#i have my economics midterm today

[chaoticacademicrubberduck]

It is 5:45 A.M and you will already not believe the morning I've been having

[study-diaries]

10.07.2024

So... I didn't get selected for the competition but nevertheless, I'm glad I atleast tried my level best... Though, my computer teacher has now called me for another competition (not public speaking) i don't really wanna join but her glares are enough to make ice melt so... T-T

Anyway, today i:

Did some accounts sums and concepts (1 hr 30 mins)

Completed 70% of my computer assignment

Revised part 2 and 3 in lesson 3 of economics

That's it. My mid terms start from 18th so I need to pick my speed up because I have a huge portion to cover... especially in Business studies and Arabic, i haven't touched them in ages and both have 8 lessons for midterms :")

[mystic-writings]

remember the nights | chapter six — stargazing

WORD COUNT — 1,772

WARNINGS — none

NOTES — ah yes, the iconic skeletal formula fic, which i taught myself how to write a skeletal formula and promptly deleted the info from my brain a week later

previous chapter | masterlist | next chapter

School was quickly becoming the bane of your existence. Between the economics test you and the others had all studied for last week — which you were extremely thankful for, as it helped your grade immensely — and the teachers grilling everyone about midterms, you were under more pressure than you’d ever felt, and were assigned more homework than you knew what to do with. 

Along with that came the fact that college admissions had finally opened up, and you were entirely unsure as to where you wanted to go. There were good schools in New York City, and for a very long time you had planned to go to one of them with all of your friends so that you wouldn’t have to pay as much for a dorm or an apartment. Now, though, you’d have to do that wherever you went, and you hadn’t been talking to your city friends as much, and you just weren’t sure what to do anymore. No matter how far you went, you’d have to get a dorm or an apartment, and if you chose to go out of state, that meant even more of a cost. 

Today, though, you were focusing on something that, overall, seemed small, but to you, was anything but. You invited Newt over to the house to help you attempt to understand the one subject that seemed to be out to kill your GPA — chemistry. He should be arriving at any minute, wielding his seemingly miraculous understanding of the science in order to help you with the ten homework questions that you’d been putting off since Thursday. 

Dinner had long been eaten and cleaned up, Thomas and Chuck had retreated to Chuck’s room to play video games for the rest of Chuck’s night, and your dad and Maggie were watching a movie in the living room. You were with them, sitting in the armchair and barely processing the movie as you waited patiently for Newt to show up. 

When the doorbell rang, you practically sprung from your chair, ignoring the chuckle your father let out as you did so. Newt greeted Maggie and your dad as you invited him inside, his school bag slung over one shoulder. He received a quick, warm welcome back from the couple as they kept their eyes on the movie.

Newt followed you upstairs as you led him into your room, keeping the door open — a rule firmly set by your dad when you told him about Newt’s coming over this afternoon, though you knew nothing that your dad was implying was going to happen between you and Newt. 

“I still don’t get how you don’t understand chemistry,” Newt said, dropping his bag by your bed and taking a seat on it. 

You scoffed, grabbing your textbook and homework supplies, sitting cross legged near the head of your bed. “Says the guy who was literally named after Isaac Newton.” 

“One, remind me to punch Gally when I see him tomorrow for telling you that,” Newt rolled his eyes, “and two, Isaac Newton was a mathematician, not a chemist. You’re thinking of Marie Curie.”

“Oh, like that makes such a big difference,” you dismissed him, grabbing your pencils. “You’re still named after a freaking genius.” 

Newt laughed, shaking his head before mirroring your position on the bed and diving into the material. 

Half an hour passed by as Newt explained the homework and everything that related to it, but it seemed as though your brain simply refused to process it. You’d only gotten three questions done, and you were twice as frustrated as you were when you first started. 

“How do skeletal formulas even work? I don’t get it.” You groaned, pressing the heels of your palms into your eyes. “Just write out the damn formula, give me a periodic table, and let me figure it out from there.” 

Newt couldn’t stifle his laughter. “It doesn’t quite work like that, Y/n,” he said, writing something out on his piece of paper and showing it to you. “Writing out a skeletal formula is just taking an outstretched version of a molecule and breaking it down into its functional groups and carbon.” 

He turned the paper back to him, writing something out, and underlining ‘2-butanol’ before getting back to work, explaining and showing it to you as he went along. “So, you see how I wrote out all the atoms connected to one another with these lines? C is carbon, H is hydrogen, and O is oxygen. The lines that connect the carbon together is the carbon skeleton, and OH — the oxygen and hydrogen — are the functional group, so they can stay, and so can the carbon.” 

Newt erased some things on the paper before the lead hit the paper, drawing out something new. “Take out all of the letters except for the OH, connect all the lines, and viola,” he showed you the paper with a smile. “A skeletal formula.” 

“Oh,” you nodded, “I still don’t get it.” 

Newt sighed, dropping his pencil onto his paper. “Honestly, I’m starting to think you’re a lost bloody cause.”

“Maybe I am.” You shrugged, glancing around your room before an idea came to your mind. “How about we take a break, do something else, and come back to this with fresh minds.” 

“Like what?”

You smiled, almost mischievously, nodding your head to the window across the room. “Wanna go look at the stars?”

Within minutes, you and Newt had pulled a blanket onto the roof of the garage, laying it out across the shingles in order to be comfortable. Newt had grabbed his jacket from where he put it on the back of your chair, and you brought out your comfiest sweater from your closet. 

Newt was already laying down comfortably by the time you’d gotten onto the roof again, his hands tucked under his head. You laid down in the spot to his right, eyes trailing up to the sky, mesmerized by the view. The quiet of a town already gone to sleep settled over the two of you, washing away the stress of high school chemistry and replacing it with the tranquility of a quiet town and a beautiful sky. 

“It’s so beautiful,” 

“Yeah, it is,” Newt’s voice nearly caught you off guard, as though you’d forgotten he was even there. 

When you turned to look at him, his eyes were already on you. 

Newt sucked in a breath, turning his gaze back to the stars. “I used to do stuff like this all the time when I was younger.” 

“I don’t think I’ve seen stars like this… well, ever.” You admitted. “Living in a big city, all that light pollution… The sky didn’t even get that dark at night. It just got sort of… reddish. It wasn’t even like it was really dark outside sometimes.” 

“Really?” Newt frowned. “I can’t even imagine something like that. When I was young, I had this obsession with the stars and constellations and stuff. Every chance I got, I’d ask my mum to buy me books about them. I even learned how to point out the bloody constellations from my bedroom window.” 

And, for the next little while, that’s what Newt did. For the better part of an hour, though it didn’t feel anything close to that long, Newt pointed up at the stars, rattling off star names, the names of the constellations that connected them, and some of the stories that people connected to them long ago. You watched him happily, soaking up everything he told you. You glanced at him more than you did the sky, though, as the look on his face was what had you truly enamored. The passion and joy gleaming in his eyes was worth the cold chilling you to the bone. 

The chill of the autumn air mixed well with the cadence in Newt’s voice, soothing you until, before you knew it, you were teetering in and out of sleep, balancing very carefully on that dangerous tightrope. 

When you finally found the strength to open your eyes, Newt had fallen silent, eyes locking with yours as a playful smile stretched onto his lips. 

“Why are you looking at me like that?”

“You fell asleep,” he laughed. 

“I did?”

“Yeah, about twenty minutes ago, I think,” he shrugged, sitting up. “We might wanna go inside now, though. I’ve gotta go soon, and we still have work to do.”

You groaned, dreading going back to the discarded chemistry textbooks on your bed, watching Newt push himself to his feet and extending two hands to help you stand. You accepted the help and quickly got to your feet, ignoring how warm his hands were in your ice-like ones. 

Still, you folded up the blanket and trudged inside after Newt, returning to your homework and doing your best to complete it within the half hour window you were left with until Newt had to go back home. Most of that time, however, had been spent joking around, mostly about how you were most definitely going to fail the class, until you decided to copy Newt’s homework, which is mainly what you’d been doing for most of the semester, anyway. 

You walked Newt to the door at ten minutes to ten o’clock. Most of the lights in the house were off, and your main guiding light was the TV as your father lay on the couch, passed out with some history docuseries playing absently in front of him. 

You opened the door for Newt, leaning against the frame with one hand on the doorknob after he passed through it and stepped onto the front porch. Just as he began to leave, you said, “Thanks, by the way,”

Newt turned, a playful smile on his face. “For what? Letting you copy my homework for the hundredth time?”

“No,” you scoffed a laugh, “for teaching me something, at least. I might not understand the shrouding mystery behind a skeletal formula, but I do know about the Greek mythology of Orion’s belt, and that’s gotta count for something.” 

Newt shrugged, his smile growing softer with each second. “No biggie. I’ll see you tomorrow, okay?”

“Yeah. See you tomorrow.” You nodded, watching him descend your few stairs and head to his car, pulling away from the curb and heading home. 

Long after his headlights were gone from your sight, you headed inside with a sigh, resting your forehead against the wood of the door as you closed it. And even though the day ahead of you was just going to be another boring, monotonous day, you couldn’t help but be excited for it to begin.

series masterlist: @heliads @ghostofscarley @badbatch-simp24 @virginia-peters @third-broparcelicito @lamolaine (open!)

[firewalkwithmme]

☾𖤓 — 21 October 2024

˚˖𓍢ִ໋🦢˚ — Today’s accomplishments:

planned my film class midterm paper and wrote two paragraphs

Studied two units of economics

studied for my music history test

completed the prep work for tomorrow’s psychology lab

attended my art history lecture and film lecture

practiced polish

Today was my first day back at university after my fall break and it was a very productive day for me, thankfully. My motto of something is better than nothing has been helping increase my productivity, encouraging me to do work a little bit at a time! I started the day by reorganizing my desk space with my new candles, worked on my studies, then after my lectures, studied in the almost-empty bio building (they have trees inside!). Then I had a really nice walk home, my campus is beautiful in the fall. I’m going to try to be locked in for the rest of this week as well since I have a midterm exam, a test, and a paper due, and today was a good start so I’m feeling more motivated. I also ate 3 meals today which is always good, and I even got out of bed at a reasonable time (shocking, I am a chronic late sleeper). Tomorrow my goal is to be as productive as today.

[anahiestudia]

06/05/24

Got one hell of a weekend to mantain my focus on studying, and now i´m kind of overwhelmed since i don´t know what part to start reviewing for midterm´s exam. But at least i´m going well, overwhelmed but good.

I was planning on going for a run today but started raining this morning.

• Finished reading the last thing for the economical-political history of Argentina.

• Did a little bit of strenght exercises (in exchange of the run that i was gonna do)

• Review for midterm exam, then lost focus.

Day 10: Are you happy with your productivity on this 30dop so far?

Not so quite, since i´ve been busy and i have to remind myself that i have a studyblr to update. But i´m still going to finish it.

🎼 Rock the Casbah- The Clash

[strawberry-shortcake-dessert]

I have my final economics midterm today. I’m nervous about it even though I did well on my last one.

[renee-writer]

Love Comes First Chapter 1

AO3

“How did we end up with all these children?” They hear Faith and Tabitha arguing in their room, James playing his music, way to loud in his, and the babies, Peter and Leah playing, nicely for now, in theirs.

 

She lifts her eyes. “Well Pastor Fraser, when a man and woman really love each other…”

 

He laughs, drawing her into his arms. “We may just get one for each spoon.”

 

“The heck you say!” She turns towards where the female shrieks are coming from, “Faith, Tabby, enough,” towards James’s room, “turn the music down son.”

 

A moment later, silence reigns. It won’t last.

 

They  meet in university. He was studying theology, she home economics. He wants to be a minister, she a homemaker. It was love at first sight.

 

They marry in her second and his third year. Two years of seminary follow.

 

James is born the year his daddy graduates. Faith follows two years later. Tabitha arrives three years after, Peter two, and Leah four years later. They are done, despite his joke about the twelve apostles spoons.

 

“Mama, Tabby has my new jumper and won’t give it back!”

 

“It isn’t fair. It matches my eyes better and I have to look good today.”

 

“Why do you have to look so good today?” Jamie asks. His twelve year old sighs dramatically.

 

“Da, it is the first day I can go to the youth group. I must make a good first impression.”

 

“Please no. Don’t tell me she is going to youth group?”

 

“Faith, she is twelve now. That is when you started.” Her da reminds her.

 

“Aye, and I thought my life was over,” James comes out and joins the conversation, “I adjusted. You will too.”

 

“It isn’t the same. I’m not a brat.”

 

“Da! Mama!”

 

“Enough!” Claire silences them all, including Peter and Leah still playing in their room, “Faith we do not call names in this family, do we?”

 

“No mama.”

 

“Tabitha, we also do not borrow clothes without the owners permission.”

 

“Right, sorry Faith.” She hands her back her jumper.

 

“Me too. Your not a brat.”

 

“Now Tabby, the green jumper of yours will be beautiful with your black skirt.”

 

She smiles and hugs her mama. They walk back into their room, now laughing and discussing outfit choices.

 

“Now that is solved, can I borrow the car?”

 

“Where would you be driving too?”

 

“Da, I am seventeen,” Jamie raises his eyes, “alright. I am going to the library to study,” now his mama raises hers. Their eldest isn’t known for his attention to his studies, “really. I have a midterm in biology coming up. The library is quieter.”

 

“Alright. You may. Drop your sisters off at church and pick them up after youth group. That will give you two hours to study. If you need more you can return after dropping them at home.”

 

“Thanks da. You’re not going tonight?”

 

“No, Mr. Fitzgibbons is in hospital and I will be visiting with him.”

 

“Man, is it serious?”

 

“He had a knee replacement. Nothing to bad.”

 

“Good. I like that old man.”

 

“I will pass on your good wishes.” He kisses his wife, steps in to the littles room, saying goodbye to them, before heading out.

 

“Jamie, how good of you to come.” He has known Murtagh Fitzgibbons since before he took his post at church, twenty years previous. He has been a neighbor of his.

 

“When my favorite parishioner gets his knee replaced  I wouldn’t be anywhere else. Fergus can handle youth group.”

 

“Aye but can he handle Faith ‘s reaction to Tabby joining?”

 

The two men laugh together.

 

“Claire had a talk with them. It may just go okay.”

 

“Eh, she has a way with the bairns. You are a blessed man.”

 

“Aye, I know it. How are you? How is your pain?”

 

“Tolerable. I am brawl. The medicine is working not that I wish to be on it longer than I have too.”

 

“Just don’t force it. You do as the doctor says.”

 

“What are you doing?”

 

Faith jumps as her sister comes up beside her.

 

“Tabitha Ann, what are you doing sneaking up on me?”

 

Tabby rolls her eyes. “I wasn’t sneaking. I called your name twice.”

 

Faith flushes. “Sorry. I must have been daydreaming.”

 

“Aye about Fergus.”

Her eyes narrow as she turns to her sister. “You don’t know what you are talking about.”

 

“I saw you mooning over him. Da won’t…”

 

She jerks her sister into a more private part of the large youth room. “You won’t be telling him.”

 

“Why not?”

 

“Because we are sisters and have a bond. It isn’t like I know I can have him. A youth minister twelve years older than me. He is just…”

 

“Gorgeous.” Tabby says.

 

“Yeah.”

 

“Faith, Tabitha, will you be joining the group.” The man himself asks.

 

Both are blushing as they do.

 

 

“I am hear to study.” He firmly tells himself. Even so, his eyes keep lifting from his biology book and notes to the lass sitting at the table beside his.

 

Beautiful dark black air, falls in ringlets around her face. Her eyes are framed by the largest lashes he has ever seen.

 

He forces his eyes back down.

 

“Have you been watching me?”  He looks up at her with a blush.

 

“Pardon me lass. I never meant to…”

 

“Sophie.” She offers her hand. He takes it.

 

“James Fraser.”

 

“I love your hair.” They say together before bursting out laughing.

 

“Would you like to help me with dinner?” She sticks her head into their room.

 

Peter lays on the top bunk, reading a comic. Leah sits her little table, having a tea party with her dolls and stuffies.

 

“Aye mama. Coming Peter?”

 

“Aye,” He jumps down, “mama I have been thinking, what this family needs is a dog.”

[kjenvs000semesterf24]

Unit 5 Blog Post

Seeing that this week’s blog post is open-ended was both a delight and a challenge because, as a passionate ecology student, I can talk about nature-related concepts in my sleep. In fact, midterm studying has even caused me to start sleep-talking about the classifications of vertebrates, but that’s beside the point. A big part of my life that has shaped who I am today is the traveling I’ve been fortunate enough to do, as my family has always prioritized these types of experiences. In this post, I want to reflect on the relationship between tourism and conservation, and evaluate how I can more sustainably explore the world going forward. 

I believe that tourism and the appreciation of nature are closely linked, with one often enhancing the other. When done mindfully, tourism can foster a deep connection to the natural world, but it's crucial to balance exploration with conservation to ensure future generations can enjoy the same landscapes and wildlife. Beyond personal growth, such as building confidence and problem-solving skills, nature-based tourism provides valuable educational opportunities, offering firsthand insight into ecosystems, biodiversity, and the importance of preservation, often times teaching more than a textbook ever could. 

However, as tourism grows, so do the pressures on natural environments. Over-tourism, or the excessive number of visitors to a particular location, can lead to negative effects like soil erosion, habitat destruction, pollution, and disturbances to wildlife. Popular destinations such as coral reefs and national parks often suffer from overcrowding, putting immense pressure on their ecosystems. This can result in the degradation of the natural beauty that draws tourists in the first place. 

Since gaining more say in the trips we take as a family or with friends, I’ve become increasingly interested in eco-tourism. Eco-tourism is a more sustainable and responsible form of tourism, which seeks to counteract these issues by promoting minimal environmental impact and maximum conservation efforts. It emphasizes respecting local cultures, supporting conservation projects, and ensuring that tourism benefits local communities. This approach not only preserves the natural beauty of an area but also enhances the cultural and economic well-being of the people living there. 

When I started writing this post, I explained that the trips I took as a child to visit family in Florida and England were not sustainability-focused. However, upon reflection, I realize I learned a lot about nature and culture during those trips. Our family unintentionally became interpreters, using the experiences to teach me what they knew about the environment and the history tied to the land. For instance, I distinctly remember learning about sharks while searching for shark teeth on the beaches of Florida. While these trips were never labeled as ecotourism, I believe they upheld many of its values. 

(My grandma and I in Florida)

The three major trips that come to mind, where I consciously planned with sustainability and conservation in mind, are my safari in Kenya, sailing in the British Virgin Islands, and my exchange semester in Sweden. In Kenya, my grandmother and I stayed in different camps, and the Maasai guides—who have traditionally lived off the land—shared their knowledge of the animals and ecosystem. Conservation was central to the safari, with a focus on protecting wildlife and providing local people with opportunities to share their expertise. This trip was particularly special, as I learned so much about both the wildlife and the Maasai way of life. 

(a walking safari with a Maasai guide in Kenya)

The second trip was to the British Virgin Islands, where my family rented a sailboat to explore the islands. It was like a DIY cruise, but far more environmentally conscious, as cruises are notorious for harming the environment. Sailing allowed us to connect more closely with nature. Each morning, we would check the weather and wind to determine our route and explore the unique environment of the islands. One day, during a crossing, a pod of wild dolphins came beside our boat to play—a magical experience. 

(The boat we traveled on in the BVIs)

The biggest challenge I face is the environmental impact of transportation to these destinations. To combat this, I try to stay longer in each area and travel more slowly. This was the case when I did my exchange semester in Sweden last winter. Spending more time in a place helps me immerse myself in the local culture and fosters a more mindful and thoughtful approach to travel. This brings me to the last trip I want to mention: my grandmother’s visit to Sweden, where her one request was to see the northern lights. Although it wasn’t guaranteed, I wanted to make it happen for her. The only available tour was a snowmobile tour, so there I was, in northern Sweden, with my 80-year-old grandmother with a bad back on the back of my snowmobile. It turned out to be amazing. As we emerged from the woods, we were greeted by the most beautiful aurora borealis. The guides not only explained the scientific phenomena behind the lights but also shared what people from the past thought when they saw them thousands of years ago. We had this conversation while enjoying reindeer stew—an interesting experience for me as a usually-vegetarian. 

(Northern lights in Sweden)

Over the years, I’ve been working to make travel—a significant part of my life—more sustainable and less harmful. I’ve found that prioritizing low-impact activities like sailing, choosing local guides for tours, and traveling more slowly when possible helps me travel more responsibly. 

[arpov-blog-blog]

“Biden’s 2024 Chances Are Much Stronger Than People Realize.” The essay is a new articulation of our basic take on 2024:

Joe Biden is a good President. The country is better off. The Democratic Party is strong and winning elections across the US. And they have Trump.

First, President Joe Biden has kept his central promise in the 2020 election: that he would lead the nation to the other side of Covid, successfully. The pandemic has receded. Our economic recovery has been better than any other G7 nation. GDP grew at an annual rate of 4.9% last quarter, and more than 3% for the Biden presidency. We have the best job market since the 1960s and the lowest uninsured rate in U.S. history. The Dow Jones broke 37,000 this month for the first time. Wage growth, new business formation and prime-age labor participation rates are all at historically elevated levels. Prices fell — yes, fell — last month. Rents are softening, and gas prices and crime rates are falling. Domestic oil and renewable production are at record levels. The annual deficit, which exploded under Trump, is trillions less today. 

Consumer sentiment has risen sharply in recent weeks, and measures of life, job and income satisfaction are remarkably high. There is no doubt that recent years have been hard — Covid, an insurrection at the Capitol, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, repeated OPEC price hikes, global and domestic inflation — but it is increasingly clear that America is getting to the other side of this challenging period, and are in a far better place than when President Biden took office. 

Second, the strength of the president’s record is only matched by the strength of his party. I don’t think it is widely understood how strong the Democratic Party is right now. The party has won more votes in seven of the past eight presidential elections, something no party has done in modern American history. Over the last four presidential elections, Democrats have averaged 51% of the popular vote, their best showing over four national elections since the 1930s.

In both 2022 and 2023, Democrats prevented the historical down ballot struggle of the party in power and had two remarkably successful elections. In the 2022 midterms, Democrats’ statewide margins were greater than the 2020 presidential margins in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania — all recent battleground states. That showing led the party to pick up a Senate seat, four state legislative chambers and two governorships, and helped keep the House of Representatives close, making it far more likely Republicans lose it in 2024."

[princetonuniversitypress]

Bill Clinton and Joe Biden have a lot in common. Both are ambitious, lifelong politicians, white men of the same generation, who came to preside over Democratic presidential administrations confronted with an economic crisis that had deep-seated and intractable roots. Neither commanded a large Democratic majority in Congress and both had to trim their legislative sails when they faced resistance and division, sometimes within their own party.

And yet their fates are entirely different three years into the respective administration of each president. By 1995 Bill Clinton was fighting to remain “relevant” to the politics of his day. His first budget was an austere economic compromise that skimped on stimulus funding, while his ambitious effort to reform and expand health care insurance and provision had tumbled into history’s dustbin. Passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 created bitter rifts among Democrats, setting the stage for a massive Republican takeover in Congress. Many would soon label Clinton a “Democratic Eisenhower,” leading a party whose electoral success was predicated upon a wholesale accommodation to the ideologies of its opponents.

Joe Biden’s world seems entirely different. His administration has pushed through Congress trillions of dollars in new spending designed to rebuild infrastructure and reindustrialize key economic sectors. The Republicans underperformed during the midterm elections, and although Biden has not been a hugely popular President, he presides for the most part over a remarkably unified party.

The contrast between the fates of these two presidents is striking. However, understanding the reasons and mechanisms behind their distinct paths is even more instructive. I have labeled my reconsideration of Bill Clinton’s Presidency “A Fabulous Failure” because I don’t think one can comfortably label that president and many of his close collaborators neoliberal ideologues on the day they marched into the White House 30 years ago.

Their ambitions were more progressive. In 1992 Bill Clinton campaigned for the presidency on a program holding that the management and reform of American capitalism could hardly be left to the market alone. It was a task that required a plan and a purpose. One could glimpse that expansive promise when on December 14 and 15, 1992, the Clinton transition team assembled more than 300 of the nation’s leading economists, executives, politicians, and policy entrepreneurs in Little Rock for an “economic summit.” Almost all agreed with campaign strategist James Carville’s now-famous catchphrase, “The Economy, Stupid.” It was time for the government to offer a forceful set of initiatives designed to increase the productivity of capital and labor, transform key industry sectors, and enhance the quality of American life.

“We clearly face structural problems that today threaten our ability to harness the energies of all of our people,” said the President-elect. On display was an adventuresome range of ideas, reflecting a renewed set of Democratic ambitions after nearly two decades of progressive frustration, defeat, and economic dislocation spanning the tenures of every president since Richard Nixon. There were plenty of corporate chieftains in attendance, not so much to balance the academics and think-tank liberals with a more conservative outlook, but to demonstrate that the underperformance of the American economy was so debilitating that they too had a stake in efforts to rehabilitate industries and enterprises, especially those threatened by new competitors abroad and burdened by growing health care expenses at home. The end of the Cold War had hardly generated a sense of triumphalism. Massachusetts Democratic Paul Tsongas captured much of this angst during his brief campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination that year. “The Cold War is Over,” he asserted, “Japan and Germany Won.”

Clinton had been governor of a poor, Southern, rural state, spending the bulk of his time seeking to attract industry, raise wages, and increase worker skills and education. Clinton visited Germany, Japan, Italy, and South Korea looking for models and investments. He was therefore amenable to an “industrial policy” that deployed governmental power to advance economic development. Clinton’s appointment of several of the most high-profile advocates of such a program—Robert Reich at the Department of Labor, Laura Tyson as chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, Jeffery Garten in the US Trade Office, and Ira Magaziner in charge of health reform—was an indication of the degree to which this view enjoyed purchase within his new administration.

Today this aspect of the Clinton presidency has been largely discounted. Bill Clinton was the first Democratic President since FDR to win two consecutive terms, but that accomplishment seems merely a product of his accommodation to an ideology that privileged trade liberalization, financial deregulation, privatization of government services, and the growth of class inequalities. Clinton’s 1996 declaration, “The era of big government is over,” seemingly ratified Reaganite conservatism.

During the years after 1994, the drift toward such neoliberalism was much encouraged by the widespread view that the United States was indeed entering a “new economy” propelled by technologically-driven productivity gains, global trade, and financial innovation that simultaneously reduced unemployment and interest rates, elevated the stock market, and made international trade a win-win proposition. This “new economy” idea captivated everyone from Newt Gingrich and Alan Greenspan on the libertarian right to Robert Reich and Lester Thurow on the industrial policy left.

The idea would expire even before the Great Recession. But in the meantime, it constituted a powerful illusion. In December 1992, when Clinton kick-started the Little Rock economic summit, a sense of crisis pervaded the discussion about reshaping the American version of world capitalism. Fast forward to April 2000, Clinton convened a “White House Conference on the New Economy.” There, a techno-triumphalism animated the conclave, with Clinton announcing “We meet in the midst of the longest economic expansion of our history and an economic transformation as profound as that that led us into the industrial revolution.” At Little Rock, the leadoff speaker had been Robert Solow, the Keynesian theorist of economic growth; at the 2000 White House conference it was Abby Joseph Cohen, the famed, hyper-bullish stock market analyst from Goldman Sachs. Bill Clinton told that White House conference, “I believe the computer and the internet give us a chance to move more people out of poverty more quickly than at any time in all of human history.”

That was an illusion, but an even greater failure may well have arisen from the Clinton Administration’s actual achievements: creating a federal budget surplus, downsizing the government workforce, enacting an ambitious crime control law, passing the North American Free Trade Agreement, constructing a pathway for China to join the World Trade Organization, and deregulating both Wall Street finance and America’s vast telecommunications infrastructure. Wall Street boomed and unemployment dropped, but in the end, none of these reforms moved the nation toward the economic stability, social equality, or global democratic resurgence. Trade with China, the Clintonites had prophesied, would undoubtedly create the conditions for a free press, entrepreneurial freedom, and the autonomy, individual and organizational, necessary to sustain a robust civil society in that ancient nation. They were convinced that democratic effervesce was sure to accompany all those new cell phones, stock markets, and supermarkets.

Moreover, virtually every legislative victory scored by the Clinton Administration, especially in the years after 1994, faced significant opposition from within his own party. On many Clinton initiatives, especially those involving trade and financial deregulation, the White House relied on Republican votes, while a large fraction of the Democrats, sometimes even a majority, stood in opposition to their own president. Clinton was a dreadful party leader.

Clinton’s economic vision no longer commands the hegemonic assent it seemed to enjoy a quarter century ago. Few think that capital mobility, new technology, or greater international trade are creating the frictionless, fabulous world so many projected in the immediate post-Cold War years. Meanwhile, the industrial policy initiatives explored in the early Clinton era no longer seem quite so freckless. The trillion-dollar appropriations of the last three years, sometimes enacted with bipartisan support, constitute what Biden has labeled “an American industrial strategy,” designed to keep pandemic-threatened enterprises afloat, sustain working-class incomes, rebuild key industries, strengthen infrastructure, fund health insurance, and fight climate change. This agenda mirrors that of Magaziner, Reich, and Tyson 30 years before. While a new consensus is yet to form, the failures of the Clinton presidency can now be examined in a new light, one in which a neoliberal world no longer seems the wave of the future.

Nelson Lichtenstein is Research Professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is the author, with Judith Stein, of A Fabulous Failure: The Clinton Presidency and the Transformation of American Capitalism.

[seewetter]

I think it's essential to keep in mind that while calling your representative should also entail that voting is on the table, it also doesn't work if your vote is guaranteed.

Yes, some representatives would do what voters ask even if they knew they received the vote either way. But if it becomes a habit to just vote for the representatives of X party either way, then the only politicians with incentive to help are those motivated selflessly to help voters. And looking at the status quo in our fine democracies, that track record is spotty, to say the least.

I agree that online politics is often purity politics. Inexperienced people will try to be the ultimate pure leftist and disregard electoral politics because it isn't sufficiently revolution-inspiring or world-changing. And that's absurd. I'm glad people like OP are calling out the absurdity.

And it makes sense to highlight the effect voting can have, as the 2nd post does do.

Nonetheless there are oligarchic elements in many societies today. I remember the national survey that showed Tony Blair as the most hated politician in the UK...one week before he won the UK election. Most people don't want the kind of political realities and legislature they have to live under. And something about various electoral systems must be, in a sense, broken (or at least occasionally game-able by non-democratic forces) for people to get such uneven results on the society they want to live in and the choices they want their representatives to make.

In many countries, voting is now a choice between dangerous people with plans of taking control away from voters and maybe killing some minorities too and more mainstream candidates who are argued to be the lesser of two evils.

Some American voters (who abstained in 2016 because the Democrats dropped working class issues in their national convention) were in fact trying to motivate their representatives to change course -- a course correction that at least partially has happened as a result.

And there's no moral dilemma there, in my opinion. Just a moral nightmare. Sometimes abstaining in such possibly essential elections is not a clear cut evil, even though the consequences might obviously be purely evil. Because otherwise the lesson learned is that as long as you fund extremist political opponents you can make any proposals you like and force voters to vote for you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/12/democrats-interfere-republican-primaries

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/11/1135878576/the-democrats-strategy-of-boosting-far-right-candidates-seems-to-have-worked

https://www.vox.com/2022/11/12/23454725/democrat-republican-maga-strategy-midterm-red-wave

When you tell your representatives to do something, your voice needs weight. And that means you need to be able to say "I will abstain" or "I will vote something else" to build pressure. Yes, abstaining often has a similar/same effect as voting for the opponent. Yes, this can end in unprecedented historical atrocities and kill us. No, that's not fun to think about and should be avoided at all costs.

But don't for a second convince yourself that you can comfortably condemn people who want their cake and eat it too.

The reason so many people online want to not vote & also call their representatives is because they see that the current election choices in their countries aren't real choices and they don't know how to deal with it.

If your vote seems like it is guaranteed to be a step in a horribly wrong direction (erasure of all working class concerns from politics versus right-wing demagoguery/fear-mongering/persecution), then a choice either way is disastrous. Some people try to simplify the choice by saying it's status quo versus fascism, but the US 2016 election was a worst-case scenario for anyone experiencing job insecurity or economic concerns.

When people have to make such unbelievably tough choices, the idea of just telling your representative to fix it for you can be tempting. The idea of just not voting can be tempting. Just abstain from all responsibility beyond doing a thing that feels good with no strings attached (the phone call).

In short, I think OP is right to say this, but I fear it just feeds the Discourse (TM) where the world is a purity test. OP isn't participating in that conversation here, but it seems like a giant blind-spot to only see how voting is essential to political pressure and encourage voting and not understand how (in a 2-party system or a system with more than 2 parties where voters always give most of their votes to 2 parties, like in Canada and increasingly many countries) if you hand your vote to the lesser of 2 evils candidate (TM) then you also can't exert pressure.

And that's what the common political discourse still looks like, even now that large Tumblr communities seem to have become more reflective and politically mature. We still see this idea that since there are 2 factions (1 clearly evil faction) we therefore still make simple choices between doing good and doing bad. But that's not the case. Our political system can constrain our choices, but it can't constrain the complexity of reality.

So while I share OPs judgement that the non-voters who say "call your representative" are making a political mistake, I hope we can all realize that there is a lot at stake in political decision-making and we can't just find our answers in a simple binary choice "paint by numbers" style. Our choices need to be carefully weighed. We can't just make a choice that feels right and then Otherize everyone who made a different choice, even if some of them are on closer examination obviously not making rational choices. Irrational people may have things to say that we just ignored when we made our rationally consistent but perhaps not fully informed choice. Take heed.

If I see one more person I know tell everyone to call their representative to demand a cease-fire and then post about how voting is useless and a waste of your time and doesn't have any effect, I am going to EXPLODE. How the fuck do you think your representative gets into Congress, fucking runes?? Rolling your D12s? Playing with a Ouija board?! Jesus fuck.

I mean, the very vocal group of elected Democrats who have been calling for a ceasefire and pressuring for more support for Palestinians is because enough people kept voting.

[kwockxpressions]

Aleeza Ahmad

1. Name, Year, Major & Hometown

My name is Aleeza Ahmad, and I am a 3rd year Managerial Economics Major with a minor in Technology Management. I am from Union City, California.

2. What are you most proud of?

I am most proud of myself for getting to where I am today!

3. If you could choose a Sanrio character as a pet, which one would it be and why?

I would choose Kuropi because I love frogs and the color green.

4. What is the biggest green flag in someone?

The biggest green flag is when their wallet is fat 🤑. On a more serious note, an important green flag to me is when people yell "COWS" when you are driving by cows.

5. What’s your biggest ick?

The biggest ick to me is when people have no social awareness or can't read social cues, especially in college. Inexcusable at their big age.

6. If you were Kirby, who/what would you swallow and become?

If I was Kirby, I would swallow Zendaya because she can truly do it all (act, model, and sing).

7. What’s the most embarrassing moment in your life?

When I first started my job on campus, the door to the bathroom sometimes wouldn't lock properly. Before my first month was up, a guy had walked into the bathroom while I was in there... He barely saw anything, but it is a painful memory :')

8. When’s the last time you cried?

The last time I cried was last night because it is week 4 so that means all of my classes have midterms LOL. I also saw a sad pet tiktok :(

9. What’s your most used emoji?

🦅🫡

10. What do you value in friendship and tell me about your best friend?

I value genuine connections and trust in friendships. It is important to me to feel comfortable with friends and not anxious about the way I am acting. It is hard to be genuine and comfortable with people sometimes, so I appreciate when others are able to be themselves around me. It becomes an unspoken thing that we have each other's backs and I love how naturally that bond forms. My best friend is one of the strongest, selfless, and amazing people I know. She is beautiful inside and out, and handles every situation with grace. In situations where most people would crumble, she makes it look easy. She never brags though, but everyone around her knows she is something really special. I am so lucky to have found her early in my childhood. I know we will always be in each other's lives and a part of every major milestone in our futures. Even when we are busy and haven't talked in a while, we always are able to pick up right where we left it. We are always there for each other when it matters, no questions asked. We probably have hundreds of inside jokes and thousands of fun memories. She understands what really matters in life and makes my heart feel full & warm. She is honestly one of my biggest role models and pushes me to be a better version of myself everyday. Only some people are able to find a true best friend like this, and I am so glad that I am one of them.

[communicationmyway]

Selected Topics In Political Science - The Coming Anarchy Final Paper

In this class, I had to do a lot of research papers, so that meant a lot of time with my thoughts and time by myself. It was tough, but I managed to do it, and I think I did a pretty good job on my papers. It was hard when you second guess everything you hear, then second guess everything you think, then second guess everything you write and so on. Since I completed the course though, I am proud and think it contributes to the lessened anxiety that I have now!

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

The Coming Anarchy and How it Shapes Us Today

How do we, as civilians living on planet Earth, stop the world from degrading into a mass of rioting and nothingness if we do not listen to what is being told, listen to what is being advised to do or what not to do. Even in the 1920’s after World War 1, William Butler Yeats wrote of “The Second Coming”, an apocalyptic view on the world and what was to come to those who live in it. “The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity” (Yeats, lines 6-8). These lines still ring true today, with innocence being destroyed daily, those who can make a change don’t while those who seemingly have less power make the choices with the passion they have. Then we have Robert D. Kaplan who wrote in 1994 of how the world will be in turmoil, especially within the next 50 years. Kaplan wrote of how in order to understand the events that will take place in the next 50 years, then one would need to understand, “environmental scarcity, cultural and racial clash, geographic destiny, and the transformation of war” (Kaplan, page 54). These are but a few things that have continued to go undiscussed in many parts of the world, along with a few other concerns of his, such as, “the withering away of central governments, the rise of tribal and regional domains, the unchecked spread of disease, and the growing pervasiveness of war” (Kaplan, page 48). These are all very real, very terrifying things that we as people have not found an even ground on how to solve, even in 2022. In this essay, quite a few things will be discussed, ranging from economic power shifts, population growth, scarce resources, climate change, terrorism, an understanding of Samuel P. Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” and how it relates to a post-pandemic world, and some of the issues a post-Pax Americana face, such as growing powers, growing global ecological crisis, and growing American domestic instability. 

In the Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, it discusses how some countries will continue to grow bigger, such as China, India, and Russia (Global Trends 2025, vi/vii), while other countries will struggle to grow and fall behind economically, such as Sub-Saharan Africa and some of Latin America (Global Trends 2025, vii). Some countries, such as Asia, Africa, and Latin America, will account for the most population growth in the world while, “less than 3 percent of the growth will occur in the West” (Global Trends 2025, vii). Global Trends 2040: A More Contested World goes deeper in depth of this situation and others that will arise in paragraph 3: 

Some developed and emerging economies, including in Europe and East Asia, will grow older faster and face contracting populations, weighing on economic growth. In contrast, some developing countries in Latin America, South Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa benefit from larger working-age populations, offering opportunities for a demographic dividend if coupled with improvements in infrastructure and skills.

This goes to explain the economic power shift and population growth which are some of the problems that the world will face.

Two other problems the world will face are scarce resources and climate change. A few of the resources that are in danger are energy, food, and water. In my Midterm essay, I wrote about how

The demand for food will continue to grow up to 50 percent by 2030 because “of growing world population, rising affluence, and the shift to Western preferences by a larger middle class” (Global Trends 2025, viii). The world will continue to struggle to find access to clean, sustainable water due to the world population and rapid urbanization worldwide (Global Trends 2025, viii). These are important problems that the world needs to find solutions for quickly, as humans and animals need energy, food, and water to survive. Another detrimental factor to diminishing resources is climate change.

Climate change will continue to happen at fast rates if the world does not act quickly. It is presumed that “more extreme storms, droughts, and floods; melting glaciers and ice caps; and rising sea levels will accompany rising temperatures” (Global Trends 2040, paragraph 4) all around the world. 

Another thing that will be seen worldwide is a grow in terrorism. As people gain more access to each other through sources like the internet, so does terrorists. This also stands true for access to nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction and the easy access to it. The terrorists could be groups from outside of the country or from citizens within, such as white supremacists in America. The reason this is so terrible is because the terrorists have passion to destroy, to cause conflict, to cause change, and will generally stop at nothing to achieve their goals.

Huntington believes that what will tear the world apart with conflict is cultural aspects. “Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations” (Huntington, page 22). This is true even today, as different cultures fight all over the world about what they think is right and wrong. This could relate to the views that many have on how people in countries like Iran are treated, or even in countries like America, with fighting between one another. A situation that has arisen due to circumstance like the latter are people being for masks and against masks, for vaccines and against vaccines. It caused such a divide between people in America when there should have been one law for the whole country and every state should have been forced to follow it. This pertains to what Huntington is saying because if citizens cannot agree despite cultural differences, then the world will fall apart because then there is no control. 

In the world, there is growing powers, and some of them might not have the best interest for others at heart. Take Russia for example, a country that has grown to such great strengths and starting a war on Ukraine. If Putin can just decide one day to open a war with one country, what’s to stop him from attacking the world if possible? The world cannot face a war right now, not with everyone getting over the crisis of the pandemic and facing the aftermaths.

As for the growing global ecological crisis, the world really needs to step up on its game of agreeing on how to save the world. President Obama tried to take a step towards change in the right direction with his Clean Power Plan which would, “include limits on methane gas emissions. He was pursuing a major plan to move away from fossil fuels like coal and promote renewables like wind and solar" (PBS-Delay, 30:24-30:35). But President Trump, “attempted to roll back the Obama climate agenda. His administration delayed or repealed more than two dozen environmental rules and regulations, including those on methane emissions" (PBS-Delay, 39:18-39:28). So even if people take a step in the right direction, there’s always the chance the next person could come around and get rid of it completely. There needs to be a basic understanding of how people are destroying the world and the steps they can take on how to solve it and put it in motion without any stops. 

Lastly, there is a severe crisis going on in America with domestic instability. People are fighting one another in terms of view and how they think others should live, and it’s causing the wrong people to stand up for what they believe in and cause chaos for others. Two examples of this are white supremacists and the way people are so divided. White supremacists generally believe the only way to fix the world and its problems is to cause chaos, to destroy the corrupt society and burn it down to pieces. They do this in terms of violence and "deliberate political engagement that supports destructive and divisive societal elements" (ADL, paragraph 7). It doesn’t help that white supremacists are beginning to think it’s okay to be the way they are, and that they way they think is the ideal way. As for the divided country, people need to be more understanding of others and their views and come to agreements so that the world does not see how divided they are. This is dangerous because the less likely neighbors are to help each other out means it is more likely for countries that want to take over to attack since they know they will never agree with one another. Americans need to have courage and trust in one another so that they can be safe from harm. 

In conclusion, people need to stop fighting one another on things that are obvious. Global warming exists, our resources are getting scarce, neighboring countries are growing stronger while others continue to grow weaker when everyone could potentially be helping each other out. As a society, we need to either stop this anarchy from happening, or cause it to go in the right direction: tearing down the government and restarting all over again with views that benefit all human beings. There is no more time to just pretend things are better, the time for action is now and everyone plays a part in it. 

Works Cited

ADL. “White Supremacists Embrace ‘Accelerationism.’” ADL, ADL, 16 Apr. 2019, https://www.adl.org/blog/white-supremacists-embrace-accelerationism. 

Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. National Intelligence Council Washington Dc, 2008.

“Global Trends 2040 : A More Contested World.” Office of the Director of National Intelligence - Global Trends, Mar. 2021, https://www.dni.gov/index.php/gt2040-home/summary.

Huntington, Samuel P. “Samuel P. Huntington (1993), 'The Clash of Civilizations?', Foreign Affairs, 72, Pp.22-49.” Foreign Policy, vol. 72, no. 3, 1993, pp. 22–49. 

Kaplan, Robert D. “‘The Coming Anarchy.’” The Atlantic Monthly, Feb. 1994, pp. 44–77.

PBSfrontline. “The Power of Big Oil, Part Three: Delay (Full Documentary) | Frontline.” YouTube, YouTube, 3 May 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8UOJqs5F9Q&ab_channel=FRONTLINEPBS%7COfficial.  

Wilson, Brittney. “Midterm Essay.” 10 Oct. 2002. POLS 3555: “The Coming Anarchy” Revisited, Columbus State University, student paper. 

Yeats, William Butler. “The Second Coming by William Butler Yeats.” Poetry Foundation, Poetry Foundation, https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43290/the-second-coming. 

[goddess-help-us]

US Democracy: Close to Death

Pardon my language.

But we are f*cked. Yesterday (June 30, 2022), SCOTUS agreed to hear “Moore v. Harper” on its fall 2022 docket. This case deals with the authority of states to run elections (see more detail later on)*. The conservative-majority court will likely rule in favor of Moore, which would let Republican-held state legislatures appoint their own electors in the electoral college, ignoring the popular vote. In essence, Republicans wouldn’t have to repeat Jan. 6 in the future. They could simply use Republican-held statehouses to reject election results they don’t like, ending free and fair elections in the US.

Presently, there are not enough votes for Congress or the President to do anything to stop this. Congress could potentially impeach Justice Thomas for his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection but the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority Senate vote to convict a sitting Supreme Court justice. Sufficient support for this does not exist in the Senate, and is not likely to exist at any time soon. 

There is only one real, legal recourse to this threat: obtaining a true Democratic majority in the US Senate, which we do not have. Senators Manchin and Sinema are unreliable at best and potentially plants at worst. They support neither the reform of or conditional exemption to the filibuster, nor “packing the court.” We need two additional Democratic senators to make their spoiler-effect opposition irrelevant. A 52-member Democratic Senate would allow the filibuster to be bypassed and open the way for the Judiciary Act to pass, which would allow President Biden to add four additional Supreme Court justice seats to reign in this current slow-motion right-wing coup. Don’t think abolishing the filibuster is right? See additional text later.**

How do we get two additional Democratic votes in the Senate? There are currently two highly-competitive Senate races for seats held by Republicans in the midterms this November: Pennsylvania (Dr. Oz (R) vs. John Fetterman (D)) and Wisconsin (party nominees undecided, primary scheduled Aug. 9, 2022). The Dems also need to hold onto every seat they currently occupy. This includes other highly-competitive seats in: Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada. I’ve never campaigned for anyone in my life before but today I signed up to volunteer with John Fetterman’s campaign because I feel like this is important. 

I can’t tell anybody what to do this information, I can only provide it. But I hope that people who value laws, regulations, and policies that support the social, economic, environmental, and democratic wellbeing of a society can recognize when those things are at stake (and they are). The Republicans and their right-wing evangelical supporters know that the 2022 midterm and 2024 general elections are the last chance they have to impose their religious agenda on the country. They know the majority of Americans do not support an elimination of abortion, the banning of LGBT people from public life, or the continuous denial of the climate crisis. That is why they are using the Supreme Court to take action right before these critical elections. They should not get away with this. 

“I’m too anxious or burnt to do anything.” That’s true. It’s been an exhausting past two years. But, for myself, I hate to think of the regret I might have in 2024 when a Republican-held Court, White House, and Congress enact a nationwide federal ban on abortion or LGBT people. Do I want to ask myself at that time, “was there anything else I could have done?” “Electoralism doesn’t work.” I sympathize.*** Often times it feels we elect people who don’t ultimately do anything. But I guarantee that voting will become even more of a token gesture in the future under the likely Moore v. Harper ruling if it’s allowed to proceed unchecked. “The Nation is already f*cked, there’s no point in saving it. We should just let the inevitable balkanization of America happen.” While I think current inflation and supply chains are bad, I can’t imagine how much worse they will be when the nationwide networks of food, medicine, water, household goods, consumer electronics, et al. are subject to tariffs and various petty interregional conflicts that the federal government currently mediates. Yes, the US will cease to exist one day, but let that be a day when we decide that we no longer need the federal government to aid us in living healthful, rich lives, not because of a right-wing coup. 

Thank you for your time if you've read this far.

*Moore v. Harper is a Supreme Court writ of certiorari between Thomas Moore, the Republican Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, and Rebecca Harper, a North Carolina citizen who is collectively filing with other North Carolinians against the Speaker. The case has to do with a Feb. 2022 North Carolina Supreme Court decision that threw out the State Legislature’s election map as gerrymandered. The NC Supreme Court ruled that the maps adopted by the NC Legislature violated the NC Constitution. The NC Supreme Court adopted remedial election maps in their place. Speaker Moore, in turn, filed a writ of certiorari with SCOTUS that it accepted June 30. The NC Republicans believe the US Constitution does not allow state supreme courts jurisprudence over elections and that state legislatures should be able to run and organize elections exclusively. SCOTUS has continuously ruled, however, since 1916 (Davis v. Hildebrant) and as recently as 2015 (Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission) that the Constitution does not give unilateral election-running authority to a state legislature but rather to the public or a state’s constitution. The likely SCOTUS ruling in the fall on Moore v. Harper would overturn over a century’s worth of precedent and allow sitting state legislatures to blatantly gerrymander election maps and even the ability to ignore the popular vote.

**Don’t think abolishing the filibuster is right? The US Constitution does not support the use of the filibuster and does not require a two-thirds vote for laws. It only specifies that a two-thirds majority be used for: censure, expulsion, conviction, and treaty approval. The Senate has reformed the filibuster throughout US history. Senators used to be able to simply filibuster a motion out of the Senate without any accountability. In 1917, the Senate changed its rules to allow a two-thirds majority vote to end debate, the first such check on the filibuster. In 1975, the Senate changes its rules again and dropped this threshold from 67 to 60 senators. Clearly, the Senate has a history of changing its own rules as allowed by Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution. It is perfectly reasonable and constitutional to either reform or end the use of the filibuster.

***Yes, electoralism is not the end-be-all of civic engagement. It is the bare minimum. If you want more than casting a vote then (good news): there’s a wealth of civil society and community-based organizations out there waiting for your talent, energy, and expertise. Getting involved can connect you to additional resources. And, yes, support mutual aid requests as you are able but mutual aid is not a replacement for actual, scalable human services, like medicine, professional care, electronic infrastructure and services, formal education, et al. that our federal state provides. This is not an “one or the other” decision. All of the tools are here. Use all of them as you are able. Campaign, vote, organize, donate, spread awareness. All of it. And anybody calling for a violent revolution is clueless. The right-wing white supremacists have been preparing for this moment four four decades, with ready-to-mobilize militias. There are no comparable and scalable left-wing militia organizations to counter this. Sure, join your local Socialist Rifle Association but SRA, as it stands now, is simply not comparable to the organization that right-wing extremists currently have. And once you have outed yourself as an active leftist gun user (in the same way that white militias use theirs), you can forget about your constitutional rights. The longer-term solution is to create locally-based power that can resist overreaches by state and federal governments.

[fresne999]

I keep seeing posts like this cross my dash. 

Here's a few things on the questions therein as I'm awake at 4am because every muscle in my body aches because I overdid it on a project. What can I say, it was in the way of decorating for Christmas, but I digress.

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is an amendment to the US constitution. To amend the US Constitution requires. As outlined in article 5 of the constitution that would require a ⅔ vote in the House and Senate, and 3/4ths of the states would have to ratify it. Because of very complicated history around slavery, the US has a lot of low population rural red states, who don't want to ratify it. Also, for a long time there was a very vocal anti-ERA movement. See Phyllis Schlafly. Democrats didn't pass the ERA is because they didn't have the power to pass it. 

Now since this post also mentions why haven't Democrats reversed Regan's trickle down economics, and I am old enough to remember Regan…hmmm. Trickle down economics is that you tax corporations/the rich less and that money will "trickle" down to everyday folks. Total bullshit, but Regan was very effective at telling a story about that bullshit. To the point this idea lingers today despite zero evidence (and plenty of contrary evidence) it does anything of the sort.

Republicans have done a very effective -- and I say this as someone has gone canvassing and talked to red area voters -- job at painting Democrats as wanting to spend money we don't have and tax normal working class folks. While what actually happens is that Republicans lower tax rates on the electrum plated top of the pyramid, shit still needs to get done for society to function (less and less well over time), so the middle of the tax pyramid pays more in taxes and the bottom of the pyramid has services cut because we "can't afford them". See also Regan for popularizing the racist story of the welfare queen, but also Bill Clinton/neo-liberals / Democrats buying into that story too. Because losing elections as badly as Dems did in the 80s pushed them right. 

Want to know who was doing a very good job of bringing the Democratic party back to its liberal consensus (pre-liberal) roots? 

Joe Biden. In the two years that Democrats had control of the House and very-very-very slim control of the Senate, an enormous pile of legislation passed that was focused on injecting $ & opportunity into the lives of everyday folks. After the midterms, the house flipped Republican, which is typical, but also gerrymandering. 

Which is the answer to, "Why didn't Dem's do XYZ" for the rest of Biden's term, because passing FDR levels of legislation in 2 years is hard, and they ran out of time/lost control of the House, which then passed nearly nothing for 2 years.

https://spidermartini.tumblr.com/post/745033001155657728/bidens-list-of-accomplishments-is-as-long-as

https://batboyblog.tumblr.com/post/752631746229633024/things-biden-and-the-democrats-did-this-week-21

Want to know who would have continued all that good stuff had she won? Kamala Harris. But the American people didn't vote that way. 

Or as the picture of the election is getting clearer, a lot of blue leaning folks stayed home, because they bought into stories that Democrats are the same as Republicans, that no progress was happening because it was small incremental brass tacks kinds of progress, and thus Trump won.

The last time Trump was president, every day I would wake up from nightmares of something he'd done, and then look in the news to find he'd done something worse. Thus does Trump murder sleep. 

Although, in this case, listening to a podcast about Julius Caesar to try to get back to sleep after reading a book about Selene Ptolemy during the reign of Caesar Augustus, was also probably not a great idea.

Anyway, now it's 5 and it's time to switch to working on my yuletide.

Reagan started "Trickle down" but why has no Democrat ever undone it? Seriously, I'm curious.

Why didn't Democrats pass the ERA?

Why haven't the Democrats ever UNDONE anything the Republicans have done BEFORE tRump?

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The high cost of "self-funded" Democrats

It costs a lot to win a US election — even if it’s just a race for (formerly) low-stakes offices that have emerged as culture-war battlegrounds (like school and election boards). In the 12 years since Citizens United, the dark money firehose has turned many races into plute-on-plute economic warfare, where cash from the 1% matters far more than votes from the 99%.

Republicans have a structural advantage when it comes to moneyball elections, because they are the party of rich people (or, more specifically, the party of rich farmers who convince poor turkeys to vote for Christmas by appealing to racism, xenophobia, transphobia, homophobia, misogyny and other forms of bigotry).

It’s easy to make good on a campaign consisting of: “i) I will punish the people you hate and fear; ii) I will cut taxes for me and my rich pals; and iii) If governments were ever capable of doing good, that wisdom is lost to the ages, a forgotten art of a fallen civilization, like the secrets of pyramid-building. Today, the evil of governments is matched only by their incompetence.”

It’s really easy to govern incompetently, especially if you’re committed to defunding all the agencies that protect regular people so that you can save enough on your taxes to send your failsons to The Citadel at $35k/year.

For Democrats, this poses a problem. Decades of declining union membership (abetted, it must be noted, by Democratic leadership) has all but eliminated unions as a source of campaign funding and volunteers. But for the Democratic faction that wants the party to stand for the interest of the professional/managerial class, there is a solution: “decent” rich people who can self-fund their own campaigns.

This is a terrible idea, even by the standards of the Democrats’ neoliberal technocrat wing. The self-funded candidates who enter primary races are, at best, idiot dilletantes whose inherited wealth is derived from their having won a lottery by emerging from an extremely lucky orifice.

As Alexander Sammon writes for The American Prospect, party bosses love these fools because they are seen as bargains, candidates who won’t tax the party’s fundraising apparatus.

https://prospect.org/politics/democrats-self-funder-problem/

But there is a critical flaw in this logic: rich dilettantes make terrible candidates who lose elections to Republicans. Worse: because hereditary princelings can stay in primary races where they have no popular support, they can exhaust the fundraising resources of good candidates who can take must-win seats in the midterms.

Take Trudy Busch Valentine, the $215m scion of the Busch family, whose bid for the Dems’ Missouri senate nomination has been almost entirely funded out of her own pocket (85% of the $3m she’s spent came from her own bank account). She’s a really, really bad candidate. She can’t answer basic questions about a don’t-say-gay law:

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article263832082.html

She can’t answer questions about a ban on health-care for trans kids:

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2022/7/27/dem-missouri-senate-candidate-flubs-trans-rights-position

And she literally didn’t know what Citizens United was (you can’t make this shit up):

https://twitter.com/BoldProgressive/status/1553838749062135809

If she becomes the nominee, she will lose.

But worse, if she becomes the nominee, it will be because she’s her primary opponent, an anti-monopoly crusader Lucas Kunce, who actually could win, because he will campaign on issues that make a material difference to the lives of Missouri voters. Hell, even if Kunce beats her in the primary, he’ll go into the senate race with a supporter base whose modest funds have been depleted fighting off this disastrous “self-funder.”

The thing is, this Missouri Senate race is Democrats’ to lose. The GOP candidates are a clown car: there’s the Trump-endorsed (accused) wife-beater Eric Greitens, and the stunting Eric Schmitt (who wasted public money suing China over covid while serving as the state’s AG). A good Democratic candidate could deliver a badly needed Senate seat.

In Wisconsin, meanwhile, there’s another chaotic Democratic primary, spoiled by failson Alex Lasry (who inherited his wealth from his billionaire hedge-fund looter daddy) and Sarah Godlewski, another plute who has poured millions of her own money into her campaign, staying in the race despite the fact that nearly all of her support came from her.

Both Lasry and Godlewski dropped out of the primary after spending a combined $18.5m of their own money to attack and drain the coffers of Mandela Barnes, who never debated a real candidate and effectively ran unopposed by any serious contenders. As Sammon writes, “their effectively infinite cash kept them in the race much longer than they otherwise would have been, without ever building a meaningful constituency.”

In New York City, millionaire Carolyn Maloney is bidding for the 12th District House seat, presumably on the popular appeal of her heavy stake in an “eviction happy rental apartment complex” — surely a big vote-getter for the Democratic base:

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/nyc-pol-income-firm-evicts-struggling-tenants-article-1.3909463

In Michigan’s 5th District, Shri Thanedar has disgorged $5m from his own vast fortune despite his manifest weakness as a candidate; that money flushed out more Super PACs, including right-wing PACs (like United Democracy Project, a front for AIPAC) who’ve chummed the waters by dumping $5m more into the race.

We know how this turns out. The presidential bids of Michael Bloomberg, Howard Schultz and Tom Steyer demonstrate what should be obvious: dead-eyed billionaire wreckers and their fumbling, bumbling offspring are not popular with Democratic voters and will not win elections for Democrats. Bloomberg spent one billion dollars on his campaign and the only place he won was American Samoa, whose residents are denied votes in presidential elections.

And yet, self-funding continues to grow inside the Democratic party. Follow the Money’s report shows that between 2016 and 2018, the spending by self-funders in Democratic races rose from 4% of Democratic spending to 12% — $547.5m! It’s a sure thing that figure’s only gone up since:

https://www.followthemoney.org/research/institute-reports/self-funders-continue-to-falter

This will get worse. SCOTUS’s decision in FEC v Ted Cruz removed all limits from candidates ability to pocket their donors’ money to pay themselves back for the loans they make to their campaign, which allows billionaires to put millions into a campaign, then get other billionaires to bail them out with tax-free campaign donations.

This means that each member of America’s ruling class can serve as a one-person Citizens United, a dark money pool of their own making. It is another step on the road to government entirely run by centimillionaires and their orifice-lotto-winning larvae.

It’s not just that these are terrible candidates who will lose elections. It’s also that they will crowd out small-dollar-supported progressives like AOC, who campaign (and win) on popular issues that matter to and materially improve working peoples’ lives.

But of course, that’s the point.