNN that a provision to pay for the package in part by enforcing tax laws against those ignoring them bothered Republicans enough that negotiators cut it.

And yet tonight, leading Republicans said they would not vote to advance the bill on Wednesday, citing the fact it is not fully written. Since both parties regularly move their measures forward under such circumstances, many Democrats simply see this as a delaying tactic to try to kill the measure before Congress starts a month-long break on August 6. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has said for weeks that he would bring the bill up in mid-July.

If the bipartisan bill fails, the Democrats can simply fold the provisions in it into their larger infrastructure bill that they intend to pass through budget reconciliation, which cannot be blocked by a filibuster. This larger, $3.5 trillion measure includes funding for human infrastructure, such as childcare, and for addressing climate change. It also will move corporate taxation from the 21% established by the 2017 tax cut up to about 28%. (It was 35% before the 2017 tax cut.)

The Democrats need to get these measures through because they are facing serious financial deadlines. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 suspended the debt ceiling—the amount the country can borrow—only until July 31 of this year. And the budget needs to be hammered out by September 30. If it isn’t, government funding can be extended by a continuing resolution, but in the past, Republicans have sometimes chosen to shut down the government instead.

All of this will take place while the House select committee to investigate the January 6 insurrection will be holding hearings. Today, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) made it clear he intends to disrupt those hearings: three of the five people he named to the committee—Jim Banks (R-IN), Jim Jordan (R-OH), and Troy Nehls (R-TX)—voted to challenge the election results in Pennsylvania and Arizona, thus helping to legitimize the Big Lie that led to the insurrection.

McCarthy made Banks the ranking member, suggesting that he expects House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to reject Jordan, but there is already outcry at the idea of any of these three investigating events in which they participated. Already, Banks has indicated that he is not really interested in studying the events of January 6, saying tonight that Speaker Pelosi “created this committee solely to malign conservatives and to justify the Left’s authoritarian agenda.”

McCarthy’s other two appointments are Kelly Armstrong (R-ND), and Rodney Davis (R-IL).

In today’s struggle over the nature of government, the Democrats are at a disadvantage. They want to use the government to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, just as Lincoln and FDR and Eisenhower advocated. To drive their individualist vision, though, all the Republicans have to do is stop the Democrats.

—-

Notes:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/brian-kilmeade-says-its-not-governments-job-to-protect-anybody-from-covid

https://www.mediamatters.org/coronavirus-covid-19/defending-people-who-dont-want-get-vaccinated-brian-kilmeade-argues-its-not

https://news.yahoo.com/senator-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-loses-171317546.html

https://capaction.medium.com/25-and-counting-republicans-who-voted-no-but-took-the-dough-68fbf11df957

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/upcoming-congressional-fiscal-policy-deadlines

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/19/gop-infrastructure-deal-500166

​​https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/07/senate-democrats-unveil-reconciliation-progressive-aim-at-moderates/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jim-jordan-four-other-republicans-chosen-by-house-minority-leader-kevin-mccarthy-to-serve-on-panel-investigating-jan-6-riots/2021/07/19/85c6b534-e8df-11eb-8950-d73b3e93ff7f_story.html

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[quakerjoe]

American states are abruptly facing their worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that more than 25 percent of state revenues have evaporated because of the pandemic. Demands on state health-care budgets, state unemployment systems, and state social-welfare benefits are surging. By the summer of 2022, the state budget gap could total half a trillion dollars.

States need help. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell does not want to provide it. On The Hugh Hewitt Show on April 23, McConnell proposed another idea. Instead of more federal aid, states should cut their spending by declaring bankruptcy:

“I would certainly be in favor of allowing states to use the bankruptcy route. It saves some cities. And there’s no good reason for it not to be available. My guess is their first choice would be for the federal government to borrow money from future generations to send it down to them now so they don’t have to do that. That’s not something I’m going to be in favor of.”

McConnell expanded on the state-bankruptcy concept later that same day in a phone interview with Fox News’s Bill Hemmer:

“We’re not interested in solving their pension problems for them. We’re not interested in rescuing them from bad decisions they've made in the past, we’re not going to let them take advantage of this pandemic to solve a lot of problems that they created themselves [with] bad decisions in the past.”

McConnell’s words instantly attracted attention, criticism, even some derision. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo blasted the idea as “dumb,” “irresponsible,” and “petty”:

“How do you think this is going to work? And then to suggest we’re concerned about the economy, states should declare bankruptcy. That’s how you’re going to bring this national economy back? By states declaring bankruptcy? You want to see that market fall through the cellar? … I mean, if there’s ever a time for humanity and decency, now is the time.”

Cuomo’s fervent rebuttal grabbed the cameras. It did not settle the issue. State bankruptcy is not some passing fancy. Republicans have been advancing the idea for more than a decade. Back in 2011, Jeb Bush and Newt Gingrich published a jointly bylined op-ed advocating state bankruptcy as a solution for the state of California. The Tea Party Congress elected in 2010 explored the idea of state bankruptcy in House hearings and Senate debates. Newt Gingrich promoted it in his run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

To understand why Republicans want state bankruptcy, it’s necessary to understand what bankruptcy is—and what it is not.

A bankruptcy is not a default. States have defaulted on their debts before; that is not new. Arkansas defaulted in the depression year of 1933. Eight states defaulted on canal and railway debt within a single year, 1841. The Fourteenth Amendment required former Confederate states to repudiate their Civil War debts.

A default is a sovereign act. A defaulting sovereign can decide for itself which—if any—debts to pay in full, which to repay in part, which debts to not pay at all.

Bankruptcy, by contrast, is a legal process in which a judge decides which debts will be paid, in what order, and in what amount. Under the Constitution, bankruptcy is a power entirely reserved to the federal government. An American bankruptcy is overseen in federal court, by a federal judge, according to federal law. That’s why federal law can allow U.S. cities to go bankrupt, as many have done over the years. That’s why the financial restructuring of Puerto Rico can be overseen by a federal control board. Cities and territories are not sovereigns. Under the U.S. Constitution, U.S. states are.

Understand that, and you begin to understand the appeal of state bankruptcy to Republican legislators in the post-2010 era.

Since 2010, American fiscal federalism has been defined by three overwhelming facts.

First, the country’s wealthiest and most productive states are overwhelmingly blue. Of the 15 states least reliant on federal transfers, 11 are led by Democratic governors. Of the 15 states most reliant on federal transfers, 11 have Republican governors.

Second, Congress is dominated by Republicans. Republicans controlled the House for eight of the last 10 years; the Senate for six. Because of the Republican hold on the Senate, the federal judiciary has likewise shifted in conservative and Republican directions.

A state bankruptcy process would thus enable a Republican Party based in the poorer states to use its federal ascendancy to impose its priorities upon the budgets of the richer states.

When Cuomo protested McConnell’s bankruptcy idea, the New York governor raised the risk of chaos in financial markets. But McConnell does not advocate state bankruptcy in order to subject state bondholders to hardship. Obviously not! When McConnell spoke to Hewitt about fiscally troubled states, he did not address their bond debt. He addressed their pension debt. State bankruptcy is a project to shift hardship onto pensioners while protecting bondholders—and, even more than bondholders, taxpayers.

Republican plans for state bankruptcy sedulously protect state taxpayers. The Bush-Gingrich op-ed of 2011 was explicit on this point. A federal law of state bankruptcy “must explicitly forbid any federal judge from mandating a tax hike,” they wrote. You might wonder: Why? If a Republican Senate majority leader from Kentucky is willing to squeeze Illinois state pensioners, why would he care about shielding Illinois state taxpayers? The answer is found in the third of the three facts of American fiscal federalism.

United States senators from smaller, poorer red states do not only represent their states. Often, they do not even primarily represent their states. They represent, more often, the richest people in bigger, richer blue States who find it more economical to invest in less expensive small-state races. The biggest contributor to Mitch McConnell’s 2020 campaign and leadership committee is a PAC headquartered in Englewood, New Jersey. The second is a conduit for funds from real-estate investors. The third is the tobacco company Altria. The fourth is the parcel delivery service UPS. The fifth is the Eli Lilly pharmaceutical corporation. The sixth is the home health-care company, LHC Group. The seventh is the Blackstone hedge fund. And so on and on.

A federal bankruptcy process for state finances could thus enable wealthy individuals and interest groups in rich states to leverage their clout in the anti-majoritarian federal system to reverse political defeats in the more majoritarian political systems of big, rich states like California, New York, and Illinois.

No question, many states face serious problems with their unfunded liabilities to state retirees. Illinois’s liability nears $140 billion, and its municipalities are liable for additional billions. California’s state and local unfunded liabilities amount to $1.5 trillion.

Those liabilities are often described as “pension” liabilities, but they are driven above all by faster-than-expected increases in retiree health-care costs. They need to be addressed, and addressing them will be a tough policy challenge. It will be a tough legal challenge, too, since those liabilities are often—as in Illinois—inscribed into the state's constitution.

Difficult and important as these problems are, they are not urgent problems. They existed 24 months ago; they will remain 24 months from now. From a strictly economic point of view, McConnell's schemes for state bankruptcy are utterly irrelevant to the present crisis. Reducing future pension liabilities will not replenish lost revenues or reduce suddenly crushing social-welfare burdens.

But McConnell seems to be following the rule “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” He’s realistic enough to recognize that the pandemic probably means the end not only of the Trump presidency, but of his own majority leadership. He’s got until January to refashion the federal government in ways that will constrain his successors. That’s what the state-bankruptcy plan is all about.

McConnell gets it. Now you do, too.

- DAVID FRUM

[jordainejohnson101]

Child Rights

The aim of the Convention is to set standards for the defense of children against the neglect and abuse they face to varying degrees in all countries every day. It is careful to allow for the different cultural, political and material realities among states. The most important consideration is the best interest of the child. The rights set out in the Convention can be broadly grouped in three sections:

•Provision: the right to possess, receive or have access to certain things or services (e.g. a name and a nationality, health care, education, rest and play and care for disabled and orphans).

•Protection: the right to be shielded from harmful acts and practices (e.g. separation from parents, engagement in warfare, commercial or sexual exploitation and physical and mental abuse).

•Participation: The child’s right to be heard on decisions affecting his or her life. As abilities progress, the child should have increasing opportunities to take part in the activities of society, as a preparation for adult life (e.g. freedom of speech and opinion, culture, religion and language.

The following articles provides the rights, parental responsibility and protection of children in Jamaica. These are as follows:

•Article 1: Definition of the child

Every human being below 18 years unless majority is attained earlier according to the law applicable to the child.

•Article 2: Non discrimination

All rights must be granted to each child without exception. The State must protect the child without exception. The State must protect the child against all forms of discrimination.

•Article 3: Best interests of the child

In all actions concerning children, the best interest of the child shall be the major consideration.

•Article 4: Implementation of rights

The obligation on the State to ensure that the rights in the Convention are implemented.

•Article 5: Parents, family, community rights and responsibilities

States are to respect the parents and family in their child rearing function.

•Article 6: Life, survival and development

The right of the child to life and the state’s obligation to ensure the child’s survival and development.

•Article 7: Name and nationality

The right from birth to a name, to acquire a nationality and to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

•Article 8: Preservation of identity

The obligation of the State to assist the child in reestablishing identity if this has been illegally withdrawn.

•Article 9: Non-separation from parents

The right of the child to retain contact with his parents in cases of separation. If separation is the result of detention, imprisonment or death the State shall provide the information to the child or parents about the whereabouts of the missing family member.

•Article 10: Family reunification

Requests to leave or enter country for family reunification shall be dealt with in a human manner. A child has the right to maintain regular contacts with both parents when these live in different States.

•Article 11: Illicit transfer and non-return of children

The State shall combat child kidnapping by a partner or third party.

•Article 12: Expression of opinion

The right of the child to express his or her opinion and to have this taken into consideration.

•Article 13: Freedom of expression and information

The right to seek, receive and impart information in various forms, including art, print, writing.

•Article 14: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

States are to be respect the rights and duties of parents to provide direction to the child in the exercise of this right in accordance with the child’s evolving capacities.

•Article 15: Freedom of association

The child’s right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly.

•Article 16: Privacy, honour, reputation

No child shall be subjected to interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence.

•Article 17: Access to information and media

The child shall have access to information from a diversity of sources; due attention shall be paid to minorities and guidelines to protect children from harmful material shall be encouraged.

•Article 18: Parental responsibility

Both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing of the child and assistance shall be given to them in the performance of the parental responsibilities.

•Article 19: Abuse and neglect (while in family or care)

States have the obligation to protect children from all forms of abuse. Social programmes and support services shall be made available.

•Article 20: Alternative care for children in the absence of parents

The entitlement of the child to alternative care with national laws and the obligation on the State to pay due regard to continuity in the child’s religious, cultural, linguistic or ethnic background in the provision of alternative care.

•Article 21: Adoption

States are to ensure that only authorised bodies carry out adoption. Inter-country adoption may be considered if national solutions have been exhausted.

•Article 22: Refugee children

Special protection is to be given to refugee children.

States shall cooperate with international agencies to this end and also to reunite children separated from the families.

•Article 23: Disabled children

The right to benefit from special care and education for a fuller life in society.

•Article 24: Health care

Access to preventive and curative health care services as well as the gradual abolition of traditional practices harmful to the child.

•Article 25: Periodic review

The child who is placed for care, protection or treatment has the right to have the placement reviewed on a regular basis.

•Article 26: Social security

The child’s right to social security

•Article 27: Standard of living

Parental responsibility to provide adequate living conditions for the child’s development even when one of the parents is living in a country other than the child’s place of residence.

•Article 28: Education

The right to free primary education, the availability of vocational educating, and the need for measures to reduce the drop-out rates.

•Article 29: Aims of education

Education should foster the development of the child’s personality and talents, preparation for a responsible adult life, respect for human rights as well as the cultural and national values of the child’s country and that of others.

•Article 30: Children of minorities and indigenous children

The right of the child belonging to a minority or indigenous group to enjoy his or her culture, to practise his or her own language.

•Article 31: Play and recreation

The right of the child to play, recreational activities and to participate in cultural and artistic life.

•Article 32: Economic exploitation

The right of the child to protection against harmful forms of work and against exploitation.

Article 33: Narcotic and psychotic substances

Protection of the child from their illicit use and the utilisation of the child in their production and distribution.

•Article 34: Sexual exploitation

Protection of the child from sexual exploitation including prostitution and the use of children in pornographic materials.

•Article 35: Abduction, sale and traffic

State obligation to prevent the abduction, sale of or traffic in children.

•Article 36: Other forms of exploitation

Children should be protected from any activities that could harm their development.

•Article 37: Torture, capital punishment, deprivation of liberty

Obligation of the State vis-a-vis children in detention.

•Article 38: Armed conflicts

Children under 15 years are not to take a direct part in hostilities. No recruitment of children under 15.

•Article 39: Recovery and reintegration

State obligations for the reeducation and social reintegration of child victims of exploitation, torture or armed conflicts.

•Article 40: Juvenile justice

Treatment of child accused of infringing the penal law shall promote the child’s sense of dignity.

•Article 41: Rights of the child in other instruments

If the laws of a particular country protect children better than the articles of the Convention, then those laws should stay.

•Article 42: Dissemination of the Convention

The state’s duty to make the convention known to adults and children.

•Article 43-54: Implementation

These paragraphs provide for a Committee on the Rights of the Child to oversee implementation of the Convention.

Agencies with Responsibilities for Children in Jamaica

• Child Development Agency

•Office of the Children’s Registry

• Centre for the Investigation of Sexual Offences and Child Abuse

•Department of Correctional Services

• Office of the Children’s Advocate

[quicklyseverebird]

Why I became politically activated (agitated), or why I became a Trump supporter.

All the cards on the table, I doubt anyone will read this, especially anyone to whom it might make a difference or change a mind.  This is a textual equivalent to shouting into the wind, and at the moment of writing these words, I don’t even know if I will post them anywhere.  Yet I find clarity in writing things out, and in light of the state of our country, I want to organize my stream of consciousness to see why and how I got here, to where I stand now, at this point of time.

I used to pride myself on my lack of political involvement.  I used to all but sneer when people got all worked up about political issues.  Such things were distant and had no seeming impact on my life, though I did my civic duty and voted whenever possible, because that’s what you do in a republic, and you have no right to complain about the results if you did nothing to affect them.

So, when Trump first mentioned that he was running for president, I just rolled my eyes and chuckled like anyone else.  He was vain, self-promoting and way too quick on the Twitter finger.  He’s no one I would want to have over for dinner, but now I’m glad he won and I hope he wins again.  I don’t think anyone else’s ego would have been able to weather the storm we’ve gone through over the past 4 years.  Especially not a politician, who survives mainly by going wherever the wind of public opinion blows.

But I’m not a Republican, so I can’t vote in their primaries, so when he rose to the top, I was as surprised as anyone else.  So, who was my other option?

Hillary Clinton, the poster child of political corruption and cronyism, whose scandals and crimes make a bigger volume than all the books she’s written explaining(complaining) about her loss.

2016 is when I had my political awakening and started to really look around at what was happening in the culture around me.  Perhaps it was because I was a parent to a child on the cusp of adolescence who would soon start to be immersed in it.  What I saw terrified me.

America had a rising group of Nazis infiltrating our culture.  And I don’t mean the stereotypical skin heads we all revile and view with disgust.  And I don’t mean the paltry 10-11k white supremacists in our country of 365 million (per Anti-defamation League data).  No one took them all that seriously, because their bigotry was all too obvious, easily exposed, and they were, quite frankly, too few to matter.

No, I mean a real group of extremists who were Nazi’s in all but name.  Who actually made a point of labeling anyone who disagreed with them a Nazi, in fact.  Who with seeming ignorance of the historical irony of their actions, re-enacted every deed performed by the black and brown shirts of pre-WWII fascist Europe.  They worked to shut down free speech (of anyone whose position differed from their own), attacked and intimidated anyone who challenged them with threats physical, verbal, professional and political, advocating literal book burning, public destruction of property, and most sneaky of all, enacting a new form of acceptable racism into a form that some have compared to a state-sponsored cult or religion.  I saw the blossom in 2016, and now I am seeing the fruit.

A couple weeks ago, I watched, in horror, live on television as the Krystal Naught was reenacted in my own city and cities across the country.  Since then I’ve seen these groups claim territory, terrorize and destroy businesses and residents’ homes.  Most often—again in seeming unconscious irony—those belonging to the very people they claimed to be fighting in support of.  The term terrorist is apt, as well as zealot.  They subvert groups of well-meaning people to their own political ends and rain down terror on anyone who disagrees with them, up to and including actual physical harm, and provoking situations that wind up in death.

They are left wing, just as the Nazi’s were, born from a communist/Marxist foundation with an emphasis on race, instead of class, as their dividing point.  It’s not the proletariat and bourgeoisie anymore, it’s <insert minority group> vs white.  The irony that most of these individuals are themselves, white, seems—of course—to be lost on them.  Fascism is socialism with a nationalistic and racial focus.  It was invented by a student of Marx as a way of making socialism feasible.  Apart from the nationalistic bent, this group follows the same formula.  Anyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi or some kind of “-ist” or “-phobic.”  It’s a marvelous rhetorical device.  Say you’re not racist, well that that’s proof that you are!  Try and bring up a factual point that disagrees with them, and they slap you with a label and claim through intersectionality politics that they don’t have to listen to you or any facts you might have to offer because you are from the “wrong group.”  They only have to listen to details or views on an issue from a group appointed and designated by their ideology.  No one else could ever offer a differing position.  And those from the group in question who DO disagree with them?  Well obviously, they are “race traitors” and their views don’t matter either.  After all, a person is only a part of the “right group” if they agree with these people.  If this took place in Nazi Germany, they would have been called “Jew-lovers.”  I’ve literally watched people of color assaulted, abused, called racial slurs, by white people.  (yes, there’s that irony again.)  I’ve watched POC being told by these individuals, unaware of their actual skin color, to check their white privilege because obviously they have to be white if they disagree with their position.  I see this inherent and rampant racism every time I post my own views and watch as people assume I’m a white man because…I hold the “wrong view.”  Why would race even matter to whether or not what is being said is true or accurate, unless you're a racist?  They have all their groups in neat and tidy boxes, with their assigned positions and “proper,” “permitted” viewpoints and anyone straying from the herd must be culled.  I’ve watched them tear down statues of the men who gave them their rights, and statues of the men who freed slaves or died to free them, even black heroes!  They’ve torn down statues built to commemorate abolitionists in the name of…racism…  They paint a street, claiming that it is free speech, but when someone else paints on the same street, it’s a hate crime.

They are, in fact, the most racist people in our country, and they revel in it because they feel it’s justified.  Place any of these people in Nazi Germany and they would be chomping at the bit alongside the Fuhrer at the "outrages" the Jewish race had inflicted on their country and the "privileges" they possessed.  Their racism is “justified!”  It is “right!”  I have no doubt that, if our skin color didn’t already distinguish us from one another, the mobs roaming our cities now would be demanding something akin to pink triangles or stars of David be worn by the designated parties.  We can see their racism clearly wherever they find a position of power and are allowed to organize themselves.  We watched an utterly self-unaware Chaz/Chop re-institute Jim Crow laws and create race-designated locations, parks, gardens, etc.  Whenever they find themselves in power, they organize themselves along racial lines.  Given enough time, they would probably have created separate bathrooms and drinking fountains.

Like the Nazi’s of Germany, they thrive on division and fear.  It gave the Germans a sense of purpose and pride coming out of the Great Depression following WWI.  In today’s world, they never would have risen so far or so fast if not for the economic devastation following Covid-19 and the many frustrated, unemployed, frightened people it left in its wake.

And they do it all in the name of “racial” or “social” justice, and justify their rampant racism that way. They excuse their racism in the name of…racism.  It leaves one wondering if these are either the most historically ignorant and self-unaware people in human history, or if they are literally evil.  And I don’t use the term evil hyperbolically.  I don’t mean mustache-twirling villains in black.  No one really evil believes they are evil.  The Devil himself thought his actions justified.  Evil always justifies itself, masks itself as good, and this allows them to do even greater harm, for no one does more damage than an intellectual fool who believes they are doing the right thing.  The only thing greater than mankind’s tendency towards evil is our ability to convince ourselves that it is good.  And oh, they lie, and they lie, and they lie.  They lie about events where they were the aggressors.  They lie and even post videos of the event proving they are lying, boasting about their lies, because they know that they won't be held accountable, and their lie is being spread faster than the truth, and the people in authority will allow this.  Far from being counter-cultural, they are now a state-sponsored, state-supported non-theistic religion.  The similarities with a cult are creepy.

The truth is, they aren't interested in eliminating racism. In fact, as we can see from these protests, they make racism worse!  And they do so deliberately.  Why?  Because they aren't interested in lives, no matter the color.  They aren't interested in actual justice.  More black lives alone have been killed by these protests, by actual BLM and Antifa people, than unarmed black men were killed by cops across the country in all of 2019.  Perhaps we should defund/disband them.  They are militarizing racism the same way the Nazi's did, to gain power.  It's not about lives, it's not about actual violence or inequality, it's about the Movement. It's about gaining power and influence in society.  And it is working the same way it did back in Germany.  When you have literally white, leftist people attacking and calling black people racial slurs because they don't agree with their positions, and then claiming they are against racism....

So, let’s see here.  We have an international organization born from the German Communist Party, with localized cells but a unified ideology, cooperative networks, shared finances, a common uniform, trademarked logos and merchandise, who ferment racial tensions to gain political power, create divisions between communities, seek to destroy anyone who would stand in their way through threat of violence and intimidation, destroy history, hide in screens of “useful idiots” seeking to be a part of a cause that they stir into “protests” so they can create further unrest and violence, all so they can gain power for their ideology.  And all the while, claiming to be the victims of the people they attack so they can claim the moral high ground.  Self-defense in the face of the mob is “racist.”  Protecting your property is a sign of “privilege” that must be purged, even as they loot, burn, destroy homes and businesses of the people whose lives they claim to want to protect.  

Explain to me how, exactly, they aren’t exactly like the Nazi’s before the rise of Hitler?  They are a socialist organization, with a racial element that use intimidation, threats of violence, doxing, actual violence and harm to anyone who disagrees with them or stands in their way to gain political and social power.  A literally evil ideology that has caused more death and suffering to mankind than any other in history, that has failed everywhere it was implemented.

And all the while the media propaganda praises them, just as they did Hitler (who himself won Time’s Man of the Year award, recall).

If you want to know if you are one of the good guys, then ask, which side supports freedom of speech?  Which supports liberty?  Which side doesn't advocate for violence as a means to their ends?  Which side are literally attacking their opponents?  Are people better off when you are in control, or not?  I think we can look at the smoldering ruins of our cities to decide where these extremists stand.

So, why did I become politically activated/agitated?  It wasn’t some YouTube channel “radicalizing” me.  I am not a MAGA fanatic or Trump fan.  What motivated me was seeing the rise of a new, evil authoritarian power in America.  They wear a different mask, but their actions speak for themselves.  They are the REAL neo-Nazis.  It doesn’t matter what they call themselves now.  You can change your name, but your deeds remain.  Your title doesn’t define you; your actions do.  If it quacks like a duck….  The Right didn’t pull me to their side, you on the left drove me here in fear for my life and the future of this country.  The fear is only growing now as I see official after official bow (sometimes literally) to these groups.  If they gain any more political power, I shudder to think of the world my daughter will inherit.  Will she be the new Anne Frank?  The Right isn’t the one making threats or calling me names if I disagree with them.  You are.  They don’t threaten my life or my family’s future.  You do.  They aren’t the people approaching with devastation in their wake.  You are.  You activated me.  I can only hope enough other people will see you for what you are and be activated as well.  God help us all if you ever gain power.  Some of them are literally already calling for anyone who disagrees with them to be imprisoned in "re-education" camps.  No lie.  This cannot happen.  Never again.

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

Alternate History Scenario

July 1944, as the war rages on in Europe, it’s election season back stateside.  President Franklin D. Roosevelt is running for an unprecedented 4th term in office, but Democratic party leaders are at odds with the sitting Vice President, Henry A. Wallace.  Wallace is leading figure of the Progressive Movement, advocating for racial desegregation, gender equality, and a national healthcare system.  He is accused of being a communist, and the electors at the Democratic National Convention prepare to replace him with the much more moderate Missouri Senator Harry S. Truman.

Point of Divergence: In our timeline Truman replaces Wallace as Roosevelt’s running mate, but in this timeline Wallace is able to convince the Democratic establishment to let him stay on the ticket.  He is re-elected as Roosevelt’s Vice President instead of Truman, and succeeds to the presidency itself when Roosevelt dies of a brain hemorrhage in April 1945.

President Wallace advances American social policy by several decades.  He desegregates schools instead of Eisenhower, he fights for a Civil Rights Act instead of Kennedy and Johnson, he even considers conciliatory talks with the Soviet Union instead of Reagan and Bush.  Now, not all of his ideas become law, he still faces heavy opposition from both Republicans and the conservative southern faction of his own Democratic party.

This United States would never have dropped nuclear bombs on Japan.  The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had little to do with expediting the wars end, they were proof-of-concept tests to see the effects of the newly invented atom bomb on populated areas.  How did roads and buildings hold up?  How many people died?  How far did the fires spread?  Was there any residual radiation?  They were also intended to act deterrence against the Soviet Union; Truman wanted to show off his new toys to make sure Stalin didn’t try to invade Japan or China or Korea.  Wallace would have waited for the Japanese to surrender on their own, which they were preparing to do anyway; the war would end in September, perhaps only a few days later than in our own timeline.

Harry Truman nominated 2 justices to the Supreme Court in his first term following a resignation in 1945 and a death in 1946.  Under Wallace, the circumstances would likely be similar, but his choice of justices would be vastly different.  Truman chose Associate Justice Harold Hitz Burton because he was a Republican, his nomination meant to be an olive branch offered across the aisle.  Wallace would have nominated a Progressive Democrat instead.  Truman chose Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson because they had worked together in Congress in the 30s.  A Wallace-appointed Chief Justice would swing the entire court hard to the Left; he would have chosen someone in line with the late Justice Louis Brandeis and current Justice William Douglas, both of whom are considered the most liberal justices in modern Supreme Court history.

We might see a landmark decision like Brown v. Board of Education in the late 40s rather than the mid-50s, which would see the Civil Rights Movement kick off earlier as well, stretching through the 40s and 50s instead of the 50s and 60s.  Martin Luther King Jr. would be a prominent figure of the movement, though not the leader (at least not from the start) because he would have been in his late teens/early 20s.  He would be closer to our version of John Lewis, another prominent leader who was 11 years King’s junior.  Wallace would be much more likely to work with Black leaders to end segregation than Truman, and would almost certainly have to federalize the National Guard to integrate colleges in the Deep South as Eisenhower had.

Conservative opposition would be much more pronounced in this timeline than in ours; Truman was middle-of-the-road, while Wallace would be seen as a radical who must be stopped.  Instead of renominating their moderate 1944 candidate Thomas E. Dewey in 1948, Republicans would rally behind the super conservative Robert A.Taft, son of President/Chief Justice William Howard Taft.  The conservative southern Democrats (”Dixiecrats”) would likely run segregationist Strom Thurmond as a third-party candidate, the same as they did in our timeline, splitting the vote and hurting Wallace’s chances at re-election.

1948 would be a crossroads for the United States; if Wallace won, the country would push forward with more New Deal era policies and the fight for equality.  If Taft won, the next decade would see a great step backwards for civil rights, as a 48 Taft presidency means no 52 Eisenhower presidency; Eisenhower was a moderate who fought for integration, whereas Taft thought the Nuremberg Trials were too hard on the Nazis, opposed NATO, and wanted to directly declare war on the Soviet Union.  Nowhere in Taft’s Wikipedia article does it once mention his stance on segregation, civil rights, or race in general, but we can assume he would see Wallace’s domestic agenda as communist propaganda.

The Cold War would be handled very differently under Presidents Wallace or Taft.  Wallace would try to ease tensions, while Taft would be a proponent of brinkmanship, that is to say he would be more willing to skirt the edge of disaster to try and make the Soviets stand down.  He was the leading voice of opposition against Truman’s decision to commit troops to Korea, and while in our timeline he did not consider the Soviets to be an urgent threat, in this timeline he would be quick to compare Wallace’s America to the communist regimes of the east, likely allowing the US to be drawn into the war anyway to stop its spread.  Taft would have no qualms against using nuclear weapons in Korea, which would anger both the Soviets and the Chinese, preserving Sino-Soviet relations which in our timeline began to weaken in 1956 before collapsing altogether in 1966.

The entire second half of the 20th century hinges on the 1948 election; Wallace might have been able to avoid the Cold War altogether, while Taft would almost certainly make it a Hot War.  The Soviets didn’t get the bomb until 1949, so whoever wins in 48 would determine the future of USA-USSR relations.  Our timeline would fall somewhere inbetween Wallace’s peaceful timeline and Taft’s war torn one.  Taft died of pancreatic cancer in 1953, so if he had been elected in 48 and re-elected in 52, his Vice President would succeed him and serve at least from 1953 to 1957; a Midwesterner, Taft would probably have chosen someone from the Northeast or West as his running mate.  In our timeline, New York governor Dewey chose California governor Earl Warren as his running mate (Warren would later be nominated as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, replacing Vinson who died in 1953; it’s weird how connected everything is), and in 1952 New Yorker Dwight D. Eisenhower chose freshman California Senator Richard Nixon as his.  Ohioan Taft would may well have chosen Warren himself, which would vastly change the future makeup of the Supreme Court.

Wallace’s hypothetical liberal Chief Justice would serve longer than Vinson had, so Warren would not be nominated to replace him in 1953; if Warren were Vice President, he wouldn’t be nominated to replace him at all.  Our Warren Court was considered the most liberal court in American history, so his absence would counteract the liberal lean that Wallace promoted.  Truman nominated 2 more justices during his second term, so those two seats would be filled by either the liberal Wallace of the conservative Taft.

From here, it becomes hard to predict exactly what would happen; at some point I would need to pick one hypothetical and run with it, as there are too many scenarios to game out.  Suffice to say that the 1950s would be a time of either great social justice or tremendous civil unrest.  A Taft presidency would be disastrous, undoing all of Roosevelt’s and Wallace’s hard work; Wallace’s first term would represent one step forward, while Taft’s would represent two steps back.  If Warren became president in 1953, he would undo the damages as best he could; he is known as one of the most influential political figures in American history when he served on the Supreme Court, so we can only imagine what his presidency would have been like.  He would almost certainly be one of the Greats, remembered alongside Washington, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, and Kennedy (who would probably still run for president in this timeline; the Kennedys were an ambitious people).

[joylee56]

Getting Above Himself

For Fluffaplooza 2020

I prompted a variation on this for #Worryinglyinnocent ‘s Super Fluffy Smutty Sunday. (Her’s is better. Check it out at https://worryinglyinnocent.tumblr.com/post/190606882004/fic-the-measure-of-a-man It’s got Moe as Mrs. Bennet.) But was so taken with the idea that I wrote my own Edwardian version.

Summary: The toffs were interested in Gold for his money. And he had enough of it that they were willing to invite him to dine and even an occasional party. He never expected to be accepted for more than that.

.

>>>>>>.

The ballroom glittered as couples swirled in complex patterns. Standing off to the side of the room, Gold calculated that between the candles and the flowers Lady Blanchard had spent enough to feed a family of four for a year.

Or pay for one of his suits. He was really in no position to be judgmental.

Mostly he was bored. Conversation was impractical over the music. Assuming he could find someone who wanted to discuss something other than the latest gossip. Lord Blanchard had done himself no favors by inviting him to this ball. If he wanted to convince Gold to back his new son-in-law in the upcoming parliamentary elections, he should have considered that a ball hardly constituted entertainment for a lame man who did not gamble. (Well, not with cards or dice at any rate.) If he had not been interested in learning what the government was planning to propose in its next budget he would have left long since.

Sighing he headed back to the refreshment room. With any luck there would be some decent wine.

The refreshment room was nearly empty. A couple of boys, barely old enough to be out on the town, with laden plates were eating like they had not seen food in a week. Gold had to smile. Bae still picked at his dinner, but would no doubt soon be eating like those two.

The only other occupants were an older lady dozing over a half finished glass of wine and her younger charge who appeared to be deeply interested in a book.

Presented a choice of Champaign or mediocre sherry, Gold opted for tea instead. From the tea table he was able to get a better look at the young lady and realized it was Lady Belle. He had been paired with her a week ago at dinner when Lord Blanchard introduced him to his son-in-law. Gold, while hardly expert on the subtleties of high society, knew enough to know that assigning an attractive, young peeress as his dinner partner meant that she must be a very poor relation of the Blanchards indeed. One whose marriage prospects were so lacking as not to be worth pairing her with any of the more eligible men at the table.

Not to mention that the son of two seamstresses could spot a twice turned gown even by the poor lighting of the Blanchard’s formal dining room.

She had been an intelligent and witty conversationalist though. Gold had enjoyed that dinner more than any society event he had ever been invited to. All those young men with political aspirations were missing a jewel by ignoring her in favor of the better dowered young ladies. A smart wife would get them farther than any amount of money.

As he contemplated whether that dinner was sufficient introduction to approach her now, and whether she would even want to have her reading interrupted, she looked up from her book and smiled at him.

It would be rude not to respond. He approached the table. “Good evening, Lady Belle.”

“Mr. Gold.” She nodded. “Are you enjoying the ball?”

“Uhm…” He knew what he was supposed to say to that, but she had seemed to enjoy forthright conversation. He hedged. “It’s not really to my taste. And you, my lady, you do not dance?”

She sighed. “When given the opportunity I enjoy dancing, but there are more young ladies than gentlemen who dance to partner them so I retired here to read rather than requiring our host to stretch the partners even thinner.”

“By your own choice or on a hint from Lady Blanchard?”

Pursing her lips did not quite hide her smile. “Her sister actually. Although being cognizant of my indebtedness to Lady Blanchard, I would have withdrawn in any event.”

Gold made a mental note to make discreet inquiries as to what that ‘indebtedness’ involved. But it would not do to embarrass her by asking outright. “Since I am one of the gentlemen distorting the numbers and keeping you from the dance floor, may I at least bring you some refreshment?”

“Thank you that would be most kind.”

A small tip to one of the waiters for the delivery of a wide selection of both sweet and savory items solved the problem of how to manage both dishes and his cane. She opted for tea rather than wine even though he assured her that his own choice was based on the quality of the available beverages rather than any moral censure.

“If a gentleman of good tastes finds the wine lacking I see no reason to doubt his assessment.” She had responded.

“I’m not sure I’m strictly entitled to either accolade, my lady.”

“Your good taste is evident from your reading habits and wardrobe, and your manners proclaim you a gentleman.” She shook her head. “Having fended off the advances of more than one drunken young officer whose birth should proclaim him better than that, I have come to be something of an expert on the subject.”

He would have thought her title would be sufficient to keep young men in line. Then again drunken louts were a problem regardless of their social standing.

Over their ices they fell into a discussion of promoting education of the working class. The book she was reading advocating it as a means to improve the morals of the poor.

“I don’t know about morals,” Gold told her, “But an educated workforce is a boon to any employer. And gives the brighter lads a way to improve themselves generally. I bless my aunts for making sure I was able to attend Grammar school.”

“Mama gave me my lessons.” She looked wistful. “We had hoped I would be able to go away to school when the time came, but we lost her before that. At least I was able to share Mary Margaret’s tutors after I came to live with the Blanchards.”

It seemed wise to make the conversation less personal after that. Although it did give him a starting point for his inquiries. A question about what else she had recently read led to an enthusiastic description of a new author she was taken with. He was a ‘futurist’ and had written an exciting adventure entitled The Time Machine. Gold found the whole idea a bit far-fetched, but the delight with which she described it had him resolving to buy a copy to read on the train back to Glasgow.

They had just discovered a shared preference for Thomas Hardy, when Lord Blanchard appeared. “Ah, Gold, this is where you’ve got to. The Chancellor has arrived and he wants to meet you.”

Wants to meet his wallet more like, but this was the chance Gold had been waiting for so he regretfully excused himself. “Forgive me, Lady Belle, I’m sorry to leave such an interesting conversation.”

“I too have greatly enjoyed our talk.” She bit her lip, a gesture Gold found oddly charming. Then hesitantly said, “We are at home on Thursdays. Perhaps, if you are not otherwise engaged, we could continue this conversation then?”

She wanted him to call? Gold was left speechless for a moment. Then he rallied. Blanchard wanted his support badly enough that he doubted even Lady Blanchard would object to his calling. “I look forward to it, my lady.”

Blanchard eyed him like a prize ram at market as they left the refreshment room. Clearly coming to a decision, he suddenly grinned. “I’ll let Regina know to expect you on Thursday.”

Which Gold interpreted to mean Blanchard would be directing his lady to be gracious to the jumped up tradesman. Blanchard slapped his shoulder and continued. “Lovely girl Lady Belle. Bit of a bluestocking but lovely. My cousin’s daughter you know. Fine family if a bit down on their luck. Now let's find the Chancellor.”

Gold did not extract as much information from the Chancellor as he had hoped. He was too dumbfounded at the prospect that Lord Blanchard appeared to be actively promoting a match between himself and Lady Belle. He did not have enough money to be regarded as even remotely suitable to court an actual Lady.

Did he?

A vision of Lady Belle’s blue eyes danced before him. If he did not he could make more. Making money was easy. Finding a woman like Lady Belle was not.

[thephilosophiesofbea]

Is Socialism the Most Appropriate Form of Government for the U.S.?

BY BETHANY HANNAN.

Socialism: Utopia or Dystopia?

In the U.S., if you’re in need of medical care, how long does it usually take to obtain it? After walking into the doctor’s office, maybe ten to twenty minutes? Now, imagine if that time quadrupled. In places governed by socialism, it is common to get put on a waitlist to see a doctor; the time of which you’re on that waitlist can range between six to eighty days. Some areas in Europe are particularly fond of this method of social organization. Two summers ago, my parents took a trip to Scotland, Ireland, Switzerland, and France. While in France, they came across a taxi driver who needed a knee surgery. He had been driving the taxi they were in for about five months, waiting for his turn to get a consultation. He was supposed to be on the waitlist for six months, but he had been waiting for a year to even figure out what he was supposed to do or what was going to happen. He didn’t get to pick his doctor, let alone for an important surgery that would determine whether or not he could walk afterwards. This is just one of the many different angles of socialism. This one, however, leans pretty heavily towards anti-socialism. Socialism has been, and always will be, a very controversial topic. But first, what is socialism? According to Lexico (funded by Oxford), socialism is “a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole”. Most would call that a socio-economic score, but the history of socialism and it’s concerning determinism begs to differ. Socialism started primarily with one man: Karl Marx, creator of Marxist socialism and believer in the “true” socialism and communism. He built up his definition of socialism to be “a society which permits the actualization of man's essence, by overcoming his alienation. It is nothing less than creating the conditions for the truly free, rational, active and independent man; it is the fulfillment of the prophetic aim: the destruction of the idols” (Fromm 5). Marx thought that a mind under a common good would be more securely operational than a divided mind under a self-benefiting, centralized force would be/had been. He found freedom in the fact that one could find solace in the shared communion of society, whereas a capitalist or otherwise individualistic government would segregate the people into hierarchies of social acceptance; in some ways, he was right. “The freedom in this field cannot consist of anything else but of the fact that socialized man, the associated producers, regulate their interchange with nature rationally, bring it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power; they accomplish their task with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most adequate to their human nature and most worthy of it” (Fromm 3). But socialism has developed many different interpretations throughout the years that force the people to look at it from multiple angles. It used to be considered an “old man’s ideology”, but with the youth’s increasing political awareness and personal beliefs, it is now the talk of the political century. Many believe socialism could be the key to the ultimate utopia for our country, but there are many cracks within the glass that suggest otherwise. Considering the stats, it seems socialism has hindered some countries’ economic prosperity more than it has helped them.

In 1999, Venezuela came under the rule of a socialist government, all thanks to their late president Hugo Chavez. When Chavez got elected, he intended to alleviate poverty and the suffering of his citizens, but only promised economic degradation of his once-prospering country. In his article, Daniel Di Martino tells a personal anecdote about the effects of socialism saying, “The regime nationalized electricity in 2007, resulting in under-investment in the electrical grid. By 2016, my home lost power roughly once a week. Our water situation was even worse. Initially, my family didn't have running water for about one day per month, but as the years passed we sometimes went several weeks straight without it” (Di Martino 2-4). Hyperinflation burdened almost every family in Venezuela and many places governed under socialism. Everyday assets were hard to afford, meaning those who couldn’t afford them, or were simply stripped of them, had to pay the price for choosing a political party they didn’t quite understand the gravity of. Because of Chavez’s aspiration for a community that was not yet achievable, Venezuela’s economy collapsed and hyperinflation (inflation accelerated to 700 percent, says The American Institute for Economic Research) destroyed the country’s currency. Chavez also failed to console the public’s concerns about it. 

An editor from a Tribune Business News article states; 

As The New York Times reported in 2007: ‘Chavez has threatened to jail grocery store owners and nationalize their businesses if they violate the country's expanding price controls.’ Last year, his government seized a Cargill rice processing plant for failing to produce enough rice at regulated prices. Venezuela's government-run grocery stores present shoppers with two prices: the precio capitalista, or capitalist price, and the precio justo, or just price. (Tribune Business News 3)

Di Martino even tried to escape to the United States to rid himself of Venezuela’s lasting socialist ways, but he was only met with (and disgraced by) the States’ attempt (prompted by Sen. Bernie Sanders and others) to harness ultimately socialist ways as well. 

Granted, some will take the idealistic high road and argue that socialism works exceptionally well when everyone works under an “all-for-one” mindset. They defend their argument by providing evidence on how much the human mindset has already changed throughout the years we’ve existed because of the social status quo or a common statute or way of government, provided that capitalism has only existed for some 500 years, so there must have been some other way of functioning politically. 

In his article, Richard Ebeling provides an example of what some hyper-enthusiasts and idealistic believers in socialism think, saying; 

A true socialist society would mean more freedom not less, so it was unfair to judge socialism by these supposedly twisted experiments in creating a workers' paradise. Furthermore, under a true socialism, human nature would change and men would no longer be motivated by self-interest, but by a desire to selflessly advance the common good. (Ebeling 5)

But, to combat that far-fetched opinion, we must face the facts: man is powered by selfishness. It is in our DNA to want things only and tactlessly for ourselves, take the hunters and gatherers for example; only recently have we even considered, or more or less tolerated, sharing with others what we believe we worked hard for for ourselves. Although the human mindset contains room for growth and evolution and possibility for change, when it comes to sharing the fruits of our labors, it becomes a little less simplistic. We would become barbaric, or on the other side of the spectrum, realize we would never have to do anything ever again to earn said fruits, because they would be fruits of someone else’s labor. 

Socialism has a good intention set forth, but it still needs several reevaluations before it can be considered a true rumination. Although some try to argue that socialism is making a sizeable dent in the political forcefield, it’s quite the contrary; the lasting members of the socialist party for the US are nearing their demise. In his article, Robby Soave advocates for this detail, saying, “As recently as 2013, the average member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) was 68 years old. Even today, the ideology's best-known spokesperson, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), is 77” (Soave 8). If anything, the socialist party will be fading come ten years from now instead of “uniting the people through means of commonality” like the enthusiasts hope. It could be possible, however, if the socialist party were to tweak some of their over-eager precepts, such as with Hugo Chavez’s plan to abolish poverty. Perhaps focusing on opening up more entry-level jobs for those that don’t have the money or experience for higher-level opportunities, thus preparing them for said higher-level opportunities by providing them work experience at large. Redesigning the whole government into a socialist “utopia” wouldn’t have been necessary, just redefinition of Venezuela’s old government. If we were to all agree to work towards a socialist world, the structure of every institution and every format of law would need to change. "Mere state ownership of key productive forces is not enough to create a socialist society; the people must exercise a sovereign rule over these productive forces and society as a whole, and the society must be organized to promote collective needs" (McChesney 11). Instead of reinventing the government in its entirety, the government should simply and unhesitantly address what caused all of the poverty. If it was actually democracy that ruined Venezuela’s socio-economic status or if, with any means of government, poverty would still be present in the country. In his article, Eric Foner brought the empty promises of socialism to the light, saying, “The Socialist party, although it elected hundreds of candidates to local office and obtained nearly a million votes for Eugene Debs's 1912 presidential candidacy, failed nevertheless to bridge the gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, and native-born whites, blacks, and immigrants” (Foner 2). Throughout the years, socialism and its tendency to manifest fickle infrastructure has never promised anything more than a contradictory mix of ensured laziness and chaos because of lack of assiduousness and satisfaction in one’s own achievements. 

But let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: capitalism, “an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state” (Lexico, funded by Oxford). The nation’s silent assailant isn’t as innocent of charges as we grant it to be. Capitalism has accustomed some to receiving all, and others receiving none, therefore the idea of socialism is a bizarre and frankly forbidden concept some refuse to accept. "In the development of U.S. capitalism, the wealth of some was inextricably tied to the poverty of others, and race and gender largely determined which were which: Native American land, Black slavery, Latin American resources, and the underpaid labor of women and children factory workers formed the pillars of capital accumulation" (Mankiller 3). Under this mindset, US citizens, and anyone else under a fundamentally capitalist way of operating, often slip into a disposition to where they believe they are entitled to free choice. But free choice is merely a side dish that comes alongside capitalism, almost as a “thank you” package for putting it into place. US citizens forget to acknowledge all of the delicacies that capitalism has graced us with (or, rather, addicted us to). Let’s take phones for example: phones, iPhones in particular, have become the poster child of our generation, all thanks to capitalism. We are able to buy one whenever we want, get whatever model we want, get whatever update we want when we want, get whatever apps we want on there (excluding incidences of parental restriction, but even then, that’s a freedom within itself). We have a million different freedoms right between our palms and we forget it every day. With socialism, people tend to forget that it’s an “all-for-one” mindset, therefore those decisions are made for you, and you have no say in it. This is no longer a democracy, whether you try your hardest to believe it so or not. Now the government makes every action for you. Makes socialism look a little more restricting now, doesn’t it? Well, you’ll have plenty of time to have your complaints sent to voicemail, since socialism sits idle in office for four lengthy years. Surprise! Welcome to autocracy and favored aristocracy. Population, you. Also, don’t think socialism will pick favorites among the people, because it won’t. It will only make life easier for those with millions flowing out of their britches every month. For a solid amount of people, that’s a tricky and unconstitutional notion that they want to avoid letting their kids grow up with.

Speaking of the youth, institutions such as schools would change structures completely. Public schools under a socialist government would alter the democratic way the teachers teach in the classroom. Some view this alteration as a blessing in disguise, one that eliminates material competition for students and eagerly encourages a positive reinforcement teaching method. Students would be “placed in work based on their strengths and not be penalized for their weaknesses” (angelfire.com). Many teachers currently argue that a more well-rounded and socialized instructional method would “build character” and “effectively teach right from wrong”. Students would learn quicker and would legitimately welcome teacher instruction without fear of potentially ill-fitted punishment. Karl Marx argued for “‘polytechnical education’, linking schooling with the real world of production” (socialistsalternative.org). He believed this new method of instruction would differentiate those who “labored” and those who “thought”, thus progressing our society into what it needed to be to better the circumstances we live in. In the 1950’s, an institution called the Socialist Sunday School (SSS) changed mainstream instructional ways into those encouraging socialism. The school taught more diverse topics, like Philosophy, and encouraged students to look at things from a new, more socialized perspective; one that, they argued, schools under capitalism failed to endorse. Margaret McMillan, one of the school’s utmost supporters, put forth that there was “new intimacy between teacher and taught” (Reid 5). She then proceeded to state the freedoms our kids should have, and would have under a more socialist way of schooling, saying, “our children should draw freely” and “they should write more and talk more than is possible in the day school” (5). Furthermore, privatized education, under socialism, would encourage charter schools to place their books under public scrutiny because of public funding towards it. Many who believe in “true” socialism also believe in this notion coming into fruition; the public paid for those books to be given to charter schools, and capitalism has denied them from even using them, so socialism would, therefore, grant rights to things that were previously deemed “privatized”, which is one of the reasons why so many people are in its favor. 

Education and political affiliations are bound to be interconnected. Differing governmental styles have a heavy influence on the infrastructure and lesson plans of a school’s curriculum. It ultimately determines what the students are exposed to, thus those who learn more prevalent material during their school years tend to have better chances to succeed later in life. Voxeu.com states, “treated individuals, who were exposed to socialist schooling for one less school year, exhibit 2% higher employment rates and 1.5% higher hours worked. For the older birth cohorts, less exposure to non-meritocratic access restrictions in the treated group leads to 4% higher wages and a 5% higher probability of having a professional job” (12). Schools functioning under socialism would presumably be more efficient as the years went on and the pure definition or representation of morals of socialism would be reevaluated. They would offer higher level thinking opportunities and give time for students’ problem solving skills to develop due to lessened authoritarianism in the classrooms. Socialism, in this instance, would solve many unnecessary setbacks in educational settings. 

My parents’ taxi driver’s experience with socialism continues to be the poster child for why observers of any political movement should look at both sides of the road before crossing. Public healthcare in places dominated by socialist governments such as France could be considered an actor with an excellent facade. It will hold up it’s act until the curtains close and the lights begin to fade and nobody is around to see how genuinely flawed it really is. It’s mask is slowly developing cracks, yet those cracks are not enough to enforce change in legal structures. It won’t be enough until it breaks completely and tanks France’s governmental state too. Universal healthcare has not only shot down opportunities for free choice when it comes to doctors or waitlists, but it has also driven away any competition in the healthcare business due to one business centralizing all profit. 

In his article, John Sieler demonstrates how ruinous universal healthcare could be if manipulated by those fighting for said centralization, saying; 

TennCare (another experiment in medical socialism), explains the entry in Wikipedia, ‘was designed to expand health insurance to the uninsured through the state's Medicaid program by utilizing managed care.’ Centralization was supposed to reduce costs, with ‘free’ money from the federal government picking up any financial slack. But predictably, many companies stopped providing medical insurance, forcing employees to sign up with TennCare. ‘In short order, one quarter of the state's population was on TennCare,’ Patrick Poole wrote on AmericanThinker.com last January. TennCare ‘has forced dozens of hospitals out of business, pushed thousands of doctors and other health care professionals out of the state, destroyed any semblance of a competitive health insurance market, and nearly drove the state government into bankruptcy.’ (15-16)

Universal healthcare proves beneficial in theory, but as anything more than a hypothetical, it severely lacks any strong foundation. As it’s carried out, those who practice business under it will benefit, whilst those who are forced to live under it will fall prey to extended wait times and lack of free choice.

Socialism, as a whole, poses many thoughts about what freedoms man is granted at birth and upholding those freedoms throughout one’s lifetime. Moral and socio-economic angles have to be approached to come to a sensible conclusion. As of right now, the most logical conclusion, given the state at which socialism is currently, is that the political movement is not ready for export. Socialism begs too many questions and leaves too many loose ends free for it to be properly dished out. The leaders wanting to fight for socialism to become as mainstream as capitalism will ultimately let the centralized power get to their head, and subsequently, lose control of what was once a stable country. Karl Marx had a clear vision to which he was ready to manifest into fruition, given the economic state of the world around him. But the vision he wants to implement is too fool-hardy and quick to the gun. Maybe Marx’s dream for socialism will come true some day, once all is taken into revision. Then we, as human beings, can finally say we learned the way of mental plasticity, true change, and, thus, a reason to never doubt the supposedly impossible. But until then, man will continue to harvest, blindly and exclusively.

Works Cited (and Interesting Sites to check out!)

Ebeling, Richard M. "Why Socialism is "Impossible"." Freeman, Oct 2004. Sirsissuesresearcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2267936372?accountid=41449.

Foner, Eric, and John A. Garraty. "Socialism." , 1991. Sirsissuesresearcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2265463961?accountid=41449.

Fuchs-Schündeln, Nicola and Masella, Paolo. 05 June 2016. 

https://voxeu.org/article/long-lasting-effects-socialist-education

Fromm, Erich. “Marx’s Concept of Socialism.” 1961.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm

Glover, Juleanna, et al. “What Would a Socialist America Look Like?” POLITICO Magazine, 3 Sept. 2018, www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/03/what-would-a-socialist-america-look-like-219626.

Mankiller, Wilma. Socialism. , 1998. Sirsissuesresearcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2265472802?accountid=41449.

Martino, Daniel D. "Socialism Destroyed My Home, Venezuela." USA TODAY, 19 Feb 2019. Sirsissuesresearcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2264363868?accountid=41449.

McChesney, Robert W. "Capitalism, the Absurd System." Monthly Review, 06 2010. Sirsissuesresearcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2265594180?accountid=41449.

Soave, Robby. "Socialism is Back, and the Kids are Loving it." Reason, Aug 2019. Sirsissuesresearcher,

Reid, Julie. The Guardian (pre-1997 Fulltext); Manchester (UK) [Manchester (UK)]02 Jan 1996: T.014.

BY BETHANY HANNAN.

[politicalprof]

A letter to my former student:

This is going to be a long post, and I realize almost no one will actually bother to read it. But I need to say it. So let’s begin.

------------------

Recently, I had a Twitter exchange with a former student. He’s a really good guy; I like him a lot, and always have. Our interactions are positive and respectful. He’s a veteran of the Persian Gulf War who has gone on to be a teacher, an administrator, and a coach at at a high school. He has been a servant to the nation and the community and deserves nothing but respect for that.

In the course of our exchange, he volunteered the following comment:

“and, please understand that it is possible to be a conservative without being a supporter of our president - in fact, I've been waiting for a while to cast a vote for someone I actually favored as opposed to against someone I do not!”

What follows is my response:

Of course it it possible to be a conservative without being a supporter of our president -- in theory. In theory, there might be a credible conservative alternative to Donald Trump who might advance a conservative political agenda that you might agree with.

But we don’t live in the world of “in theory.” We live in this world, at this time. And the conservative politics you wish to support no longer exists. Rather, conservatism in its American sense -- belief in limited government, support for independent businesses, a confidence in the rights and capacity of the individual to make choices for themselves and to live with the consequences of those choices (at least in matters not related to abortion rights, which American conservatives do not seem to trust women to exercise) -- has been dying for at least 30 years. Modern conservatism is a mere shadow of its former self, and there is no evidence that there is a credible conservative core inside the Republican Party around which a contemporary conservative movement that looks like the older one might form.

My concern with your impulse to vote against candidates you don’t like (Democrats, I presume) is with the unchallengeable fact that Donald Trump and his enablers now constitute an existential threat to the survival of American democracy itself. Voting for Trump OR his Republican enablers makes one complicit in advancing that threat. Indeed, so long as no serious challenger to Trump and his enablers emerges from within the Republican Party, there is no moral or ethical way to support the party’s candidates -- at least for federal office. (Federalism still allows the possibility of credible Republican choices at the state and local level, at least in some regions.)

I can’t possibly describe all the ways Trump and his enablers have made the Republican Party an existential threat to American democracy. I will focus on five: 1) Trump’s demonization of the media; 2) Trump’s demonization of the weak and defenseless in society; 3) Trump’s demand for the prosecution of his political opponents; 4) Trump’s delegitimation of elections; and 5) Trump’s delegitimation of the rule of law.

Please note that none of these topics has anything to do with daily disputes about regular political issues. I am not addressing the wrong-headedness of Trump’s actions that have undermined NATO. I am not focusing on the stupidity of his unconcern about global climate change, or about his failures in healthcare reform, or his appointment of federal judges. I might critique all of those things, but those are the stuff of ordinary politics. Rather, I am focusing on forces that pull democracies apart. Supporting Trump -- and his Republican allies today -- constitutes a threat to the American republic.

--1. The demonization of the media. OK: all presidents dislike the press. Some, like Nixon, hated the press. But they all seemed to understand that the press was part of the system. They (mostly) all seemed to understand that the often antagonistic relationship between the press and the politicians was a key component of a functioning democracy. They seemed to understand that, as Justice Black put it in his concurrence in NY Times v United States (the Pentagon Papers case), “In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.”

Donald Trump does not believe this. In fact, he has openly stated as much, telling 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, “You know why I do it? [Attack the press?] I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.” In other words, Donald Trump is engaged in an open, unrestrained effort to undermine the press in order to serve his own power and advance his own agenda. 

In undermining the possibility of a free, critical press Trump is damaging the prospects that any future American people will believe that the press can do the job it needs to do. Once all media is framed as partisan, the notion of information, of facts, dies. And no future president will face constraint by a free press either: what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Trump will not be the last president to rely on the “lyin’ media” frame if Trump manages to convince the American people that no one should believe the press, however imperfect it may be.

Notably, no significant part of the Republican party or its leaders are challenging Trump’s attacks on the media in any meaningful way. They are, if anything, promoting it. As a consequence, supporting either Trump or his Republican enablers threatens a linchpin of American democracy. It cannot be justified.

--2. The demonization of the weak and the vulnerable: The savageness with which Donald Trump treats his targets is remarkable. It has been a long time coming, of course: recall the infamous scenes in which Tea Party activists mocked a homeless veteran for seeking help during the 2010 midterms. But Trump seems to delight, indeed to positively revel, in punching downwards. Like most bullies, Trump focuses on people who can’t really fight back as he spews bile, hate, and mockery at them. His targets don’t just include minorities and immigrants, of course, but disabled persons, people -- usually women -- Trump decides aren’t attractive, victims of natural disasters, and, of course, even war heroes/prisoners/soldiers killed in combat serving the United States.

Please note that the research here is clear: when presidents demonize one group or other, many in the president’s audience end up hating the targeted groups more than they were already predisposed to. In other words, when presidents attack, public opinion measurably shifts in ways that reflect and amplify the president’s rhetoric. 

Trump’s disgusting, hate-filled rhetoric harms the vulnerable and marginalized in society in ways that you and I, who are after all middle class white guys, simply cannot understand -- even as we can empathize with them. And so long as no serious Republican challenger emerges to resist Trump’s vile perversion of our politics, so long as Republican doctrine -- not just Trump’s -- is to serve the powerful and afflict the afflicted, then supporting Republicans, at least at the federal level, is immoral. It also erodes the promise of the American civic experiment to discover if people of different races and creeds and ideas and histories can live together in some semblance of freedom.

--3. The demand for the prosecution of political opponents: Politics is a blood sport, and at least in elections it is zero-sum. My win is your loss. Yet most democracies manage to survive because a norm develops that win or lose, we have to respect others’ rights to participate, advocate their policies, and promote their points of view. Opponents are not enemies. They are competitors.

There has been an undeniable trend over the last 30 years to shift the language of political competition from “opponents” to “enemies.” Not all this shift has been concocted by Republicans, or by Trump, by any means. But Trump is the first president in modern US history to respond to political opponents by insisting that they need to be imprisoned for crimes against the nation. He is the first to systematically incite his supporters to openly chant for the jailing of a political opponent. He is the first since Richard Nixon to demand that the law enforcement agencies of the United States serve his partisan political agenda by investigating his opponents for crimes that they have already been cleared of.

This is the stuff that happens in crackpot countries. Newly-installed dictators purge their opponents, using the levers of power to confirm their authority. But in so doing, they make the stakes of any moment of political transition extraordinarily high: the game literally becomes all or nothing, since the consequences of losing can mean imprisonment. And since the stakes are so high, so is the conflict: no one can afford to lose, so they fight it out to the last breath.

“Lock her up” isn’t funny. It isn’t cute. Weaponizing law enforcement for political ends has profound consequences for the stability of democracy.

Trump’s claims that Hillary Clinton and other opponents ought to be imprisoned undermines confidence in the possibility of peaceful transitions of power in the United States. Until I see evidence that anyone on the Republican side is fighting back against Trump’s gross abuse of federal power, supporting him or the party that enables his abuses undermines the possibility of democratic governance as such.

--4. The deligitimation of elections: No one likes to lose. And gerrymandering, and manipulated vote counts, and other forms of voter suppression have been an unfortunate part of our political life since the Republic was formed.

But Trump has exceeded any other president in his all out assault on the norms of electoral politics. He claims he won the popular vote in 2016 ... once you discount the 3,000,000+ votes cast by illegal aliens. Against all evidence he continues to assert that in-person voter fraud is vast -- but only in those elections that he and his party members lose. In 2018 he described legally-prescribed recounts as efforts to “steal” the elections from his team.

All this, meanwhile, is happening when it is clear that the majority of vote shenanigans in the US are perpetrated by Republicans: North Carolina’s Voter ID law was overturned for its explicit racial bias, while both North Carolina’s and Pennsylvania’s Congressional districts were declared unconstitutionally gerrymandered. (Pennsylvania’s redrawn districts produced a balanced outcome; North Carolina’s were not redrawn due to time concerns, and Republicans in North Carolina perpetuated their 10-3 majority in Congressional seats despite the fact that Democrats in North Carolina got 100,000 more votes statewide than Republicans did.) And this doesn’t even begin to touch on the closing of vote stations in minority dominant districts, the purging of voter rolls, and the like -- all of which have been shown to be disproportionately burdensome on people of color.

Given that NO Republican leaders AT ALL have in any way challenged any of this, the entire Republican party is culpable in undermining American democracy as manifested in the need for free and fair elections. There is simply no way to vote for Republicans and also vote for the protection of properly run, properly managed elections. Voting for Republicans today is to support the undermining of free and fair elections in the United States.

--5. The delegitimation of the rule of law: Criticism is one thing. It is unpleasant, but it is fundamentally healthy. But demonization is another thing altogether. Asserting that law enforcement agencies are corrupt -- without evidence -- is corrosive to political legitimacy.

Trump, of course, is engaged in the systematic delegitmation of the rule of law. His understanding of the law is that it should serve his interests and his political purposes. His understanding of any investigation he doesn’t like is that it is a witch hunt.

This, too, is the enterprise of dictators. If the law only works for the powerful, who at the same time insist that they are victims of the law, then democracy cannot function.

And again, the actual Republican party, the one that actually exists right now, has wholly abetted this abuse. They have cravenly cowed to Trump’s rhetoric for fear of facing his tweets, the talking parrots at FOX News, and the hordes of Trumpizoidal maniacs who are likely to show up in primary elections. Lindsay Graham prosecuted the Clinton impeachment for charges ultimately derived from the fact that Bill Clinton lied about getting a blowjob from a woman who was not his wife. Today, he insists that campaign finance payoffs running to hundreds of thousands of dollars illegally spent as part of a scheme to protect a presidential candidate’s election chances are no big deal -- merely lies told to protect the candidate’s family. The hypocrisy would stagger ... at any other time than this one.

Voting for Republicans today inevitably means supporting the subversion of the rule of law. It means supporting the erosion of American democracy.

At this point, Trump apologists usually offer some version of the comment, “both sides do it.” Well, no they don’t. Not to anything close to this scale. Not organized at the very top of the political system, where now the Trump reelection team is being completely integrated with the RNC’s fundraising operation -- for the first time in US history. (The grift is about to get vastly bigger than anyone can even fantasize.) 

America is in trouble. It is time to recalibrate “voting against people you don’t like.” It is time to kill the modern Republican Party. It’s the only way to bring it back to life.

[alevbare1988-blog]

Legal Case to Smash Obamacare Hands the Democrats a Hammer

FORT WORTH вђ" More than 1,000 miles from the harsh Supreme Court affirmation becoming aware of Brett M. Kavanaugh, a government judge in Texas on Wednesday tuned in to contentions about whether to discover part or the majority of the Affordable Care Act unlawful, for a situation that may wind up before a recently right-inclining set of justices.

The case has turned out to be not just a danger to the milestone enactment. Democrats have looked to make it both a glimmer point in the fight about whether to affirm Judge Kavanaugh and a significant prong in their technique to retake control of the House and Senate in the midterm elections.

It has just made a few Republicans unsteady, particularly those in tight re-appointment challenges, on the grounds that the Trump organization unequivocally said in a legitimate recording in June that it concurred with the contention of Texas and 19 other Republican-controlled states that the lawвђ™s insurances for individuals with prior ailments are not established. The organization is declining to safeguard those certifications. In that sense, in spite of the fact that the case compromises one of the Democratsвђ™ proudest accomplishments, it is additionally demonstrating to be something of a political decision year blessing to their party.

They have pounded away at the issue in a great many dollars of promotions, at round tables with their constituents, and at this weekвђ™s affirmation hearings, where Judge Kavanaugh declined to respond to an inquiry from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, about whether he would maintain those guarantees.

One advertisement, went for Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, demonstrates a fanciful news communicate detailing that the Supreme Court has struck down the law, endangering individuals with prior conditions, and that the recently affirmed Justice Kavanaugh make the choosing choice. “Susan Collins decided in favor of Kavanaugh and now 548,000 Mainers could lose coverage,␝ it says.

“Senator Collins: You can prevent this from turning into a reality,␝ the advertisement finishes up. “Vote No on Brett Kavanaugh.␝

Perhaps in light of political repercussions, Brett Shumate, the legal advisor contending for the Justice Department in Fort Worth on Wednesday tried asking Judge Reed O’Connor not to give a fundamental order putting the law on hold until the case is chosen, as the Republican state offended parties have inquired. He said such a move could cause ␜extraordinary disruption␝ in the Affordable Care Act␙s open enlistment period. That starts Nov. 1, just before Election Day.

“We surely don␙t need individuals to lose their medical coverage going into next year,␝ Mr. Shumate said.

With surveys finding across the board bipartisan help for the lawвђ™s assurances for individuals with previous conditions, a gathering of 10 Republican congresspersons pre-emptively acquainted enactment a month ago with protect them should the law be struck down. Their proposition would restrict insurance agencies from denying inclusion or charging more for it dependent on someoneвђ™s wellbeing status. In any case, the catch вђ" which Democrats have yelled from the housetops вђ" is that safety net providers could even now will not cover certain ailments. They could likewise again charge increasingly dependent on sexual orientation or profession, as was legitimate before the Affordable Care Act, or raise rates for more established people.

The focal issue for the situation is whether the lawвђ™s individual command, which requires most Americans to have wellbeing inclusion or pay a punishment, ended up unlawful after the Republican-controlled Congress focused out the punishment as a component of the assessment redesign that President Trump marked into law in December.

The Supreme Court had maintained the order in 2012 as an activity of Congressвђ™s exhausting force, leaving the vast majority of the law flawless. Yet, the Republican-controlled states state the order, since it conveys no punishment, can never again be advocated as a duty and ought to be struck down. Furthermore, if the order is gone, they contended in their suit documented in February, the remainder of the law should likewise fall, including the prominent necessity that back up plans must cover individuals with previous medicinal conditions.

Mr. Shumate, the Justice Department legal counselor, told the court, “To be clear, the present organization bolsters insurances for individuals with previous wellbeing conditions.␝ Yet he at that point affirmed that they couldn't stay in the wellbeing law without the individual mandate.

Legal researchers on the two sides of the factional gap have said that the contention of the Republican-controlled states and the Trump organization is frail, yet all things considered, the case could in any case take months or years to clear its path through the courts.

In Wednesday␙s hearing, Darren McCarty, a legal advisor with the Texas lawyer general␙s office, contended that in disposing of the assessment punishment, Congress ␜severed that meager string that held together the Affordable Care Act.␝ He asked Judge O’Connor, a George W. Shrub deputy on the administrative court for the Northern District of Texas, to give a starter injunction.

In June, the Trump Justice Department told the court that while it differ that the whole law ought to be struck down or that a fundamental directive was important, it would never again guard the individual command or a few other focal arrangements, including the one for previous conditions.

Since that implied the respondent for the situation, the United States government, was successfully agreeing with the offended parties, an alliance of 16 states and the District of Columbia, driven by Xavier Becerra, the lawyer general of California, interceded as litigants to battle for the law.

Judge O’Connor generally showed up more distrustful toward those states than the Republican offended parties on Wednesday. Specifically, he addressed California␙s contention that the law never again expects individuals to convey protection in light of the fact that the punishment had been eliminated.

“Why wouldn␙t the law still expect individuals to purchase inclusion moving forward?␝ he asked Nimrod Elias, a legal advisor for the California lawyer general␙s office.

Mr. Elias and his associates likewise attempted another contention: Since numerous individuals make good on their regulatory expenses late, punishment incomes would keep streaming into the government treasury for in any event the following couple of years, approving the mandate␙s charge status. Once more, Judge O’Connor showed up not to purchase it.

But the greater inquiry in the court was whether the different arrangements of the law would be illegal вђ" unfit to be cut off from each other вђ" if the order were seen as unlawful. Mr. Elias contended commandingly against that rationale, calling attention to that Congress had safeguarded the remainder of the rule when it focused out the punishment last year.

The вђњcorrect remedy,вђќ Mr. Elias stated, is essentially dispose of the 2017 correction that wiped out the punishment, not to dispose of the general law.

But Judge O’Connor appeared to be increasingly inspired by the Texas position that he should look to the goal of the 2010 Congress that passed the wellbeing law, not the 2017 Congress that finished the punishment, in choosing whether to protect the remainder of the law in the event that he hurled out the mandate.

“Why would I not␝ look to the expectation of the Congress that instituted the wellbeing law, he asked Mr. Elias.

Much of the over three hours of contentions fixated on language in the Affordable Care Act that depicts the individual order as вђњessential to making compelling medical coverage marketsвђќ вђ" language that the offended parties said clarified that the remainder of the law, or if nothing else the previous condition assurances, couldn't work without it.

“What preferable might you be able to have over these express expectations of the Congress?␝ Judge O’Connor asked.

Mr. Elias answered, “Whatever Congress may have had confidence in 2010, Congress in 2017 made a completely extraordinary judgment,␝ choosing to expel the punishment without contacting the remainder of the wellbeing law. He likewise read statements from Senators Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, and Tim Scott, Republican of South Carolina, who openly accentuated when the expense bill spent a year ago that no other piece of the wellbeing law would be eliminated.

“They positively didn't put stock in any capacity whatsoever that they were removing appropriations and previous condition protections,␝ Mr. Elias said.

Judge O’Connor proceeded to ask whether Congress may have proposed to compel the courts to discredit the whole wellbeing law by focusing on the punishment, realizing it was the explanation the Supreme Court held up the law as sacred in 2012.

The judge, who said he would вђњget something out right when I can,вђќ additionally flame broiled Mr. Shumate about the Justice Departmentвђ™s position that just the lawвђ™s arrangements for the individual order and prior conditions ought to be nullified, rather than the whole law, as Texas wants.

He had the least inquiries for Mr. McCarty, the legal advisor for

[ruminativerabbi]

Omar and Tlaib: A Way Forward

Sometimes I have to search around to find the topic I wish to write about in my weekly letter to you all, but other times the universe simply presents me with an issue that it feels almost impossible not to write about. This is one of those weeks. And that was before President Trump called the loyalty of Jewish Americans who vote Democratic into question.

I am thinking, of course, of the huge brouhaha surrounding the proposed, then banned, then half-unbanned, then cancelled trip of Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) to Israel.

The single point of near-universal consensus is that the whole incident was handled maladroitly by all concerned—and that really is saying the very least.

The congresswomen, by declining to go on the actual trip of members of the House to Israel that took place just a few weeks ago, were making it clear that they had no interest in actually visiting Israel or hearing what representatives of our staunchest ally in the Middle East might or might have had to say to them…and then feigned shock when they were called out for insulting the leadership and citizenry of Israel by planning a propaganda tour featuring meetings solely with Palestinian bigwigs and Arab members of the Knesset. (The itinerary for the trip they then proposed to make on their own confirmed their intentions clearly, although Rep. Omar now says—contrary to the itinerary she herself released—that she would have met with at least some Israeli officials.)

President Trump, by putting his oar in where it wasn’t even remotely needed, seems to have made Prime Minister Netanyahu feel obliged to ban the Omar and Tlaib from entering Israel lest he appear weak or—and, yes, I know how weird this sounds to say out loud—unmanly. (The ensuing firestorm on this side of the world would have been considerably less hot had it not seemed that the Prime Minister’s decision reflected more than anything his desire not to provoke President Trump or to irritate him—which paradoxically actually did make him look and sound weak. And unmanly weakness was indeed the specific issue in play: the President’s tweet confirmed as much: “It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib to visit.” He didn’t have to say who specifically was going to be labelled weak for not banning the two!)

For his part, the P.M. himself, more than aware of the importance of playing ball with his nation’s biggest supplier of foreign aid and himself an extremely savvy politician, seemed somehow not to understand what a huge error of judgment it was going to be to appear to disrespect members of Congress…and, at that, the specific members of the House that the world was just waiting to see if he would dare to insult.

The whole incident played out in Israel entirely differently than it did here. For your person-in-the-shuk Israeli, the whole rumpus was basically uninteresting. I saw very little coverage in the Israeli press—not none, but nothing like what I saw on every American website I visited while we were in Israel. When it did come up, most regular Israelis I talked to seemed confused why this was even an issue. Although I think most Americans surely do not, everybody in Israel remembers when, in 2012, the United States barred a Knesset member, Michael Ben Ari, from entering the United States because the party he represented, the Kahanist Kach party, was formally labelled as a terrorist group. (Nor, for the record, is it unheard of for the United States to bar entry to people deemed undesirable for one reason or another, a list that over the years has included such dangerous criminals as Amy Winehouse, Diego Maradona, and Boy George. For a full list of people now or once barred from entering the United States, click here.) So the notion that Israel would bar entry to two individuals who have been outspoken in their animosity towards the Jewish state and who openly and shamelessly support the BDS movement, and neither of whom is above lacing her rhetoric with openly anti-Semitic language, merely because they were also elected to Congress—that didn’t seem that big a stretch to most Israelis that I heard giving forth on the topic. Indeed, when I did hear Israelis talking about the issue, the question was more why Israel shouldn’t decline to offer unambiguously hostile people a public platform on which to promote invidious policies than it was why they should let them in without any assurance that they would be at least minimally respectful of their hosts’ sensitivities.

Still, Israel could have turned this whole affair to its own advantage by inviting Rashida Tlaib and Ilan Omar to come to visit, but by making the invitation conditional upon their agreement to meet with Israeli officials and learn about the Israeli take on the Middle East conflict. It would have been a good thing if that happened too, because, as their comments about Israel over the last few days prove, both Omar and Tlaib are as naïve as they are hostile towards the Jewish state. Omar wants Israel to grant Palestinians “full rights,” but without saying what she means exactly. Does she want Israel to annex the West Bank and make its Palestinian population into Israelis with the full rights of citizens? It seems hard to believe that that’s what she means. But then what does she mean? Is she in favor of a two-state solution featuring a State of Palestine in which the Palestinian citizens would have “full rights?” But then why is she not addressing the Palestinian leadership and telling them to declare independence and get down to the work of nation building? When she denounces the Israeli decision to bar her entry as “unprecedented,” does she not know that our own country also bars entry to people deemed hostile or dangerous, or likely to promote views considered inimical with the nation’s best interests? When she speaks about “the occupation,” does she not realize how bizarre it is to blame Israel for “occupying” the Palestinians’ land when Israel has repeatedly offered the Palestinians an almost complete withdrawal in exchange for their willingness to live in peace? And, of course, also without showing the slightest interest—at least as far as I can see—in the places in the world that actually are occupied by foreign powers—Tibet, for example, which has been occupied by China since 1951 or the part of the Western Sahara that Morocco has illegally occupied since 1976.

For her part, Rashida Tlaib sounds more calculating then naïve. When she denounces Israel for setting up roadblocks that inhibit free travel from the West Bank into Israel, she conveniently forgets to mention the reason those roadblocks were set up in the first place: to prevent terrorist attacks on innocents of the kind that were part and parcel of daily life in Israel during the first and second Intifadas. To suggest that those roadblocks were set up to harass innocents like her elderly grandmother instead of owning up to the fact that they have worked so well, as has the security fence, that terror attacks inside Israel have plummeted to almost zero—that crosses the line, at least in my estimation, from finessing the details to make a point and approaches something more reasonably called manipulating the facts to create a wholly false impression. (I think we can all be confident that, if violent terrorists were blowing up children in discotheques and pizzerias in her own home district, she would support any plausible effort to end the carnage even if it caused her grandma some inconvenience.)

It would, therefore, be a good thing for both Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib to come for a visit to Israel. Nor is it too late. In my opinion, Israel can and should offer to invite them to Israel if they are willing to listen, to learn, and to refrain from promoting anti-Israeli views while they are in Israel as guests of the State. Contrary to the President’s tweet, principled reaching-out towards people who have in the past been hostile but who could conceivably change their minds would be seen by all—or certainly by most—as an act of strength, not weakness. There is, after all, a lot to learn. Understanding Israel today requires knowing a lot about Jewish history and its impact on Jewish reality today. It requires understanding the relationship between Israel and both Judaism and Jewishness, a relationship that is obscure in many ways even to relatively savvy observers of the Middle Eastern scene. And it requires understanding the specific way that Israeli identity has been forged over the decades against a background of unremitting hostility on the part of most of its neighbors and, even more perfidiously, on the part of the United Nations—and how decades of exposure to that kind of stark enmity so often tinged with not-so-subtle anti-Semitism has made Israelis, to say the very least, wary and mistrustful of the world.

It would surely have been better if we hadn’t come to this impasse in quite the way we have. But having come to this crossroads, we must now traverse it and I believe we can. If they are truly sincere in their interest in learning about Israel, Representatives Tlaib and Omar should indicate their willingness to come and to listen. Israel, for all it is barred by its own laws from admitting to the country people who advocate policies inimical to the nation’s survival (and specifically the BDS movement), should find a way around that restriction to welcome them both and to help them understand where Israel is coming from and why it acts as it feels it must. If everybody involved is willing to take a step back and to calm down a bit, what at the moment is an impasse can become a crossroads that all concerned can grow mightily by traversing.

[think32blog]

Irish Language Act: ‘We need real delivery on real promises, wherever that may come from.’

Tuesday 9 July 2019 will be a day long remembered by many across these islands. Sitting with family and friends deep in the Bluestack mountains in south Donegal I spent the day searching for radio coverage and refreshing my Twitter feed. As the amendments rolled in it was hard not to jump to the conclusion that historic change was unfolding before us. The arguments over devolution and ‘direct rule’ decision making would inevitably be lost as Westminster finally got off the fence and the Tories turned on their confidence and supply partners.

The question of language rights, however, remains outstanding. During an interview with Noel Thompson on BBC’s Good Morning Ulster in the proceeding days I would be asked what the Westminster amendments would mean for the Irish language Act and our campaign for rights and recognition? Does this increase the chances of an Irish language Act and what does it tell us about potential legislation through Westminster?

In order to inform the debate in the here and now, we need to map out exactly what role the British Government has played to date regarding indigenous language protections and promises.

In little over 20 years, the British Government has ratified, promised or pledged protections for the Irish language on no less than four separate occasions. 1998 saw the Irish language be promised ‘ resolute action’ and parity of esteem in the Good Friday Agreement. The same year would see the British Government ratify the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) and in 2001 they would also ratify the European Charter on Regional and Minority Languages (ECRML). Both are international treaties that require the British Government to protect and promote indigenous languages and communities, including specific provisions for Irish. Finally, the British Government would commit themselves to an Irish language Act, based on the experiences of Wales and the Republic, in the 2006 St Andrews Agreement. 

These four treaties all have one thing in common; they have been signed off in Westminster but since ratification have almost completely ignored and sidelined by the British Government. 

COMEX, the Council of Europe Committee of Experts, during their periodical monitoring rounds would consistently criticise the British Government over lack of compliance whilst continuing to recommend they ‘adopt appropriate legislation protecting and promoting the Irish language’ and ‘engage in a dialogue to create the political consensus needed for adopting legislation’.

As co-guarantors of both Good Friday and St Andrews it’s fair to say the British Government aren’t neutral bystanders nor can they continue their pretence as objective arbitrators in the Stormont impasse. The same goes for the Irish Government. An Tanáiste Simon Coveney would go on to publicly re-commit to his duties as co-guarantor and reassure us of the Irish Government’s support for #AchtAnois in a letter to Belfast based Irish language group Glór na Móna  https://twitter.com/dreamdearg/status/1121446245640355841 

Of course, the question of legislation for the Irish language is not as clear cut as a law facilitating same sex marraige, for example, and the Irish language community has to be careful of what we wish for from Westminster. I think there is a general acceptance right across the board now that for Stormont to return there will need to be an Irish language Act. Arlene Foster herself confirmed to Conradh na Gaeilge during that round of meetings with Irish language groups in the Spring of 2017 that “there will be legislative provision for the Irish language”. The fallout since has been around the form and content of that legislation. 

The community alongside a host of international experts, from the Council of Europe, the UN, NIHRC, and a majority of 5 Stormont parties, are all singing off the same hymn sheet; an act must be delivered in ‘stand-alone’ legislation. The content, must be based on international best practice, affording the Irish language official status, with a commissioner, and provision for signage and services. 

The draft agreement published in February 2018 would have fallen well short of what is needed, and would only have embedded the fundamental problem of political interference within the legislation. We have since then told the parties as much. After 900 days we must ensure we arrive at a worthwhile resolution, one that makes demonstrable and practical change for people and communities who wish to use the language. For those who don’t wish to engage with the language, new legislation will have little to no impact on their lives. As CAJ’s Daniel Holder explained, “Put simply the rights of non-speakers of Irish are not interfered with by also continuing to provide for English”  http://eamonnmallie.com/2018/02/acht-na-gaeilge-rights-people-dont-speak-irish-daniel-holder/ 

Drafted correctly, an Irish language Act will ensure the language is no longer held hostage to political tensions or crass and sectarian decision making. Leaving this to the whim of Westminster could be potentially naive and risky, as MPs could bring back an Irish language Act in name only; with very weak provisions and content. So we could find ourselves very much in ‘be careful what you wish for’ territory. The St Andrews Agreement did include a very significant caveat that helps to mitigate weaks proposals, clearly stating the Act must be based on experiences from Wales and the south.

Nevertheless we must explore and exhaust all avenues for delivery. The Dream Dearg grassroots campaign is constantly evolving as the political landscape chops and changes on a daily basis. The concept of bottom-up activism, community organising, ‘feet on the street’ participative ideology for change will remain key in this campaign. 

During post election briefings in April 2017 we were told that politics here have changed forever. 

Things have changed. 

Westminster is off the fence. 

This week we have learned that London has both the capacity and the will to vote through legislative change here, when it suits them. Local agreement remains the priority. That ensures both local buy-in and local responsibility. 

If the DUP continue to elevate the exclusion of the Irish speaking community over the need for an executive that serves everyone, then we now have a precedent for Westminster delivery. Any return to Stormont without an Irish language Act, however, would only legitimiste and institutionalise that exclusion even further. 

Real change and meaningful delivery fosters stability. Anything less and it will only take another #Líofa, another ‘crocodile’ or ‘curried yogurt’, and we will be right back here again calling for real solutions to the same problems. 

Conradh na Gaeilge has recently published an FAQ on an Irish Language Act. Download here. https://cnag.ie/images/Acht_Gaeilge_Ceisteanna_Coitianta_FAQ_2019.pdf 

Dr Pádraig Ó Tiarnaigh @ptierney89 is an Irish Language Advocate with Conradh na Gaeilge and a spokesperson for the An Dream Dearg campaign for an Irish Language Act.

[atheistforhumanity]

Why I Vote Blue

When Abraham Lincoln bravely embraced the liberal philosophy at the time that African American's should not be property conservatives responded by saying:

South Carolina

“...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.”

Mississippi

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world...These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”

Louisiana

“The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.”

Alabama

“for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South...to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.”

Texas

“...in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....”

Conservatives are still waving the flag of these people today! To anyone who says I don't understand what that flag represents, you need to learn more history.

Source

After the Civil War, when the Democratic party was the conservative wing in this country and dominated the south, confederate veterans formed the KKK-an American terrorist group-to fight the peaceful integration of African Americans into our society. People like to bring up the KKK and Dixie Democrats to deny that the Republican party is the home of racism, but the fact is that in the 1960's the two party's switched platforms. Mainstream Democrats broke ranks with the southern Dixies and all of their conservative and racist values. The south flipped to the Republican party in support of Goldwater and his vicious attack against civil rights. LBJ won the presidency and lead Democrats toward the liberal end of the spectrum we operate on today. That is why the south, which waves the confederate flag and is a stronghold of racism today votes solidly Republican. This is also why the KKK and white nationalists vote Republican, because they find support for their causes in their policies. In fact, in at least 5 races happening right now there are self-avowed Nazis, white supremacists, and holocaust deniers running as Republicans. We have a racist Republican president who called white supremacist demonstrators “very fine people.” It's seriously hard not to see where conservative values live.

When women wanted to vote:

When women wanted to vote men lost their minds and were not having it. Truth be told, women largely had to make this happen on their own because men were hostile to the idea. As far as which party supported women's suffrage it was truly a mixed bag with lukewarm support from both sides. However, I'm focusing on ideological mindset, not party labels. It was a liberal idea to support women voting, just like it was liberal to support feminism in the 70's. Conservatives today are still using the same talking points used by anti-suffrage proponents in the 1920's. 

Here is a anti-suffrage political cartoon from the 1920's. This is mirrored by Senate Candidate Courtland Sykes. He doesn't want his daughters to become "career obsessed banshees who forego home life and children and the happiness of family to become nail-biting manophobic[sic] hell-bent feminist she devils who shriek from the tops of a thousand tall buildings they think they could have leaped over in a single bound – had men not ‘suppressing them’."

The GOP largely embraces an anti-women platform. Trump famously claimed he had the right to grab women by the pussy at any time, and with nearly 20 accusers of sexual assault he was still elected President. Republican Todd Akin famously said “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Modern Republicans have proved that they know nothing about rape and it's not surprising given their anti-feminist platform. Republican Clayton Williams flat out said to reporters that "If it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it." He said he was “joking.” Even Republican women are breathtakingly ignorant of the concept of equality for women. Republican state lawmaker from Florida, Kathleen Passidomo, made the worst victim blaming statement I've ever heard in support of a school dress code: “There was an article about an 11-year-old girl who was gang-raped in Texas by 18 young men because she was dressed like a 21-year-old prostitute," she said. "And her parents let her attend school like that. And I think it’s incumbent upon us to create some areas where students can be safe in school and show up in proper attire so what happened in Texas doesn’t happen to our students." Notice that was in Texas, a strongly conservative state. I could literally write pages and pages of quotes against women by conservative figures. The point is that we can see very plainly the conservative minded citizens of our country are not advancing the equality of women and never have.

The Civil Rights Era

Remember when I said the parties switched platforms in the 1960's when the south supported Goldwater for President? Well, Goldwater was a serious opponent of the civil rights act, another conservative man running for president became the face of racism and anti-equality. That mans name was George C. Wallace and he made a fiery speech denouncing LBJ and the Civil Rights Act. Here are some snippets:

“It is therefore a cruel irony that the President of the United States has only yesterday signed into law the most monstrous piece of legislation ever enacted by the United States Congress.

It is a fraud, a sham, and a hoax.

This bill will live in infamy. To sign it into law at any time is tragic. To do so upon the eve of the celebration of our independence insults the intelligence of the American people.

It dishonors the memory of countless thousands of our dead who offered up their very lives in defense of principles which this bill destroys.

Never before in the history of this nation have so many human and property rights been destroyed by a single enactment of the Congress. It is an act of tyranny. It is the assassin's knife stuck in the back of liberty...

...Ministers, lawyers, teachers, newspapers, and every private citizen must guard his speech and watch his actions to avoid the deliberately imposed booby traps put into this bill. It is designed to make Federal crimes of our customs, beliefs, and traditions...

...Yet there are those who call this a good bill.

It is people like Senator Hubert Humphrey and other members of Americans for Democratic Action. It is people like Ralph McGill and other left-wing radical apologists...It was left-wing radicals who led the fight in the Senate for the so-called civil rights bill now about to enslave our nation.

We find Senator Hubert Humphrey telling the people of the United States that "non-violent" demonstrations would continue to serve a good purpose through a "long, busy and constructive summer..."

...I am having nothing to do with this so-called civil rights bill. The liberal left-wingers have passed it.”

Okay, we will stop there. If you think listening to Donald Trump makes you feel like you've entered another reality where everything immoral is cherished, then I suggest you read Wallace's full speech. It makes modern Fox News hosts sound rational. Do you think he is just the remnant of a distant past when conservatives didn't know any better? Well, let's compare his statements to modern conservatives.

Wallace called the Civil Rights Act “an Act of tryanny,” and Donald Trump called Black Lives Matter “purveyor's of hate.” In fact the knee jerk reactions of Blue Lives Matter and All Lives Matter deny the core issue of constant racial violence against black people in America today, both by police and right-wing terrorists.

When Wallace says that the CRA made crimes of “our customs, beliefs, and traditions,” this is echoed in the defense of the confederate flag today and confederate monuments. Conservatives deny that rejecting those symbols of slavery and oppression are a moral action, therefore denying the true dynamic and pain they cause. That's exactly what Wallace was doing by framing civil rights protections for minorities as turning traditions into crimes. Modern supporters cry about the civil war soldiers who will be dishonored, completely ignoring that their cause was dishonorable to begin with and not caring about the disrespect and fear those symbols represent for non-whites.

Wallace mocked the protests of the era and the idea that they were a force for good. What's ironic about that is that Conservatives today always talk about the non-violent methods of MLK and condemn modern protests as being violent and destructive, but that's exactly how conservatives in MLK's day talked about him. Republicans have come out strong with legislation against protesting, taking a page out of the 60's play book. On top of police brutality and violent lash back against protestors, they want to make protesting as illegal as possible.  

Will Herberg in the 60's made scathing comments about MLK and his protests, “in almost every part of the country, called out their mobs on the streets, promoted “school strikes,” sit-ins, lie-ins, in explicit violation of the law and in explicit defiance of the public authority.” He spoke of King inciting anarchy and chaos.

Does this sound familiar? It should, because conservatives on Fox News have been pushing the same narrative that the left has devolved into mob rule, that they are violent people, and protests are illegitimate. The similarities go on and on. Nothing has changed.

LGBTQ

It is unquestionable that support for LGBTQ people is a liberal value, and conservatives have fought tooth and nail to resist granting these citizens fair and equal treatment both socially and legally. 

This graph illustrates my entire point I've been making about voting blue, about being liberal. Modern conservatives will reject the label of bigot while still rejecting homosexuality. We can see that consistently through the past liberal supported LGBTQ FIRST! Every civil rights issue you can think of was pushed by liberals first. I've laid out evidence showing where conservatives and liberals stood for some of the most important issues of our time and where they are today. Conservatives are always playing catch up. They are morally regressive, but always eventually giving in to a moral standard made in the past by liberal minded people. Now, you look at this graph and see that not even all liberals support homosexuality, but the point is not that liberals are perfect only that they are further ahead. Every value that liberals push for eventually becomes a moral standard. Democracy was a liberal idea in the face of conservative monarchists, capitalism was liberal compared to feudalism, religious freedom was a liberal idea compared to state sponsored religion. To be conservative is to be fundamentally against moving forward.

I don't vote blue for the Democratic party, the party may change, I vote for who represents the liberal spectrum. Liberal ideology has brought us everything good in this country and conservative voices have done nothing but hold us back. Whenever conservatives win it is on a campaign of fear. I vote blue because I know that one hundred years from now the people who call themselves conservatives will have accepted much of what we fight for today, but will be refusing to accept new advances. I know the liberal values of today are the values of the future.

I apologize for not going into as much detail about LGBTQ, but I felt that it’s less contested as far as who supports the movement and Pew Research shows where we are at today. It’s no secret who fights against marriage equality, and equal rights.

I hope everyone voted blue today, because you can see what a major impact it has on our lives.

[fycanadianpolitics]

Prime Minister Trudeau tweeted today in response to the recent decision by Kinder Morgan that “Canada is a country of the rule of law, and the federal government will act in the national interest. Access to world markets for Canadian resources is a core national interest. The Trans Mountain expansion will be built.” Many progressives will argue that the national interest is instead in protecting the country from the impacts of climate change. But arguing about what is in the national interest isn’t really getting us anywhere.  

What are we to do instead? Before we can discuss solutions to the problem of climate change, we need to ask how we got ourselves  into this mess in the first place. Sociologist Andreas Malm notes, “The spiral of climate change is set in motion by the act of identifying, digging up, and setting fire to fossil fuels: … For most of human history, the deposits were left untouched, safely locked out from the active carbon cycle. Then a qualitatively novel type of economy interrupted into them.” In the 19th century,  deposits of the resources were extracted on an unprecedented, massive scale by cheap labour commanded by an elite class of wealthy British landowners.

The first capitalists can be credited as the engineers of the climate crisis, but their extractivist nature was merely a reflection of their class interests; to acquire as much capital as possible regardless of the social and ecological consequence--something that has not remotely changed in the contemporary era (see former CEO of ExxonMobile and Secrectary of State, Rex Tillerson who says “My philosophy is to make money. If I can drill and make money, then that’s what I want to do.”). The British capitalists of the 19th century desperately sought out more coal to propel their steam boats to new, distant lands to acquire more land, where more resources could be extracted. However, much of this land was already occupied by indigenous peoples, who had to be violently dispossessed in order for their land to be acquired for further production of capital.

This is because the logic of capital is predicated on infinite growth and expansion.  The surplus profit generated by private firms is perpetually reinvested into new production, which requires more land, and land, historically, was acquired through any means necessary. This is why capitalism, colonialism, and climate change are inexorably bound up with one another: the three faces of a mutually reinforcing system of violence that is killing our planet. This continues in the  21st century through the violation of indigenous land rights as pipelines and other carbon infrastructure are created on ancestral lands without the consent of the first peoples. It is then fair to say that the climate crisis can be attributed to capitalism, an economic order that engenders imperialism and colonial land theft in pursuance of feeding the infinite appetite of the capitalist class.

It’s not uncommon to hear from self-professed liberals that “green capitalism,” can solve the climate crisis. That we can shop our way to a stable and clean environment, a prospect that appears to be increasingly untenable as the exponential increase in availability of “green” consumer goods has done little to prevent 2017 from being a record high year for global CO2 emissions. The reality is that the kind of radical, paradigm changing climate policy we need to protect the planet would also be a direct threat to the economic profits of corporations and the national GDP which politicians of every nation fetishize.

Capitalism, as it exists today, has no way of contending with the climate change crisis. World renowned climate scientist, Kevin Anderson, has spoken at length about how the economic growth imperative of capitalism is not compatible with reaching our Paris commitments. A recent study has stated that we have a 5% chance of reaching these goals under the economic statis quo. Anderson's research indicates that we must radically change our economic paradigm to save our existence on the planet. The mainstream economic orthodoxy of economic growth cannot be reconciled with the most up to date climate projections, which say, in very clear terms, that we are on course to rocket past our 2 degree Celsius commitment outlined in the Paris agreement and on towards 4 then 5 degrees, creating a very dire situation for humanity to say the least.

Our current economic situation has proven to be untenable in the long run. Global food insecurity is on the rise for the first time in decades due to climate change, global water pollution is steadily increasing, global air pollution is getting worse, there have been dramatic increases in exposure to toxic chemicals, the worlds slums are growing, there are record levels of coral bleaching, we are facing unprecedented levels of biodiversity loss. Pollution kills nearly 15 times more people than all the world's wars and violence combined, and is three times as deadly as AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis all put together.

The ruling class has decided that any threat to their economic hegemony is unacceptable, therefore it would be better to have the world become a scorched hell rather than to have their profits jeopardized. Even liberal leaders like Obama and Trudeau, who have paid plenty lip-service to climate change, only support climate initiatives insofar as they won’t disrupt the economic status quo, but sadly it is the economic status-quo that is  accelerating climate change to begin with. While the Republican party seems to deny the scientific reality of climate change, the liberal elite denies the economic and sociological realities of climate change. They want to have their cake and eat it too;  to advocate for environmental sustainability while also promoting economic growth and unregulated free trade, unaware or indifferent to the fact  that these things exist in contradiction. Neoliberalism and climate justice are mutually exclusive, as the former precludes the latter.

Here in Canada, the pseudo-progressiveness of Justin Trudeau is farcical; he puts on a great show of apologizing to various marginalized groups with teary eyes and feigned concern, while approving the construction of disastrous pipelines (Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline, Enbridge Line 3) to the outrage of indigenous land defenders and environmentalists throughout the nation. Apologists for the Liberal party propagate the fairy tale that the government can still construct pipelines, and  “balance,” environmental goals with economic ones.

This appeal to moderation cannot be substantiated based on what we know about oil emissions. Many studies have shown (here and here) that constructing new carbon infrastructure is incompatible with reaching the  Paris accord commitments of 2 degrees C. Pipelines have lifespans of decades and we simply cannot afford to be pumping oil for decades. This is why Trudeau’s tweet today is so unsurprising. With Trudeau’s pipeline endeavours, he is merely continuing Canada’s long-held tradition, which started with John A. Macdonald, of appropriating indigenous land to consolidate Canada’s colonial power.

Trudeau's politics of reconciliation is incredibly deceptive, obscuring indigenous demands for land restitution with the spectacle of televised, performative repentance, which, in material terms, does nothing to address stolen land. The reality is that it doesn’t matter which empty suit any of the political parties puts forward; it doesn’t matter how sad or guilty they might seem about past national transgressions; they will always be subordinated to the logic of the colonial-capitalist state: dispossession, accumulation, and expansion. That “rule of law,” that Trudeau refers to, is the colonial legal framework that has been designed to facilitate the extraction of natural resources from stolen land. It is this framework that needs to be dismantled.

This is why reformism is entirely inadequate in addressing the climate crisis; it is the socio-economic structure itself that is producing climate change. Therefore the changes we need have to be systematic, sweeping, and ultimately anti-capitalist in nature. But how can we get there? Only mass social movements can challenge the hegemony of neoliberal governments and corporations. Only through mass organization and mobilization can we begin to bring about a society organised along ecological principles. While the statistics may seem grim, there are reasons to be hopeful.

In the last few decades there have been several awe-inspiring, grassroots movements that we can draw inspiration from moving forward. For instance, the Ogoni protests in the 90s are a stunning example of collective, direct action that kicked out Shell oil out of their country. In collusion with the Nigerian government, Shell oil was responsible for the displacements of tens of thousands of Ogoni people, which gave birth to the Ogoni Peoples Movement, a grassroots social movements that succeeded in dismantling Shell’s corporate stranglehold over the region. Without receiving any help from their  failing and corrupt government, the Ogoni people used militant, non-violent direct action to shut down oil operations. The movement continues to battle a corrupt government while facing the environmental catastrophe of degraded and leaking carbon infrastructure left in Shell’s wake, and although their struggle continues, there is a commendable victory here.

Like the Ogoni, Indigenous people all over the world have been at the forefront of environmental protection. This was seen with the recent Dakota Access Pipeline protests, where the Standing Rock Tribe and other indigenous groups came together to protect water and ancestral burial grounds. This was perhaps the single most monumental environmental social movement in recent history, dominating the headlines at the time.  In October 2017, several energy activists dubbed the “valve turners,” shut down five separate pipeline in a coordinated act of fossil fuel resistance, a sophisticated and flawlessly executed example of the kind of direct action we need on an even larger scale.

It is necessary that we build upon these movements and work together in creating the kind of mass social movement that can challenge the capitalist system itself and replace it with a new kind of economic arrangement that is based on ecological sustainability and social equity, not private profit.  Without system change, climate change will continue to ravage our planet.