#i vote in every local and national election and actively encourage others to do the same

[largishcat]

i do sort of wonder if we, the very very small and loose coalition that is the american left, might benefit from abandoning “both sides are the same” as a talking point, just because of how impossible it makes talking to working class people who identify as liberal. when a leftist, with a solid grounding in leftist theory says both sides are the same, generally they mean that both the democratic and republican parties are beholden to the exact same business interests that have been royally fucking the united states for time out of mind. That’s true. That’s a correct analysis, and it maps onto reality. But if you say that to your average well-meaning liberal, who is NOT at all versed in leftist theory, they’re going to immediately come up multiple compelling differences between the parties, and they’re not even going to be wrong. They’re going to point out that if Trump hadn’t been elected in 2016, Roe v. Wade wouldn’t have fallen and women wouldn’t currently be dying of routine miscarriage complications in texas. They’d point out that no one would be trying to get rid of birthright citizenship right now, or threatening to withhold disaster relief funds from “woke” states, or instituting a federal trans bathroom ban. They aren’t wrong about that, and if you argue with them about it, they’re gonna think you’re completely out of touch with reality. but i know for a fact that a lot of working class liberals are scared, and helpless, and deeply disappointed and angry with the democratic party for failing to protect them. so if you say instead that democrats have proven that they are either unwilling or unable to rise to the moment, to do what’s needed to save us all, they’re going to agree with you. they’re straight up going to nod. and it’s such a short walk from i don’t think the democrats are able to save us to: do you want to get involved my mutual aid network? do you want to learn about unions? do you want to come to a meeting with me? do you want to join me on a picket line? do you want to come to a city council session with me? do you want to feel less helpless?

[2blogornot2blog]

The voters' Responsibility in every election!

Every election, I hear people talking about what the democrats have not done for them. Sadly, that is every voter that votes democrat's fault.

It is our fault because we cast our votes in presidential elections, then return to our regularly scheduled activities until the next election.

Here is the difference between the average democratic voter and the average white supremacist republican voter:

-republican voters have people in think tanks that pepper them with propaganda.

-Propaganda designed to keep whites angry, scared, and prepared to fight.

-The lies keep whites prepared to fight against what those think tank propagandists are feeding them.

-The lies those propagandists feed basically poor whites, are that Black and Brown, people are taking things from them.

It is a lie of course and I will delve into this again later on!

Taking things from whites is a lie.

Everything in this nation is geared toward the positive well-being of everyone living under the ethnic moniker of "white"!

Democrats on the other hand, become silent towards their base until an impending election is imminent. Then they begin to bombard their trusted base for donations!

This is what should happen from the democratic leadership:

-There should be periodic townhall meetings well publicized for all communities.

-Outreach personnel, should be actively engaging democratic voters to participate in said townhall meetings.

-There should be constant educational outreach by the democratic party to the voters.

-That outreach is to educate the voters on the issues and get and keep voters involved.

-The democratic leadership should have an outreach arm that encourages their voters to get and stay involved in all elections i.e. school boards, community boards, city councils, state legislature, and national offices.

This is what should happen from the voters both, Democrat, and, Republican:

-Parents must get involved in the school boards, and pta's all across this nation.

-In fact, since we homeowners pay school taxes, we too need to get involved in school boards.

-We must stay abreast of what local PTA leadership is planning.

-We should also involve ourselves in the local community and planning boards.

-Instead of going back to our regularly scheduled activities i.e. reality shows, the latest dances, songs, movies, etc.,

- We should closely follow every election.

-We the voters must stay engaged with all elected officials to:

a) Make sure they are putting forth bills that positively impact our quality of life.

b)We must pay attention to who in our communities are running for city council, community boards, etc.

c)We should also be talking to each other about the things we see happening in our communities,

c1)What we dislike about what's happening in our communities.

c2)What we want to see to make our communities better.

c3)And seeking who we can vet to run for some of those offices.

c4) Or run for the offices ourselves!

-We must watch the state representatives and state senate's proceedings on tv.

As boring as the proceedings sometimes are, we cannot afford not to watch them.

We are watching specifically to become informed of the laws they are passing that impact all of our quality of life!

We must become familiar with our local, state, and national elected officials.

We must learn what they stand for and how those stances either negatively or positively impact our quality of life.

If they negatively impact us, we must seek alternatives to replace them.

If they positively impact us, we must let them know we support them and encourage them to do more to help us all.

We must go periodically to their local offices to meet with them. When we meet with them, we should have a detailed agenda of things that will make our quality of life better.

We are never to meet with any politicians for photo ops.

Photo ops have no positive result for anyone but the politician involved.

The time for allowing ourselves to be used to help everyone but ourselves has passed!

I know this is a very long blog to the American voters, however, I sincerely believe it is necessary.

I believe what I am sharing is, necessary, because neither of the party leaderships to my knowledge perform these activities with their voting base.

URGENT ALERT: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE VOTER ID, PLEASE START NOW TO GET WHAT YOU NEED. PLEASE DO NOT WAIT UNTIL ELECTION DAY AND SAY, YOU DO NOT HAVE PROPER IDENTIFICATON! A WORD TO THE WISE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT!

Please listen and take heed to what I have share! Feel free to add on as well. I love us all and want only the best for everyone of us!

[useless-catalanfacts]

Hi! What’s happening in Spain and Catalan right now?? I’ve heard Vox is trying to limit or remove Catalan from certain cities/regions. Is that true? Is there anything that can be done to counteract them? Una abraçada molt forta!

A lot of things are happening (most of the attention right now is on the people who are going to trial these days for having taken part in demonstrations or general strikes) but on the language part, yes what you’re referring to is how Vox and PP are proposing motions in different Valencian city halls to ban the use of Valencian-Catalan* language in schools of that city, most recently in Alacant (one of the three province capital cities, so an important city). Here’s a newspaper article about it (in Valencian-Catalan).

Luckily, in the end more parties voted against it (Compromís as was expected, and also Unides Podem and PSPV) so the law technically keeps Valencian to be used in public schools. However, this is a tricky matter because even if the law says that class should be given in the native language of the city/country (that is, in Valencian), it does not happen in reality. Most classes in the Valencian Country are given in Spanish, especially in bigger cities. For example, in the capital city (València), only 2 out of every 10 seats offered in schools use Valencian as the language of teaching, while the remaining 8 out of 10 use Spanish (source).

At the same time, the Supreme Court of Spain has reduced the number of hours that can be taught in the Catalan languages in the schools of Catalonia. These legal actions proposed by Catalanophobic far right-wing groups and enabled by all the powers of the Spanish State are targeting all the Catalan-speaking territories.

This legal debate on whether the local language should be used or only Spanish can be used in education has to be understood in context. We are in a situation of language emergency, when our language is quickly declining in use as a result of the imposition of Spanish in many settings and because we have internalized the idea that our language is somehow worse and useless. The results of these changes in legislation will be to reinforce the ideas that Spanish fascism and other forms of Spanish cultural-linguistic imperialism have been spreading for centuries, mainly that the languages that Spanish wants to replace (Catalan-Valencian, Aranese Occitan, Galician, Basque, Asturian-Leonese, Aragonese) are not fit for academic purposes or for the modern world. Their belief is that there are “inferior languages” (such as ours) that are incapable of the same things as the “superior languages” (Spanish, English, French, etc). This is why education has been an important linguistic battle field, because through it we can prove that we can talk about science, philosophy, language, maths, technology, or anything we need in our language. Because languages are not inferior or superior, same way their peoples are not inferior nor superior.

School also remains (theoretically) one of the few places where children from families who don’t speak Catalan at home will learn Catalan. Because, while children from Catalan-speaking families will learn Spanish anyway because it’s all around, the opposite often doesn’t happen. That is why we consider public education one of the pillars of language survival, especially in societies that receive quite a lot of immigration as we do, because otherwise the speakers become isolated and have to change to using Spanish.

It’s also worth saying that the Spanish media (including the public media payed with our taxes) have been paving the way for legal restrictions and social disdain against the languages of national minorities but especially Catalan-Valencian. All the time there are “debates” where Spanish people argue about how bad Catalans are and how the Catalan language is a threat to Spanish (yes, according to these people a language with 10 million speakers, most of whom don’t even use the language in their everyday lives, is a threat to a language with 586 million speakers and with as much political and economical power as Spanish). All the time they bring “witnesses” to explain their horrible experiences with a Catalan-speaker who was so incredibly rude as to, oh horror, speak to them in Catalan and expect them to understand. Recently these ~horror stories~ have been getting more extreme, with Spanish people claiming that they were once threatened for not speaking Catalan and things like this. (Oh boy, if I had to list every time I have been threatened for speaking Catalan and not Spanish! especially on the internet... if we are to get in this competition there is no doubt on who would win, but they will never give a platform for us to explain what our communities face). Unsurprisingly, many of these “witnesses” don’t even live/study where they claim they do, many are members of fascist associations like SCC and the media doesn’t mention that, and many have been found giving contrary witness in different TV channels. For example, I remember the case of a girl named Julia who said on Antena3 she was a young university student in Catalonia who was threatened for not being pro-independence and the next week she said on another program that she has graduated from two majors and now she works and other details of her life where too different. This girl also said she is apolitical, but if you look her up you can see she is a member of the fascist organization SCC, and you can even see her wearing a SCC wristband in the interviews on TV. Or when they pretend to interview random people on the street and they have been carefully chosen. For example, once the same channel (A3) interviewed a woman who they said was a tourist complaining that the city signs of València were written in Valencian and how she couldn’t understand anything and that would lead to traffic accidents, but people recognised her as a journalist who had worked in the Valencian TV and spoke Valencian (here’s a video of her doing both things).

So people who live in Spain and get their news from these manipulative sources will think this is what happens, and are more likely to vote and support parties who make Catalanophobia (and discrimination of other national minorities) one of their main talking points. That’s how the fascist party Vox has gained so much support and won seats in elections recently.

I would say that what can be done to counteract them is to stop spreading the lies of the Spanish media that is owned by the big businesses (Antena3, LaSexta, etc) and the Spanish government, and instead switch to Spanish journalism that does an honest job (for example, Público newspaper); not vote for right-wingers; encourage people to continue to speak their language; help make entertainment and everyday-life activities available in Catalan (for example, ask for Instagram to translate the app, Disney+ and Netflix to add the option to see the Catalan dub/subtitles that have already been made, etc), and of course attend protests.

Thank you for your interest!

(*Note to make sure everything is clear: “Valencian” and “Catalan” are two names for the same language. The word “Valencian” is just how the Catalan language is called by speakers from the Valencian Country, while the term “Catalan” is traditionally used by the speakers from Catalonia, Andorra, the Balearic Islands, la Franja and l’Alguer. It’s equally correct to use both words and they mean the same).

[banana-with-a-bow-tie]

The purpose of this post is not to argue that Biden was, or was not, fraudulently elected in the 2020 president election, but to keep a biblical perspective.

Sources report that 47% of American voters believe that large-scale fraud handed the election to Biden/Harris. Nevertheless, 49% say that fraud was unlikely. A recent NPR/Ipsos poll reported that 67% of Republicans and 11% of Democrats surveyed believe that voter fraud gave Biden election. However, the same survey showed that 19% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats disagree. In either case, dozens of millions of voters believe that there was fraud, and dozens of millions believe that there was not. Numbers do not prove whether or not it happened. The point here is that a huge swath of the US population believes that voter fraud helped usher in the next president.

It’s likely that someone you sing next to in church believes that there is ample evidence of fraud, and is grieved about it. Disdaining them as crazy conspiracists is not the best approach (cf. 1 Cor. 13:4-7, Col. 3:12-17). After all, if you’re a Christian, you believe that a peasant Hebrew crucified as a vile criminal will one day appear in the sky standing on clouds.

So for those who do feel that there was fraud, what would Scripture suggest you do? Even if there was, here are a few considerations from God’s word on the issue.

God is sovereign over unrighteousness

“In the day of prosperity be happy, but in the day of adversity consider— God has made the one as well as the other So that man will not discover anything that will be after him” (Eccles. 7:14).

Though he is not pleased with it, God is sovereign over all sin. If there was fraud, though it would grieve God, he is sovereign over it. God remains in control even in the most wretched times (Lam. 3:37-38). He was sovereign over the wretched rule of Egypt (Exod. 2:23-25), the wicked rule of Israel’s enemies in Judges (Judg. 2:14), the evil of the Assyrian deportation (2 Kings 17), the wickedness of the Babylonian exile (2 Kings 25), the unrighteousness of Herod and the Romans (Matt. 2:15), and he was even sovereign over the treacherous treatment of His own Son: “this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death” (Acts 2:23). Despite all of this evil—often committed by governing authorities—God was never de-sovereigned by it.

“His sovereignty rules over all” (Ps. 103:19).

2. The Lord is still on the throne

No evil agenda, large or small, has ever successfully removed God from his throne. And evil men and nations have tried. They’ve done everything in their power, with satanic and demonic reinforcements, to dethrone God. It hasn’t happened and it never will (Ps. 93:1-5). The permanence of the Lord’s position on the throne of the universe is laughably unthreatened by even the greatest evils of man.

“The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, 3 ‘Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!’ 4 He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them” (Ps. 2:2-4).

The sovereign, supreme rule of the God of the Bible is no more threatened by unrighteous doings and agendas of earthly rulers than his rule is threatened by a cockroach coughing in a Los Angeles sewer.

“The Lord reigns, let the peoples tremble; He is enthroned above the cherubim, let the earth shake!” (Ps. 99:1).

3. God will use unrighteousness for good

One of the ways that God proves he is sovereign is by orchestrating evil for good. We have history to prove that: Joseph’s suffering and saving a nation (Gen. 50:20), Pharaoh housing the messianic nation and its growth, the cross of Jesus Christ, and countless examples since then. Throughout history, God has masterfully moved the evil of man and government to accomplish his purposes, the greatest of which was the cross. Jesus was the recipient of unprecedented civil corruption, and God did a pretty decent job at ensuring that worked out well. We might not see how God orchestrates evil for good this side of heaven, but he’ll take care of it (Rom. 8:28). God is trustworthy.

4. Jesus is still building his church

The church has survived the harshest storms wicked men have to offer. She was birthed into the Roman Empire, who actively opposed her existence. Despite three centuries therein of persecution, her growth continued. Satan and his world have always hated and resisted the church. Even so, she has spread from Israel, to the Roman Empire through the Apostles, and to places like Africa through the Ethiopian Euncuh, the New Hebrides through John Paton, Burma through Adoniram Judson, China through Hudson Taylor, the middle east through Samuel Zwemer, and the list goes on. It’s almost like unrighteous circumstances helps the church thrive. Whatever the case, the church will never die out because Christ builds it (Matt. 16:18).

5. We are still to be about the kingdom of God

Unregenerate enemies attempted several times to distract Nehemiah and God’s people from sticking to the essential task of rebuilding the wall (Neh. 6:4). What they did was wicked. But Nehemiah and crew stuck to the main thing (Neh. 6:3-9).

In these New Covenant days, there are no less enemies and distractions that seek to pull us down from the wall. But we must keep the main thing the main thing. The kingdom of God is that thing. Regardless of what happens, our sovereign God would have us give ourselves completely to involvement in our local churches, godliness, disciple-making, prayer, love, and the word. Let us not get down from the wall (1 Cor. 15:58).

6. God will uphold justice perfectly

God is a perfect, omniscient God. Nothing escapes his notice. He is perfectly good, too, which means evil will not prevail. Regardless what someone appears to get away with, they will stand before God in the judgment (Rom. 12:17-21, Rev. 20:11-15).

7. We are all liars and sinners

An election fraud allegation is to say that lying occurred; massive, consequential lying. Among the list of things God hates, lying is mentioned twice (Prov. 6:16-19). However, people are lying every day; politicians, employers, employees, nobodies, and neighbors. Everyone lies. Lying can no more be separated from humans than their shadow. “Let God be true and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). That means we, too, have lied. No one is exempt. God is the only One who has never lied nor will ever.

Our lies may not be as socially consequential as others, but God is the one we stand before. On top of being liars, we are all atrociously unholy before the holy God of the universe (Rom. 3:10-19). This God requires perfection (Matt. 5:48). So, we have nothing to offer God except wickedness and weakness in and of ourselves. Due to our nature and doings, we stand guilty and unacceptable before God. Since we have all sinned against a holy God, an individual who never orchestrated widespread voter fraud deserves to spend eternity in the same hell as someone who did (Rom. 2:1-5).  

8. Jesus died on the cross and rose from the grave

However, God did not leave us to ourselves. Moved by his own compassion on sinners, and not because of anything good or righteous in us, God looked upon us with pity (Rom. 3:10-12, Eph. 1:3-6). Incredibly, our offenses against God in thought, word, nature, and deed did not move him to justly boot us all into hell. No, far from it. He radically humbled himself by joining human nature to himself and was born a baby (Phil. 2:5-7). Though he deserved unceasing worship from every human, Jesus received scorn, hate, and a humiliating and brutal crucifixion (Phil. 2:8). He received all of this on purpose in obedience to his Father’s plan to atone for the sin of his people (John 10:18). Though thoroughly sinful, Jesus so loved his people that he referred to them as, “My sheep” (John 10:26-27). Jesus then rose from the grave victorious, validating his saving work for his sheep. This is a great love, indeed. And it has everything to do with those struggling with the unrighteousness around them: we’ve all sinned, Jesus died and rose for us, and our greatest need has been met.

9. We are to pray

As every human nation and government will be filled with unrighteousness, God now calls his people to pray.

“First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity” (1 Tim. 2:1-2).

We are to pray for so many encouraging reasons: God hears (Ps. 65:2), God answers and works through prayer (1 Sam. 1:10-11, John 15:7), we are commanded to (1 Tim. 2:1-2), it shows that we are depending on our sovereign God (Luke 11:8), and it is an act of worship whereby God brings glory to himself (Rev. 8:3). If we find ourselves in the rut of angst at times, let us pray. We are to pray and pray and pray, and not lose heart (Luke 11:5-8, 18:1-8; Thess. 5:17).

10. Heaven will be great

Jesus often mentioned that we are to live for our permanent, future, unseen, and eternal home with him and all the redeemed (Matt. 16:24-27). While being present and prayerful, this world is passing, visible, dying, and temporal (1 John 2:17).

In heaven, there will be no voter fraud. They’ll be no voting, for that matter. Why should there be? The forever King will be the single most loving, wise, righteous, just, and perfect Individual in the universe, the blessed Lord Jesus Christ (Isa. 9:6-7, John 1:17, Phil. 2:8-11).

“And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one” (Zech. 14:9).

Of course, more could be said here. As God’s people, we are abundantly furnished with what we need to face these rocky times in a manner pleasing to him. Whatever happens, may the Lord’s church abound in faithfulness and fruitfulness.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

May 13, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

Today, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that people who are fully vaccinated against the coronavirus can stop wearing masks, both outdoors and indoors, except on public transportation and in crowded indoor venues. The new guidelines come as cases are dropping and as the U.S. is now vaccinating children ages 12 and up. They are intended, at least in part, to encourage people to get the vaccine. The CDC guidelines do not override federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial laws, or regulations put in place by businesses and workplaces. Still, they are a big step toward emerging from the pandemic.

"If you are fully vaccinated, you can start doing the things that you had stopped doing because of the pandemic," Walensky said. President Joe Biden, who made vaccines the centerpiece of his early administration, spoke to reporters without a mask. “I think it’s a great milestone, a great day,” he said.

On morning television, Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) hammered her point that the former president continues to endanger our nation. She also insisted that the U.S. must have a January 6 commission, as it has had an investigative commission for every similar threat, but said that fellow Republicans opposed such a commission because it threatened those “who may have been playing a role they should not have been playing.”

Those who were playing a role they should not have been playing today turned out to include an active-duty Marine Corps officer, Major Christopher Warnagiris, who was arrested for assaulting the Capitol on January 6.

And there are others associated with the administration who may have been playing a role they should not have been, aside from the events of January 6.

For weeks now, rumors have swirled about Trump loyalist Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and his friend Joel Greenberg, the former tax collector for Seminole County, Florida, who is under indictment for sex trafficking of a minor and 32 other counts. Papers filed today suggest that Greenberg has made a deal with prosecutors. The terms of the deal are not public, but they might not bode well for Gaetz.

At the New York Times, Adam Goldman and Mark Mazzetti wrote today that Project Veritas (that right-wing group always trying to catch people on video doing something illegal) was part of an effort during the Trump years to discredit both FBI agents and H.R. McMaster, the former three-star general who was at the time Trump’s national security advisor. Project leaders hoped to get the agents and McMaster, who was perceived as being insufficiently loyal to the former president, to say something damning about the president so they could be removed. One of the participants in the project was Barbara Ledeen, a staff member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was, at the time, led by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA).

But the real blockbuster political story of the day came in the form of a video obtained by Mother Jones and written about in a detailed article there by Ari Berman and Nick Surgey. The leaked video shows Jessica Anderson, the executive director of Heritage Action for America—the political arm of the right-wing Heritage Foundation think tank—explaining to big-money donors that Heritage Action has worked closely with Republican state legislators to enact voter suppression laws. “In some cases, we actually draft them for them,” she said, “or we have a sentinel on our behalf give them the model legislation so it has that grassroots, from-the-bottom-up type of vibe.”

The story is not entirely new. Heritage (as it is known) published a report last February outlining “best practices” for voting, many of which are in the new bills coming out of Republican-dominated state legislatures. And in a March article for the New York Times, Nick Corasaniti and Reid J. Epstein outlined the role of Heritage Action in Georgia’s and Arizona’s voting restrictions, noting that at least 23 of the proposed state bills that dealt with voting had language that looked like that of Heritage. They also wrote that Heritage plans to spend $24 million to change voting laws in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, Texas, and Wisconsin before the 2022 election, and that the person behind the Heritage voting policies is Hans von Spakovsky, who mainstreamed the idea of voter fraud in the Republican Party, although experts agree it is vanishingly rare.

What is new and dramatic about the video is seeing Anderson make her pitch to donors for a coordinated right-wing effort to take the vote away from their opponents. She talks of working with similar groups: “We literally give marching orders for the week ahead,” Anderson said. “All so we’re singing from the same song sheet of the goals for that week and where the state bills are across the country.”

Heritage Action is fighting hard against the Democrats’ For the People Act, which would protect the right to vote, end partisan gerrymandering, and limit money in politics. Heritage summarized the bill, which it called the “Corrupt Politicians Act,” in a short sheet for lawmakers. Anderson explained: “We’ve made sure that every single member of Congress knows just how bad the bill is…. Then we’ve made sure there’s an echo chamber of support around these senators driven by your Heritage Action activists and sentinels across the country where we’ve driven hundreds of thousands of calls, emails, place[d] letters to the editor, hosted events, and run television and digital ads.”

Democrats cannot pass the For the People Act through the Senate without buy-in from all 50 of their senators, and Surgey noted that in March, Heritage Action and similar groups bussed protesters to West Virginia from other states for a big rally at the capitol to pressure Democratic West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin.

The “grassroots” protest against “voter fraud” is, in fact, conceived, funded, and organized by one of the most powerful elite political organizations in the country.

Manchin has suggested he will not support the For the People Act without Republican support, so yesterday, he suggested a different way to address the recent voter suppression measures. Under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, states and local governments that had a history of racist election laws had to get clearance from federal officials before they put new election rules in place. The Supreme Court gutted that rule in 2013 with the Shelby County v. Holder decision (which is why all these new laws are going into the books). Manchin called for restoring the old system of preclearance, but applying it to all states and territories, not just the nine to which it had previously applied, thus taking away the Supreme Court’s objection that it singled out certain states.

Manchin’s workaround wouldn’t deal with gerrymandering or big money, but it would certainly be a start toward leveling the electoral playing field, and historically, support for the Voting Rights Act was bipartisan. No longer. Almost immediately, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) shot Manchin’s plan down.

—-

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[beatrice-otter]

generallemarc mentioned you on a post

@beatrice-otter Voting for Biden ain't gonna make the all-Democrat city council of Minneapolis fix their police department.

No, it won’t, you are correct about that, and Trump in the White House wasn’t what turned the Minneapolis police department into the cesspool of fascism it is today.

However, Trump has encouraged and condoned and given cover for all sorts of brutality, racism, and fascism in police forces and many other institutions throughout the nation during his time in office.  This makes it significantly harder for positive change to happen at any level, local, state, or national.  Getting rid of him (and Moscow Mitch) won’t magically fix things, but nothing will.  What it will do is make every positive change a little bit easier.  With the Presidential election, that’s the choice we have: do we keep the guy who has spent four years doing his absolute level best to increase every evil in this nation?  Or do we switch him out for the guy who still sucks but at least will not be actively trying to make everything worse?

As for local police departments, it’s going to take local action and holding EVERY politician’s feet to the fire until they take action to fix the problems, no matter what party they’re from (Democrat doesn’t mean “perfect” or even “good,” it means “at least they’re a little less evil than a Republican would be.”  Less evil is better than more evil, and we should totally go for “less evil” when we have a chance, but that doesn’t mean we ignore problems in Democrats.  In the primaries, vote for the one you want; in the general election, vote for the least evil one who has a chance of winning.)  The nice thing is, however, that affecting local politics is easier than affecting national politics because the size of the constituency is smaller.  Each individual vote counts for more.  Local politicians have far less insulation from their constituents than national politicians do.  I hope that people will continue to hound their local politicians after the protests are over to keep momentum going.  We could see some real and lasting change.

The other thing necessary to reform and/or dissolve/reconstitute police departments is support from congress.  Each police department is run at a local level, but things like “can they buy military-grade equipment” and “do they have to report it when they kill someone” are things that Congress can make laws about.  Voting for your Senators and Representatives are just as important (and possibly more so) than voting for President.  And although the constituencies are larger than, say, your mayor’s (which means they need more votes to get into office which means your vote counts for less than your vote in a mayor’s race), they are still easier to influence than presidents.  (However, it’s still good to have a president who is a Democrat because it’s easier to get enough votes to pass a bill than to override a veto.)

So, no, electing Biden won’t fix everything, but it will make it easier for things to be made better.

[whatsthepointofphilosophy]

I Don’t Care

“The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.” 

Elie Wiesel 

The world is full of political arguments. Philosophers love a good argument, so they’ll rush in where regular citizens fear to tread. However, all over the civilised world, citizens are becoming more and more disinclined to engage with their governments. They’re rejecting the normal machinery of government in favour of apolitical mavericks whose outlaw glamour appears to blind their electorate to the fact that they have no idea what they’re doing, or worse, who are actively trying to dismantle the democratic institutions that form the scaffolding for our civilisation. 

The essence of democracy isn’t majority rule, as many believe, but that every citizen should have some say or influence over the decisions which will affect him, and there should be an effort made to take account of the needs of the more vulnerable sections of society.

There is an argument to be made that in a representative democracy, parliamentary elections may not be the best vehicle for this influence. There are still a variety of methods ordinary citizens can use to influence governmental policies, but they require the sort of time, effort and resources that most people just don’t have after putting in eight hours at some job they have no passion for.

Single-issue local activist groups (such as whoever’s pushing for clean water in Flint, MI) and professional advocacy groups (such as Amnesty International) can have a far greater influence over national politics than an election. They are particularly effective in constituencies with low voter turnouts.

“The smaller the voter pool becomes, the more weight a single vote carries and the easier it becomes for an active, partisan minority to determine an election’s outcome. Thus, highly-polarized politicians come to represent a moderate constituency.” - U.S. Common Sense

Elections and legislative government employees are there to respond to the needs of the population, and nothing lights a fire under them like a bunch of people getting together and making noise. There is surely something going on in your community that you feel could do with some attention: maybe the health service, the education system. Why not find out who’s trying to do something about it locally (even without the direct involvement of elected politicians) and join up?

Political Apathy Translator

The next time you hear anyone say of these things, you’ll know what they’re really saying:

“I have no interest in politics” = I have decided to ignore all discussions about the decisions that affect me.

“Both sides are as bad as each other” = I have found a way to be proud of my intellectual laziness.

“I don’t want to make a fuss” = The current political situation aligns with my interests. 

“Don’t politicise X” = I have no intention of ever dealing with X in any serious way.

“I can’t take sides in this” = the current political situation is not negatively affecting me.

“If they moderated their tone, maybe I’d be more open” = I don’t want to engage with their argument.

“The facts speak for themselves” = I’ve already decided which facts I like, and I have no interest in listening to any others.

“All politicians are the same” = I cannot emphasise how little effort I have put into this opinion.

“I wish everyone would just stop talking about it” - I am in favour of retaining a status quo which has zero negative effects on me.

“Now is not the time to discuss X” = I will never want to discuss X.

“It’s not what you’re saying, it’s the way you’re saying it” = It’s what you’re saying.

Tell Me How To Vote

This is a philosophy blog. I can’t tell you how to vote. 

However, I can recommend that you look for candidates who display a concern for everyone, and not just the political / social group they happen to be in, who want to encourage a society that respects everyone’s religion (or lack thereof), race and gender, and who listen to people.

Basically, look for candidates who lead with kindness and courage rather than fear and hatred, and who provide a positive vision of the future based on unity and cooperation. 

Because we’ve all seen the alternative, and it’s not good. 

[idairsauthor]

This Fcking Impeachment: Episode One, The Fire of Union

PLAIDDER: Hello and welcome to This Fucking Emergency’s exciting new spinoff: This Fucking Impeachment. With me in the studio today is the happiest imaginary man in the world. Please welcome the unpublished-fictional man, the very little-known myth, the only-to-the-select-few legend, Conn mac Emer!

CONN: WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

PLAIDDER: I see Conn has already started celebrating...and for the first but probably not the last time, please welcome to the show another imaginary politician, the Nation’s own Gill Nileton.

GILL: I thought Ideirens couldn’t drink.

CONN: We can’t.

GILL: You kind of SEEM like you’ve been--

CONN: The exalted mood you observe in me, friend, is not the artificial product of poisonous libations, but the exhilaration of LINN SHANGHLAIM! YEEEE HAAAAAA!!

GILL: I know you told me what that means, but--

PLAIDDER: It’s an Old Tongue phrase that sort of translates as “the fire of union.”

GILL: I still don’t know what that means.

PLAIDDER: As I understand it, linn shanghlaim is used by members of the Seated Leaders to describe the experience of spontaneously and rapidly coming together to support a single piece of legislation or course of action. 

GILL: Nothing’s spontaneous in politics.

CONN: Spoken like a man who’s lived all his life under a two-party system. The Seat doesn’t have parties. We have a bunch of people who each only care about what happens in their home district. BUT. Once in a while, something happens that’s so important, for reasons either venal or noble, that everyone puts that petty local tarbfnaa aside and comes together to deal with it. And that’s linn shanghlaim, and it is the reason I get up in the thurking morning. WOOOOOO!!!

GILL: I have literally never seen you this happy.

PLAIDDER: Well you have to understand, Nancy Pelosi announced yesterday that they’ve launched an impeachment inquiry.

GILL: Impeachment. This is the thing that happened to this “Bill Clinton” that I’m supposed to have been based on.

PLAIDDER: Yes. But you see, it’s also a thing that ALMOST happened to a guy named Richard Nixon that neither of you have ever heard of.

GILL: I still don’t understand.

PLAIDDER: Our...president...has just admitted that he abused the power of his office to force a third party to dig up dirt on someone who was quite possibly going to be running against him for president. 

GILL: And?

PLAIDDER: And that’s Watergate. For 40 years now every political scandal has had “gate” attached to it, in honor of the Watergate scandal. But this is actually the only scandal since Watergate that actually deserves that suffix. Because this...president...has just done EXACTLY what the House was prepared to impeach Nixon for back in 1974, only in a MUCH WORSE way. All this time everyone’s known that this jackass should be impeached but they’ve been afraid to do it because so much of this stuff is unprecedented and because this...asshole...has been using his power to gaslight everyone into thinking well, maybe this ISN’T really an impeachable offense. But here is something that everyone knows, from history, actually IS an impeachable offense and furthermore is serious enough that the prospect of getting impeached for it forced that son of a bitch to resign.

CONN: And so as soon as that became clear...WHOOSH! The fire of union!

PLAIDDER: Because now, by impeaching him, they’re not repeating the Clinton impeachment, they’re repeating the Nixon one. That’s what Pelosi and friends have been worried about all this time. When the Republicans impeached...let’s say, your namesake...

GILL: This Clinton.

PLAIDDER: Yes. When they impeached him, it was over a single instance of perjury, in which he lied about the fact that he had drawn a 22 year old intern into a sexual relationship with him. 

GILL: I thought they impeached him over the sex.

PLAIDDER: No. Technically, the High Crime and Misdemeanor at stake there was his lying about it under oath.

GILL: But your president lies--

PLAIDDER: Exactly. Exactly. But, you see, the Clinton impeachment was clearly politically motivated. The Republicans wouldn’t accept the fact that they’d lost the White House, so they investigated Clinton until they turned up something they could use. This, by the way, is exactly what Buttercup’s defenders are always saying the Democrats are doing now.

GILL: Which they actually are.

PLAIDDER: The difference, Gill, is that Buttercup actually is unfit to hold this office in every measurable way. He’s constantly abusing his power--not just in this phone call, but in every action he takes as President. He lies like he breathes. He upended the FBI and the Department of Justice to try to stop the Mueller investigation. He fires everyone who displays a shred of integrity or an ounce of loyalty to anything other than himself. He encourages foreign governments to bribe him by using his hotel properties. He embezzles taxpayer money by directing government entities to use his hotel properties. I cannot even list all the ways in which he has proved that he acts always and only in his own interests, even when that goes against the interests of the country he supposedly governs. He illegally blocks money that Congress has appropriated for things he doesn’t want to do or redirects money that Congress appropriated for some other purpose. He refuses to obey the law whenever it contravenes his needs, desires, or even whims. He has corrupted the entire Department of Justice and turned the Attorney General of the United States into his personal defense lawyer. He accepted help from fucking Vladimir Putin in the 2016 election and NOW--as a fucking SITTING PRESIDENT--he is actively soliciting help from Zelensky in the upcoming 2020 election. And that’s just the illegal stuff. Do not get me STARTED on the profoundly immoral things he has done with this office and to this country. He is not a president. He is a mob boss. He richly deserves to be impeached, and now at last he will be.

CONN: Look at you, drawing up the articles of impeachment already!

PLAIDDER: Every right-minded citizen of this country has had their own personal articles of impeachment drawn up for at least a year now.

GILL: I feel your pain--

PLAIDDER: Please let me never hear you say that again--

GILL: --but this seems very risky to me. They’ve already released the transcript of the phone call; and they’re right, there’s no explicit quid pro quo.

CONN: Oh friend. Do you think a man as practiced in extortion and bullying as this gleachinai is would be stupid enough to use the if-then formula? He blocks their aid, then calls--

PLAIDDER: REGARDLESS! Holding up the aid that Congress had voted to the Ukraine--for ANY reason--was ILLEGAL! He doesn’t get to DECIDE whether he disburses that aid or not! He is supposed to EXECUTE the laws that Congress passes, that is why they call it the fucking EXECUTIVE branch. He is not supposed to LEGISLATE. That’s not how this works. THAT’S NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS.

GILL: I think you should maybe go to commercial, stranger, you’re getting very excited.

CONN: Clearly, you’ve never watched a single episode of this show.

PLAIDDER: Fucking with that aid money is IN ITSELF an impeachable offense! We don’t even need to GET to the question of whether he did it as a quid pro quo. 

CONN: Right. Just like the fact that he asked a foreign head of state to go after his political opponent is impeachable in itself, whether or not he ALSO bribed or extorted him to do it.

PLAIDDER: Thank you. I only wish we’d done this sooner.

CONN: I don’t.

PLAIDDER: And now we come to it. You’re about to tell me that Pelosi has been playing seven-dimensional Dubh Solus all this time, aren’t you?

CONN: Yes I am.

PLAIDDER: Oh Lord.

CONN: I kept saying, not yet, not yet. And would you listen to me?

PLAIDDER: No.

CONN: No, you would not. Look. Your people don’t exactly have the concept of linn shanghlaim, but your Nancy Pelosi has been in politics all her life. She knows the fire of union when she sees it. And she also knows when she doesn’t see it. The Mueller investigation did not light that fire. Even if there hadn’t been all the chicanery around releasing the report, the fact that it was so inconclusive just threw water on everything. But she let him think he was winning. Because she knew that if he did, he’d do something worse and more dramatic. And now he has. 

PLAIDDER: But Conn...linn shanghlaim is supposed to include everybody. It’s supposed to cut across existing...well, you don’t have formal political parties, but let’s say factional divisions. But there are no Republicans on fire right now. It’s 199 Democrats and Justin Amash.

CONN: I know. We cannot expect miracles.

PLAIDDER: But Pelosi did! She kept saying she wouldn’t do this until she had bipartisan--

CONN: Friend, do you seriously believe that she ever thought for a moment that impeachment would have bipartisan support? She works with those people EVERY. DAY. 

PLAIDDER: Well then why--

CONN: Because waiting for this “bipartisan support” which was never going to appear allowed her to delay impeachment indefinitely UNTIL the right moment came along. Which is this one.

PLAIDDER: You can’t prove any of this.

CONN: Look at the results. Instead of dragging a bunch of reluctant, scared, misgiving-filled people behind her into an impeachment half of them don’t want, she’s barely one step ahead of a charging horde, all lit up with the fire of union. This is going to be unstoppable.

GILL: But isn’t thing going to play into your president’s hands? He’s supposed to love conflict, and drama, and his people are always saying impeachment is a political winner for them, and--

CONN: Gill. Friend. Stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.

GILL: I beg your--

CONN: LOOK AT THE RESULTS. For months now, Congress has been demanding documents and testimony and what have you and this administration’s response has been, sue me for it. Word gets out that impeachment is actually in motion and what’s the first thing that happens? The transcript of that call has been released. The whistleblower complaint is maybe going to come out tomorrow. What does that tell you?

GILL: That they’re scared.

CONN: Yes. It tells you that impeachment was the ONLY thing this crew ever took seriously. It’s the ONLY thing that was ever capable of forcing them to obey the law. They never wanted this. They feared it. That “it helps us politically” stuff was pure tarbhfnaa put out by his minions to stave it off. 

PLAIDDER: Pelosi also said that’s what he--

CONN: Because she was ALSO trying to stave it off. It was convenient for her to pretend to believe their tarbhfnaa as long as she didn’t think the time was right. But she never did. 

PLAIDDER: So she lied to us.

CONN: Friend, not all good women are shriias.

GILL: Now THAT’S the truth.

PLAIDDER: Oh boy.

CONN: Watch her and learn, Gill. Watch and learn.

PLAIDDER: Well, we’ll all be watching. It’s time to wrap up this episode of This Fucking Impeachment...but there will be more!

CONN: WOOOOHOOO! HYA GLEACH! HYA GLEACH! HYA GLEACH!!

GILL: Where in this studio can a man get a DRINK?

[gravitascivics]

THE MAGRUDER AND GLENCOE CASE, PART V

[Note:  If the reader has taken up reading this blog with this posting, he/she is helped by knowing that this posting is the next one in a series of postings.  The series begins with the posting, “The Natural Rights’ View of Morality” (February 25, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-natural-rights-view-of-morality.html). Overall, the series addresses how the study of political science has affected the civics curriculum of the nation’s secondary schools.]

This blog is currently attempting to provide the reader a sense of what image of governance and politics the best-selling government textbooks present to high school students. This posting will rely on Magruder’s 2013 edition.  In that edition, Magruder’s veers toward providing a set of inserts that instruct students about how to perform various engaging practices in relation to their local political community, including the local government.

These inserts are entitled Citizenship 101 and while the feature was dropped by the 2019 edition, it does give the reader a taste of how an establishment publication treats political engagement when it chooses to address this topic.  Before starting, the reader might ask how inspiring the effort is or how likely students are, upon reading the material, apt to engage themselves with local political action.

Each insert is dedicated to a different topic:  debates, evaluating leadership, juries, letters to the editor, political campaigns, political roots and attitudes, polls, television news programs, using the internet, volunteering, and writing to public officials.  Perhaps the reader can add to what should be included, such as organizing a “grass roots” campaign.

Each insert takes up about half a page (the entry might take up the entire page, but a lot of the space is taken up with a photo or titling, leaving a good deal of empty space).  Given the font size and spacing of its usual text material, the information in these inserts would take up a good deal less than half a page if it were presented as part of the usual text.  The format is the same for all individual inserts. 

That format begins with a quote or an overall description.  Then there is an introduction to the topic, followed by a list of things to do in order to perform some action in relation to the topic.  For example, the list for evaluating leadership has three steps:  “decide what factors are most important to you;” “match the skills to the job;” and “compare their qualifications.”  For each step, there is a short “how to” explanation to help the student accomplish the step. 

Are these topics written in such a way as to bolster or enable social capital[1] or are they written to promote self-interest agendas as those would be more in line with a natural rights perspective?  This writer is disappointed that these entries are given such small emphasis, but some of the topics are related to social capital.  They are:  letters to the editor, political campaigns, political roots and attitudes, volunteering, voting, and writing to public officials.

Next is a closer look at the six of the twelve topics this writer feels should be highlighted, although whatever one finds in these entries, they are a very small part of this book.  That alone conveys the notion that what they contain is not considered sufficiently important.

This review begins with the insert topic of “Writing a Letter to the Editor.” The institutionalized practice of local newspapers dedicating space, usually on their editorial pages, to letters from their readers is a way to encourage average citizens to voice their opinions, knowledge, and beliefs about current public issues.  It promotes active, public-spirited citizenry.  

So, how does Magruder’s treat this topic? The insert begins with a sample letter to an editor:

Editor:

Regarding the article on additional budget cuts to public education (“Government Proposes Slashing School Funding,” May 9), I believe that every penny spent is a necessary investment in the future of this community.  As a junior at Westfield High School, I know that these cuts would place students’ futures in greater jeopardy.  Last year 15 percent of the teaching staff and 10 percent of all elective courses were eliminated due to severe reductions in funding.  These cuts ultimately impacted the quality of our education, and that is a sacrifice this town should not be willing to make again.

-Thomas Grey, St. Clairsville[2]

This letter couldn’t be a better example of lobbying.  

Take a public policy that negatively affects your interests, manipulate the pitch so as to provide a general welfare angle, and use language that denotes a concern for the community.  Interesting is the fact that textbook funds come out of the same pot of money as those funds affecting the budget cuts referred to in the letter.  Couldn’t another example been used?  

Anyway, this writer believes this example to be well within the guidance of the natural rights construct – a construct that promotes self-interest.  This judgement is further supported by the introduction:  when writing a letter to the editor choose a topic that “affects you” – this writer’s emphasis – “and your community.” Notice the advice does not use the word “or” between “affects you” and “your community.”  

The rest of the insert lists steps one should take in writing his/her letter:  briefly summarize the issue, explain one’s position, make a suggestion, and identify the writer of the letter.  Given this advice, there would never be letters from middle class citizens about, for example, the plight of the poor or what we should do about undocumented citizens or the space program.  Why? Because these sample issues are too far removed from a typical middle or upper-class individual or community.  

In short, in terms of writing to the editor, Magruder’s is far less than a promoter of community development.  It basically presents the topic as just another way to help students get what they individually deem to be their self-interests.  That is, it is addressed with little concern for motivations stemming from a more communal perspective.

A more directly related topic to community welfare or one that advances social capital is “Volunteering.”  This insert begins with a call to volunteer by President George W. Bush.  A few organizations are mentioned as well as the federal government’s efforts to facilitate volunteering. This includes USA Freedom Corps that acts as an information distribution service and as a connector between non-governmental organizations and citizens interested in volunteering.

The insert informs the reader that while 20% of young people engage in some sort of volunteering, the overall number of people volunteering has decreased. The description does mention several sorts of activities that volunteers perform such as tutoring and maintaining hiking trails.  This information is presented in a matter-of-fact tone without any real effort to sell this “obligation.”  The information includes – as with the other inserts – a list of steps that an interested party should follow to hook up with a volunteering effort.  

They are:  make a list of interested activities, seek out opportunities in potential organizations that might recruit those interests, and make contact by emailing or calling.  As for seeking out opportunities, apparently teachers are a source of information to help a student find an appropriate organization or, in addition, a student can research using the Internet to find opportunities.  In making contact, the student is warned that he/she might need a resume or references.

The opinion here is that the insert could do a lot more to encourage this “opportunity.”  It could present case studies of actual volunteers.  It is a topic that should be given a lot more space.  Part of the insert mentions how the system depends on volunteers to provide services that are important but are not mandated by law or covered by government programs.  Perhaps a discussion about whether government should or should not provide some of these services might be suggested.  

In any event, the whole topic is treated as something quite inconsequential. While the overall text benefits from having something about volunteering, it does not warrant the judgment, “well done.”  As a vehicle to promote social capital, Magruder’s effort on this topic does not reach even the level of adequacy.  This review of these inserts will continue with the next posting, but the reader can already ascertain the general efficacy of them in encouraging social capital among a young audience.

[1] Social capital is a societal quality characterized by having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.  See Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000).

[2] William McClenaghan, Magruder’s American Government (Florida Teacher’s Edition) (Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2013), 631.

[arcanalogue]

ON TYRANNY - An Unsolicited Tarot Tour, pt. II

In my initial post groping for symbolic parallels between the Major Arcana and Timothy Snyder’s ON TYRANNY, we covered The Fool and The Magician. 

In the few days then (just to show how fast time seems to move during a budding oligarchy), video has surfaced of the President speaking to rich donors at one of his own hotels, in which he says: “The European Union is a group of countries that got together to screw the United States, it’s as simple as that.” He goes on to explain why this is surprising: “We’re all sort of from there, right?”

He also tweeted a thinly-veiled threat suggesting that Adam Schiff, the US rep who gave a rousing speech in the impeachment trial the other day, “has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!”

There’s also video of his pick for Special Advisor to the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative, Paula White, working this bit into a sermon: “We command all satanic pregnancies to miscarry right now.” 

And just for fun, a case of the Wuhan coronavirus was detected near Los Angeles, and today officials are reporting that, as feared, the disease is contagious before the appearance of symptoms. There are still plenty of good folks left at the CDC, right? The lights are on, at least?

But if we let paroxysms of fear induced by bad headlines stop us from going about our day, pretty much none of us would have made it through 2017 — and yet here we are, two full years beyond that point, still rallying, still cracking jokes, still helping each other get things back on track. And sure, my beard and chest hair are suddenly growing in all white, but that’s fine! The sharper contrast will be dazzling against all of my goth attire. How’s that for a silver lining? 

Anyway, on to the cards.

The High Priestess represents everything we take for granted about our own awareness. She’s the source of our inspiration, the dream we awaken from that colors our perception of the day; she’s the vapors sighing from a crack in the earth, and she’s also the Pythia who hears and interprets those whispers. 

Most of us realize we’re more than just our cognition, or our memories, but it’s still quite easy to lose track of the various pillars our interior world is formed around... until one of them is suddenly swept away.

And it’s the same with our exterior life, because “interior” and “exterior” are only matters of scale, baby. Your mind is your own (for now), but how did it become what it became? What unseen protections was it afforded? 

Most people probably think of libraries, or organizations, or certain publications when they hear the word “institutions.” But so many different things fall under this category, it’s actually mind-boggling! It really makes you ponder about the particular framework of your community. Some are more fragile or less corporeal than others; to LGBTQ people, a bar can serve as an institution. Hell, in Brooklyn a taco restaurant can be described as a “mainstay” if it manages to last 15 years.

Some institutions are really only useful to those who created them, and others or who are well-adapted to them, and are bound to crumble naturally with time. A lot of what history has thought to provide will be useless to people in the coming century and beyond; their needs are evolving drastically, right in front of our eyes. This is why we also need to create safe and fertile territory for new institutions to be formed, and try not to take it too personally when the world just moves on. Memento mori, and all that.

But this entropy is not what Snyder’s talking about: he says DEFEND institutions, implying they are under attack. And some of this is very easy to watch for, because we think we know what an attack looks like. But as Snyder’s chapter points out:

“Sometimes institutions are deprived of vitality and function, turned into a simulacrum of what they once were, so that they gird the new order, instead of resisting it. This is what the Nazis called Gleichschaltung.”

You know, like appointing industrial tycoons to manage the EPA and the Department of Education, or leaving countless government positions unfilled so that none of the departments can function quite as they used to.

No one can look after all of them, and none of us knows which we’ll depend on most in a key moment. That means we all have to fan out and each claim a different piece of the puzzle. But which one? And how?

Reflect on the mental architecture that contributed to the formation of your own mind, and then let the Priestess guide you. 

The tarot-ticklers of antiquity may have determined that The Emperor’s power trumps that of The Empress (as the cards are ordered so that each one “triumphs” over the one that preceded it), but he can’t exist without her, and everyone in the kingdom knows it. 

In this chapter Snyder invokes the popular saying “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” adding:

“When we think of this saying today, we imagine our own righteous vigilance directed outward, against misguided and hostile others... But the sense of the saying was entirely different: that human nature is such that American democracy must be defended from Americans who would exploit its freedoms to bring about its end.”

In readings I often explain to people that The Emperor represents the outward-looking ruler, the conqueror, the prospector, the warlord. The Empress is the inward looking ruler, tending to the needs of the people, governing, presiding over everything that gives life meaning. 

I mentioned above that the very concept of interior/exterior is only a matter of scale. Those terms are used very flexibly, aren’t they? There’s the interior of my body, and the interior of my home, and the interior of my apartment complex, and so on. At some point it stops being “my” anything. Suddenly we’re looking beyond my town, or my state, or my country. Sometimes others draw those lines for us, and other times we have to be The Emperor, pushing back against that line, drawing one of our own, defending what’s rightfully ours. 

Regarding our own interior as a nation: in case you hadn’t heard (HAHA!) we’re about to stagger through a series of important elections. The one thing we know for sure is that the results of these elections will be disputed, no matter what they happen to be. If we can no longer trust the outcome of an election — due to internal fiddling, not just foreign — then what’s the point of having them at all? You can already sense everyone’s fatigue, ripe to be exploited.

The GOP is already slavering for it, canceling primaries left and right so that Trump will run unopposed for reelection. A “one-party” election suits them just fine. Debates only raise questions, and give a platform to challengers. In order for Trump 2020 to seem like an inevitable choice, he has to be the only choice.

Ruining the public’s faith in American democracy is part of the strategy, because of course it is. Later in Chapter III, Snyder offers yet another popular saying: “Where annual elections end, tyranny begins.” 

The work required to protect the upcoming election, and make sure people still care about the outcome, can only be done by Americans organizing and working together on every level: personal, local, national. The fatalism and cynicism everyone’s feeling is understandable, but it ought to drive one toward active participation in preserving what little democracy we have left. 

Otherwise, what’s the point? If it’s more important to have your worst fears confirmed, to be able to say “I told you so,” to bargain with the inevitability of fascism, then you’re rooting against The Empress and the rest of us. You’re part of the rot in your own kingdom.

If you’re someone who does Empress-related work, this is your new practice: she is calling you to serve as guardian and minister of the interior. Whatever inspiration you manage to muster, your role is to imbue others with it, and resist whatever negativity you may encounter as you do so.

Are your friends and family registered to vote? Are they sure? Do your representatives in Congress have a plan in place for when Trump refuses to concede? What communities near you could use a leg up in terms of outreach? Ask questions. Get creative. Be a constructive part of the pressure. 

What you manage to accomplish on your own may seem meager, but pouring energy into these concerns will remind others why this fight still matters, and it will encourage those who never forgot. We need everyone in this fight.

Our last “real” election can’t already be behind us. The Empress is counting on us to make sure of it. 

This is Part II in a series of posts about Timothy Snyder’s ON TYRANNY, which can be purchased via your local bookstore, and also here. 

[emblem-333]

William Jennings Bryan and American Socialism

No matter how many times we are confronted with the similarities of history we as human beings do the same exact things our predecessors did. We like to believe we are in uncharted territory, that there is something inherently special about the times we currently live in. Or, that we’re in the “end of history.” In reality, history never ends. Humanity never ceases evolving — or devolving. As the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the disgruntled electorate grow angrier at how they’ve become ignored largely by their representatives. The only time we’ve encountered such a scenario in our nation’s history is The Gilded Age when the oligarchs in the country amassed a substantial sum of wealth dwarfing the income of the average American by embarrassing margins. Unlike today where it’s mostly tech giants destroying the country, in the later half of the 1800’s post-Civil War it was the rail roads and Wall St. exercising their respective monopolies to crush the growing force of organized labor.

Laborers were harassed, threatened, beaten by their employer for the mere request of better wages, manageable hours and basic human rights. In the days predating socialism arriving on the shores of the U.S the laborers were labeled as unruly strikers self-centered and uncaring towards the betterment of the country. The elite had their allies in the press smear the name of the poor constantly and populists campaigns seeking to reform a clearly broken system ended up dead on arrival. Even the book ‘The Wizard of Oz’ took pot shots at the farmer, laborers and populism in general. Victor Fleming portrayed the fraudulent utopia of the Emerald City as commentary of the issuing of greenback currency in lieu of Americans using the gold standard. In the middle of the Gilded Age, farmers had taken out loans when greenbacks were accepted currency. When times got rough President Grover Cleveland made greenbacks virtually useless and forced farmers to pay their debts back via the gold standard. This devalued their currency whilst rising up the inflation of the loans they’ve taken out. Greenbacks only have value due to the country agreeing at the time that it is such. The third party known as the “Greenbacks” sought to undo what they deemed to be an injustice towards the agricultural class.

While the Democrats favored the south they hardly were open to drastic change being proposed by the populists. Collective bargaining and making illegal for the government to seize land under “intimate domain” to build more railroads was frowned upon, even something as human as child labor laws were seen as harmful to the stability of the American economy. Never mind the economy seemed to crash nearly every couple of years.

Like it or not, but class warfare usually brings about economic justice for the downtrodden. The idea it doesn’t is a farce perpetrated by those either woefully and genuinely ignorant or wishing to protect their own capital. When the poor and the middle class unite to battle the oppressive elites it’s far more productive than if we fight amongst ourselves. But the below classes need representatives to champion their respective causes and unite the wings. In the days predating effective activism in the United States the best you could hope for is a representative forging his path, climbing the ladder of D.C and acting as your voice. That voice turned out to be former Nebraskan representative William Jennings Bryan. Bolstered by populist James B. Weaver his party fused with the populist democrats and managed to overtake the Bourbon establishment at the convention. Curiously, Bryan’s running mate was a wealthy shipbuilder named Arthur Sewall of Maine. Sewall never served nor had any experience in government. He was picked to possibly finance the underfunded campaign. The propaganda machine of the Republicans working in consort with gold Democrats did more than damage the populist Bryan. Losing, albeit competitively. Thus began Bryan’s reign over the party even though himself wouldn’t be elected to the Oval Office in either of his three attempts.

Perhaps if Bryan had chosen a more experienced candidate as a running mate his chances would’ve been maximized. It’s not like Sewall’s money did anything to assist Bryan. If anything it damaged his standing amongst the populists who were so dissatisfied at his nomination they nominated their own Vice President for the Bryan ticket. Initially, Bryan wanted second-placer Richard Bland Missourian representative as his running mate. However, Bland wished to run for his old congressional seat. Publisher John R. McLean of Cincinnati also was in the running finishing runner-up to Sewall. McLean was a railroad merchant and like Sewall his nomination likely spurs the further left wing of the party as well. Other names tossed around are governor Claude Matthews of Indiana. A moderate populist who broke up some strikes during his brief term. Matthews was lockstep on Bryan on social issues like prohibition of alcohol. Maybe his nomination would work as a mea culpa to the Cleveland delegation? The best option for Bryan was Iowan Governor Horace Boies. A supporter of low tariffs (a forgotten hallmark of Bryan’s candidacy), pro-silver and generally a decent liberal.

Bryan was far and away the most progressive nominee the Democrats — or the Republicans have ever put up. A fiery preacher demanding the direct election of senators, an end to child labor and proponent of Women’s Suffrage. Bryan was no doubt ahead of his time and paid the dear price electorally for it. The public wasn’t willing to jettison the norms to such a degree Bryan was proposing and left him at the altar. Much of his populist ideas were adopted by Theodore Roosevelt forcing Bryan even further to the left. Calling for a Universal Basic Income and local ownership of utilities in future campaigns.

Hindsight is 20/20, but Bryan would’ve been likelier to win if he picked a representative from a crucial swing state to balance the ticket and compromised on some issues, except the free coinage of silver. Though outside of the agricultural states it posed little to no incentive to the industrial workers of Illinois, Ohio, and other states making up the Rust Belt. Bryan likely needed to be more of a hawk on issues such as American Imperialism. In real life he’d support and volunteer himself for service during the Spanish-American War. In his religious eyes Bryan saw his country as liberators to the Cubans from the dreaded imperial Spanish. Bryan could drawback troops after the war was won and leave Cuba to govern itself and our relations with them would have been drastically altered for the better.

After winning Iowa by 942 votes Bryan bested McKinley in the electoral college 225-222. Bryan sweeps the south, excluding West Virginia, and does surprisingly well in the Midwest and west. Losing just Illinois, Wyoming, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin and Minnesota. I campaigned as a crusader against tariffs in the heartland and in the industrial areas I promised not to overturn any apple carts by reforming labor laws. I managed to sell myself in moderate states like Iowa by appealing to their needs beyond the issue of silver. For the industrial worker the coinage of silver meant very little to them. What they wanted was basic human rights in the workplace. Bryan was their ally only he couldn’t manage to sell himself to them in real life.

To be fair to Bryan it is unlikely for someone of his caliber to have won given the circumstances. The poor economy and its subsequent blame was placed at the feet of the outgoing Cleveland. Fortunate enough to dodge the recession of 1890 which cost his successor Benjamin Harrison a second term. The Panic of 1893 ensured Cleveland wouldn’t be popular to challenge for a third term. Perhaps if Cleveland won re-election in ‘88 and McKinley succeeded him, imposed the unpopular “McKinley Tariff” designed to protect American goods and encourage the purchase of said goods. In the 1890 midterms Republicans were routed and by ‘92 the House, Senate and Presidency were under Democratic control.

Say this happens in 1894. The McKinley Tariff is vetoed by Cleveland when it was initially proposed in ‘90. President McKinley institutes his plan once he enters the Oval Office. Our allies Great Britain institute retaliatory tariffs against the United States and the recession of ‘93 is McKinley and his party’s baby. This’ll make it easier for the challenger Bryan to win in ‘96.

Chances are, Bryan pushes hard to get the United States out of the darkness of capitalism and into the light of socialism-lite. Bryan believed in a workers' right to unionize. He wouldn’t have used military force to put down strikes. He’d work to end child labor laws, regulate the standard workday to eight hours, and regulate financial sectors and bust up monopolies. Basically, Bryan is a better, though less bombastic Teddy. While Bryan in his old age, no doubt increasingly bitter at his string of his defeats, clutched to his bible during the Monkey Scopes Trial and embraced the KKK, the younger Bryan was more idealistic, pacifist and less set in his ways. In no way could he be mistaken as crusader for the downtrodden non-white people. But neither were the Republicans. Anti-Lynching laws weren’t passed until Calvin Coolidge did so in the late 1920’s. The Republicans dominated the White House in those days losing just four presidential elections between 1860 and 1928.

Not only does the United States image in the long term benefit from Bryan’s pacifist foreign policy — I doubt Hawaii is annexed during his presidency — you also have the Progressive Era arrive sooner with the Democrats leading the charge, the typically conservative party migrates to the more liberal Republicans for solace. The republicans at this time were friendly to big business and were beginning a downward spiral into laissez-faire capitalism. It took the miraculous arrival of Roosevelt to prevent both parties becoming stooges of the railroads and standard oil. Though Wall Street enjoyed preferential treatment because of course.

The electorate would be subjected to a gigantic realignment. The Republicans benefiting from the states ran by financiers, the Democrats still holding the south due to their confederate ties and further west where silver was very popular.

No doubt Bryan was a novice, but he was an effective novice. Despite having no experience in foreign affairs Bryan negotiated 30 peace deals during his stint as Secretary of State and preached neutrality during the run-up to U.S involvement into World War 1.

Bryan changes the makeup of the entire country. His Jacksonian ideals reverse the trajectory of where we were heading, eventually becoming the global powerhouse we are right now. Bryan likely keeps his throne until his death in 1925. So how the United States interacts with the European powers, the rise of the Soviets, among other entanglements is drastically altered. Perhaps Eugene V. Debs stays a Democrat and is a powerful force in Bryan’s administration. Maybe he’s a Supreme Court Judge? The United States potentially could become a proto-Soviet state only without the gulags and constant string of mysteriously disappearing government officials speaking out against those in power.

At the end of Bryan’s life the country he leaves behind is less imperialist, more reliant on agriculture and the wealthiest don’t exercise such power. Perhaps the worst of the Great Depression are avoided even if the Republican Party instantly takes power back after Bryan’s death.

The socialist movement stalled right around 1920. The Progressive Era assuaged many Americans away from the more radical ideology. Instead of the Industrial Revolution you’d have the Proletariat Revolution and it simply never end during Bryan’s reign.

Going further down the pike term limits are introduced after Bryan winning seven of them. So this completely does away with Franklin Roosevelt and puts the New Deal in question. Though the country is still smelling the fumes of Bryan’s presidency somewhat so much of his more ambitious legislation such as government work programs. The National Recovery Administration designed to establish a code of fair competition, to eliminate the cut-throat methods of industry likely isn’t shot down in the case of Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. The NRA is basically the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with shark teeth for choppers.

Americans missed out on Bryan, but I don’t blame them. Bryan simply couldn’t sell himself to people who weren’t farmers.

Bryan: 225, 7,035,243

McKinley: 222, 6,736,978

Palmer: 0, 132,629

[mandyforpresident]

Celebrate and support our volunteers

The volunteers are the lifeblood of the CIPR. Over 200 of them work on the regional, national and sectoral groups as well as those who give up their time to sit on panels, judging for Excellence, Sector and Pride awards and standing to be elected to Council and Board.

Over my nine years volunteering with CIPR I’ve done pretty much every role. I think it gives me a unique perspective on how to support volunteers.

I want to build on the work done by Sarah Pinch, Sarah Waddington and Emma Leech to recognise our volunteers. There is still a huge amount more we can do. President elect Jenni Field has some great thoughts on this.

In my view the balance of resources and rewards allocated to group activities needs to be reset. Last year less than 1%* of the overall CIPR budget was spent to support our groups and their volunteers. I want to redress this and I want to give the volunteers more say in how activities are delivered in their region, nation, sector or country.

Volunteering is a two way street. It has to be win:win for the volunteer and the organisation.

My win has been the amazingly talented other volunteers I’ve met. However I would guess for the last five years I’ve averaged 0.5 to 1 days a week on committees, speaking at events, judging awards, promoting CIPR online. It is a big commitment.

I’ve been lucky that for most of those years I have run my own business which gives me greater flexibility to work while travelling across the UK and around how I organise my time. But I also know when I was working in-house the commitment it takes after a long day at work to sit down at a screen at 9pm to start working on committee activities.

I salute every single one of our volunteers many of whom have been involved for far longer than I.

To keep people engaged there needs to be:

- strong leadership and strategic narrative

- great communication within the organisation/structure

- people need to feel listened to, trusted and recognised

.. and they need to have development opportunities

Volunteers especially those on regional and sectoral groups need greater recognition for the work they do. I would showcase them in a campaign during volunteering week and give them a higher profile in mail shots and online. This would have the dual benefit of saying thank you and encouraging more people to get involved.

We also need to help our volunteers develop wider business skills that complement their superb PR skills so more support around financial management, forward planning, scenario planning, research and evaluation.

This helps volunteers especially those earlier on in their careers become even more valuable to existing employers and clients and make greater strategic impact as well as driving forward CIPR. We have the talent among our Fellows and Chartered to deliver this.

If you like my vision for a modernised CIPR then vote Mandy when voting opens on 2 September.

Update 26 Aug. This note provides more detail on the figures quoted.

Published accounts for 2018 show Group income as £137,192 - which includes revenue and sponsorship generated locally from events and conferences run by the Groups.

Expenditure was £193,614 - leading to a net deficit for the Groups of £56,422. Reading the 2018 Balance Sheet shows that the deficit was covered by reducing the reserves held by the Groups, not the amount allocated by HQ to fund group activity

In this blog, I note that "...less than 1% of the overall CIPR budget was spent to support our groups and their volunteers..". This assumes that HQ funding to Groups was below £42,900, which I know to be the case.

[bikethevote]

Bike The Vote L.A. Endorsement - Sarah Kate Levy for City Council District 4

2020 Los Angeles CD4 Endorsement: Sarah Kate Levy

Primary Election day: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 7am-8pm Find your Council District: http://neighborhoodinfo.lacity.org/ Find your polling place: http://lavote.net/locator

Los Angeles’ oddly gerrymandered Council District 4 stretches from Sherman Oaks and Toluca Lake through the Hollywood Hills and down a sliver of Hollywood into Miracle Mile, Hancock Park, and Koreatown; and through Griffith Park into Los Feliz and Silver Lake. Home to some of the most hotly contested active transportation corridors in the city, it’s been represented since 2015 by Councilmember David Ryu, who replaced termed-out Councilmember Tom LaBonge.

Bike The Vote L.A. sent questionnaires to announced CD4 candidates, asking them to outline their vision for a safer, more equitable, and more sustainable transportation system. Challenger Sarah Kate Levy’s response was so outstanding that Bike The Vote L.A.’s CD4 Election Committee has taken the rare step of making an early endorsement in next year’s primary election, set for March 3rd, 2020.

Levy has a long track record as a political activist working with Democrats for Neighborhood Action, Planned Parenthood Advocacy, and serving as the current president of the L.A. Metro National Women’s Caucus. Levy has placed housing, transportation, sustainability, and quality of life at the center of her campaign platform, and clearly done the homework necessary to be an informed leader on each of these important topics.

Levy’s impressive response to Bike The Vote L.A. outlines her determination to achieve Vision Zero by reducing deadly speeding, reorienting streets towards the safety of all road users, and creating a network of protected bike lanes. Levy makes it clear that her vision of L.A.’s transportation system is one where everyone has access to quality transit, one that isn’t designed around travel by cars, and one where children are able to walk and bike safely to school without the threat of death or serious injury.

Council District 4 has seen a marked shift in public support for safe streets over the past few years, with widespread support for the successful Rowena bike lanes in Silver Lake, championing of local roadway safety projects by neighborhood councils in Los Feliz and Mid City West, and the election of a progressive leadership slate to the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council. After years of a mixed record on safe streets, incumbent Councilmember David Ryu—who voted against L.A.’s Mobility Plan 2035 in November 2015 and killed a much-needed road diet for 6th Street—has recently appeared to shift his stance on safe streets by definitively backing the Rowena road diet after funding a study to question its effectiveness.

We applaud Councilmember Ryu’s newfound support for the Rowena road diet, which was implemented under his predecessor. But unfortunately, new bike and pedestrian infrastructure in CD4 has come at a dismal pace under Ryu’s leadership. Should Councilmember Ryu be re-elected, we encourage him to take a more proactive role in making the case for new speed calming infrastructure, protected bike lanes, and roadway safety reconfigurations throughout CD4.

We asked the candidates for their positions on implementation of projects that reduce deadly vehicle speeds on L.A.’s High Injury Network and safe bike infrastructure connecting to the L.A. River Path. Where Councilmember Ryu’s responses left his stance unclear, Levy expressed unwavering support for these critical projects. Levy also went a step further, outlining a number of additional projects she plans to implement in each of CD4’s neighborhoods. In her words, "Safer streets save lives, period."

After years of inaction on Vision Zero, the City of Los Angeles is at a crossroads for determining whether it will take the bold steps necessary to end roadway deaths by 2025. With her determined, clear-headed support for the tangible, on-the-ground changes needed to make that vision a reality, Levy is the type of leader L.A. has been looking for. Bike The Vote L.A. is honored to endorse Sarah Kate Levy for Los Angeles City Council District 4.

Sarah Kate Levy Questionnaire Response:

1. Los Angeles Metro is constructing and planning multiple transit lines through CD4, including the Purple Line extension, the East Valley Transit Corridor, the Sepulveda corridor line, and the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line. How do you plan to solve the first mile/last mile problem and connect riders to these lines?

As a regular DASH-to-the-Red-Line rider myself, I will advocate for low-cost DASH routes to service all these lines, and I am following with interest the LANow shuttle pilot that is operating on the Westside. I will also insist upon dockless bike and scooter rentals at each station, as well as bike corrals. Most importantly, I will be a champion for creating a network of protected bike lanes across the district that could safely deliver cyclists and scooter-riders to and from these lines.

All Angelenos and visitors to our city should be able to access transit without relying on cars (and parking lots). I would prefer we holistically create a plan to solve first mile/last mile issues rather than let commercial rideshare solely fill the void. As our city holds the distinction for having the worst air quality in the nation, we must do all we can to make public transit convenient, and affordable - or free - to fight the effects that vehicle pollution has wrought on our public health. We must act locally to stall climate change.

2. News outlets are reporting that 242 Angelenos were killed in car crashes in 2018, showing that L.A. has failed to make significant progress towards Vision Zero since adopting the policy in 2015. Why do LA's streets remain so deadly by design? What would you do to make them safer?

L.A. streets remain dangerous because they prioritize cars over people, at the cost of all other modes of transit, from bus and train, to bike, scooter, and foot travel.

Speed limits are too high, too many roads function as busy highways cutting through our neighborhoods. Drivers go many long blocks without crosswalks, stop signs, or stop lights to slow them. Not only is car travel less safe on these fast-moving roads, but because of the drastic lengths between safe crossing points, pedestrians, cyclists, and scooter-riders are encouraged to dash across moving traffic.

This continued focus on cars over people has led us to build out roadways to accommodate even more cars, and create more congestion. Frustrated drivers take dangerous maneuvers through traffic to save time, putting everyone around them at risk.

Our current leadership knows Vision Zero is meant to alleviate these problems -- but they have repeatedly bowed to political pressure over the safety of our residents.

I will fight to make our streets safer by adding more safe crossings for pedestrians, especially in our commercial districts, to encourage people to walk and shop. I will champion protected bike lanes, in a contiguous network throughout the city. I will work with Metro to create protected bus lanes. And I will do all I can to support efforts at the state level to give us more control over our municipal street speeds.

Safer streets save lives, period. Plus they make commuting through this city simpler for all Angelenos.

3. Los Angeles’ traffic woes are compounded by the reality that many parents and students don’t feel safe allowing their children to walk or bike to school. Why do you think this is? What would you do as councilmember to improve active transportation options around schools?

As a mother of four kids, I think it is unacceptable that children continue to die while walking to school in this city. Traffic moves too quickly down many of our streets. Our sidewalks are often narrow, cracked, and absent of tree-cover, creating unsafe conditions for pedestrians. The majority of our existing bike lanes are no safer.  I am in favor of traffic calming measures throughout the city, and especially near our schools.

Our schools should all be serviced by our network of protected bike lanes so that parents and children can bike to and from school.

When examining where to plant new trees, school zones should be a priority, to encourage students and their parents to commute by foot.

Crosswalks near school property should be signaled and lit. I will also pursue other strategies, including crosswalks painted with 3-D effects that make flat paint appear to be solid barriers.

School-zones should feature stop signs and crosswalks at every corner within the legislated area of the school-zone, but we should also consider expanding that practice beyond the posted zone, keeping traffic moving more slowly in a wider radius to our schools.

4. Neighborhood councils in CD4, including Silver Lake, Mid City West, and Los Feliz, have all shown strong support for a more bikeable CD4. Despite this, the few bike lanes in CD4 are discontinuous and dump riders out into dangerous thoroughfares. What do you see as the impediments to building out the adopted Mobility Plan 2035’s network of bike infrastructure? Which of the connections in CD4 do you see as a priority and will you push for as councilmember?

I will champion Mobility Plan 2035 even in the face of negative public opinion because I am committed to making all streets in Council District 4 safe. I will not be deterred by a loud minority when it comes to making choices that will improve the community for everybody.

If each community has a school, a business district, or a park, then we should plan for safe bike and pedestrian travel to, from, and around those places. These efforts will keep Angelenos safe and connected to their community. Increased foot and bike traffic in our communities is a boon to public health, mental health, and business, too.

To successfully build out a network of protected bike lanes, I will prioritize streets in the High Injury Network first.

I see Silver Lake / Los Feliz as the logical place to start. The existing road diet on Rowena has engendered some political support, which has, in turn, led the push for more improvements. By doing more work here, we will show the rest of the district, and the city, how much safer our streets can be.

        SILVER LAKE / LOS FELIZ

I’d extend the road diet on Rowena/Lakewood to Glendale Boulevard and Fletcher -- this could be done without much disruption to traffic flow and would also connect the bike lanes on Silver Lake Blvd to Rowena (and ideally, to Atwater).

The bike lanes on Silver Lake Blvd from Glendale to Van Pelt should be protected lanes. This easy improvement will reap great rewards in public opinion, which will allow for more work.

I’d push for bike lanes on Glendale & Fletcher to the LA River Path (see 5A).

Mobility Plan 2035 calls for bike lanes on Hyperion. The street may be too narrow to support parking-protected bike lanes, but we do need to connect the lanes on Rowena to Griffith Park Blvd. I will work with the community stakeholders and city planners to see how we can make a safe connection on Hyperion.

Re-paving Griffith Park Boulevard is a also priority, for cyclists and drivers alike.

Once all these connections are in place, connecting bike lanes on Silver Lake Blvd to Glendale / Rowena, and to Rowena / Hyperion / Griffith Park Blvd / LA River Path, we will start to see a connected bike system.

        MID CITY / MIRACLE MILE

At the very least, the 4th Street “Bike Boulevard” intersections at Highland and Rossmore should get full traffic signals.

Traffic diverters on some sections of 4th Street are also worth considering, not only to make the “Bike Boulevard” safer to bikes, but also as a hedge against cut-through traffic.

Mid City West Community Council has been working on creating “bike friendly” streets, including Formosa Ave / Cochran Ave. I would strongly advocate implementing the $2.3M Metro grant for Formosa / Cochran, which calls for full bike lanes, as quickly as possible.

I am fully in support of a road diet on 6th Street between La Brea and Fairfax. (See 5B).

Once we see 4th Street / Formosa / Cochran / 6th Street, again, we begin to see a connected network of bike lanes.

        SHERMAN OAKS / TOLUCA LAKE

Connecting cyclists to the LA River Path is a major priority in the Valley, as a way to connect to other communities.

Mobility Plan 2035 calls for bike lanes on Ventura Boulevard. There are a lot of changes I would like to see to make Ventura safer, including those bike lanes, and connecting them to the existing lanes on Woodman and Riverside. I would also build out better-protected infrastructure to those lanes.

Crossings should be installed to connect disconnected portions of the LA River Path, including on Kester between the riverfront trail and Ernie’s Walk.

5. Please respond to the following questions regarding specific CD4 corridors with known safety issues:

5A. Bike lanes on Rowena Ave. and Silver Lake Blvd. both terminate at Glendale Blvd., leaving a dangerous gap between these lanes and the L.A. River Path. Despite L.A.’s future plans for revitalization of the Los Angeles River, there are no bike lanes that access the entire segment of the L.A. River Path between Elysian Valley and Glendale. What will you do as councilmember to actively push for bike lanes on Glendale Blvd. and Fletcher Dr. to provide families with safe access by bike to the L.A. River Path?

Creating safe access by bike to the LA River Path will be a priority for my office. Regular cyclists demand it, and for many families, the LA River Path is a preferred recreational route, too.

I support a road diet on Glendale Boulevard that would add bike lanes, ADA compliant sidewalks, and a center turn lane. The center turn lane would improve traffic flow and safety for cars turning left onto Riverside; the bike lanes would not only connect to the River Path, but also connect Silver Lake and Atwater. As there is minimal parking along this stretch, I would push for the bike lanes to be designed as protected bike lanes, to keep families safe as they crossed to the LA River Path.

5B. Despite unanimous support from the Mid City West Community Council for a road diet on 6th Street to provide an important connection to LACMA and to West Hollywood, and in response to 3 fatalities on the street over 5 years, the office of Council District 4 opted instead for a modest plan that added left turn pockets at one intersection. Will you implement the LADOT-recommended road diet?

Yes. This  stretch of road is part of the High Injury Network. The road diet was supported by the MCWCC, who conducted a lot of outreach to get the neighborhood behind it. I will push for a plan that includes bike lanes.

5C. Hyperion Ave. was recently the site of a horrific crash that took the life of local grandmother, Cristina Garcia. Citing the unsafe conditions of Hyperion, the Los Feliz Neighborhood Council has repeatedly called for safety improvements to this street, which LADOT has determined is part of the High Injury Network. Speed is the predominant factor in determining whether a crash is deadly. Would you support a road diet reconfiguration of Hyperion Ave. to reduce speeding and improve the safety of pedestrians, people on bikes, and turning drivers?

Yes. I am angry, but not surprised, that the community asked the Councilmember for help, repeatedly, and were met with silence. I’m also angered by the recent LADOT report that tried to wipe the City of blame by citing rain and speed as the culprits in Cristina Garcia’s death. Rain is an act of god, but speed is a factor the City can control -- and should have. They knew this road was unsafe. Cristina Garcia should not be dead.

6. Over the past year, we have seen increased use of privately owned and shared mobility electric scooters throughout Los Angeles. What role do you see for this emerging transportation technology, and how can the City of Los Angeles act to ensure safe mobility for all road users during a time when many Angelenos are making shifts in their mobility choices?

The scooters are here to stay (until the next wave of mobility tech arrives). I believe that the new City rules that put scooters in the street are irresponsible in the extreme. I already worry for cyclists sharing the road, and I have that same fear for scooter riders.

Regardless of which tech wins, the only way to keep scooter riders safe is to build out a network of protected bike lanes that scooter riders can share with cyclists.

[but-what-can-we-do-blog]

Crisis

Climate change has been called the greatest long term challenge facing the human race. There is significant evidence that links human activity to climate change.

According to the Cambridge University Press, “Science now shows with 95 percent certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century... Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.” 

Humanity has caused this global crisis and I believe that it is our job to try and fix it. 

The David Suzuki Foundation shares ways that we can help our planet,

“ 1. Get charged up with renewables

The global push for cleaner, healthier energy is on. With costs dropping every day, renewable energy is the best choice for the environment and the economy.People throughout Canada are leading on renewables, making a difference in towns, cities and rural areas. You can, too! 

Start by sending a message to party leaders to get charged up with renewables now.

2. Green your commute

In Canada, transportation accounts for 24 per cent of climate-polluting emissions, a close second to the oil and gas industry.

The many ways to reduce your transportation emissions will also make you healthier, happier and save you a few bucks. Whenever and wherever you can:

Take public transit.

Ride a bike.

Car-share.

Switch to an electric or hybrid vehicle.

Fly less (if you do fly, make sure you offset your emissions).

3. Use energy wisely — save money, too!

On a per capita basis, Canada is one of the top energy consumers in the world! By getting more energy efficient, you’ll pollute less and save money.

The small changes you make add up:

Change to energy-efficient light bulbs.

Unplug computers, TVs and other electronics when you’re not using them.

Wash clothes in cold or warm (not hot) water.

Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can and use dryer balls when you can’t.

Install a programmable thermostat.

Look for the Energy Star label when buying new appliances.

Winterize your home to prevent heat from escaping.

Get a home or workplace energy audit to identify where you can make the most energy-saving gains.

4. Eat for a climate-stable planet

“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”~ Michael Pollan

Here are four simple changes you can make to your diet to reduce its climate impact.

Eat meat-free meals.

Buy organic and local whenever possible.

Don’t waste food.

Grow your own.

Get more info on how to eat for the climate and how eating less meat will reduce Earth’s heat.

P.S. You can also help save the planet by eating insects!

5. Consume less, waste less, enjoy life more

“We use too much, too much of it is toxic and we don’t share it very well. But that’s not the way things have to be. Together, we can build a society based on better not more, sharing not selfishness, community not division.” ~ The Story of Stuff

Focusing on life’s simple pleasures — spending time in nature, being with loved ones and/or making a difference to others — provides more purpose, belonging and happiness than buying and consuming. Sharing, making, fixing, upcycling, repurposing and composting are all good places to start.

6. Divest from fossil fuels

Let industry know you care about climate change by making sure any investments you and your university, workplace or pension fund make do not include fossil fuels. Meet with your bank or investment adviser and/or join a divestment campaign at your university.

Fossil fuels are a sunset industry. They’re a risk for investors and the planet. As Arnold Schwarzenegger said, “I don’t want to be the last investor in Blockbuster as Netflix emerged.”

7. Invest in renewables

Even if you can’t install solar panels or a wind turbine, you can still be a part of the clean-energy economy. Search online for local renewable energy co-ops to join. By becoming a co-op member you will own a slice of its renewable energy projects and can get a return on your investment.

You can also speak to your financial adviser about clean energy/technology investments.

8. Help put a price on pollution

Putting a price on carbon is one of the most important pillars of any strong climate policy. Carbon pricing sounds boring, but it helps makes polluting activities more expensive and green solutions relatively more affordable, allowing your energy-efficient business and/or household to save money!

Most market economists agree that pricing carbon is an efficient and business-friendly way to reduce emissions. The federal government is working with the provinces and territories to put a national price on carbon, but they need your support.

9. Vote

All levels of government, from municipal to federal, can have a big effect on our ability to lower emissions, prepare and adapt to climate change and shift to a clean-energy economy.

Make sure you are registered to vote and then get informed for all elections — not just the federal ones that get most of the media attention. Research the party, ask questions about climate change at town halls or debates and let your candidates know you are voting for the climate. Candidates often hold a wide range of positions on climate change, so your vote really matters.

If you are too young to vote, encourage your class or school to join a Student Vote program, a parallel election for students under voting age that provides the opportunity to experience participation in the election process.

Upcoming elections:

Newfoundland and Labrador: May 15, 2019

Northwest Territories: October 1, 2019

Canada federal: October 21, 2019

10. Tell your story, listen to others

A healthy planet and stable climate aren’t political issues. It’s all about families, communities, energy systems and humanity’s future. It’s important to get everyone on board, working toward climate solutions.

People are more often influenced by friends than by experts, so make sure to talk about climate change with friends and family. Tell your stories — about changes you’ve seen where you live, how climate change has affected you, and the changes you’re making to lessen your impact. Encourage friends and family to explore the top 10 things they can do about climate change.”

To read the full article, click here

[priceofliberty]

Even if voting isn’t HELPFUL, it at the very least isn’t harmful, and the idea that voting can’t change policy is false-constitutional amendments that are on the ballot can have very big impacts, for example, there’s one in alabama rn that could make it a lot harder to get an abortion. Additionally, the process of voting helps indirectly educate people on the issues and the structure or government, and at the very least encourages people to pay attention to what the govt is doing.

Voting propagates the false notion that your voice matters in a ‘representative democracy’ and that by ticking a few boxes on a ballot, you have exercised the fullest expression of your political authority — this is misleading at best, and outright false at worst; that is what is harmful about the American electoral processes.

If any of you would take a minute out of our day to actually read the study, you’ll see that we’re speaking to national domestic and foreign policies, not local or regional policies. By all means, cast your ballot for propositions and referendums because they represent a rare instance of ‘direct democracy’ against which I am not ideologically opposed (we participate in direct democracy nearly every day in most of the decisions we make).

I also contend that voting does not encourage people to pay attention, as evidenced by the last century of American history. It is pretty clear that once an election ends, peoples’ collective attention span effectively shuts off. In fact, I would argue that the structure of national elections encourages, not stifles, single-issue votes (and thus, single-minded voters). This is further demonstrated by the oscillating intensity of the anti-war movement; very loud during the Bush administration, and very quiet (but still on the fringes) during the Obama administration. Note how many conservatives now support Trump and are quiet about many of his executive overreaches. In sum, voting induces complacency in the base of voters who ‘win’ the election.

Also, the idea that if people don’t vote there will be all this media attention and people will confront the illegitimacy of the system is wrong-elections in Louisiana regularly have turnout under 20%, for example. Most people staying home on election day is the status quo in the South, and nobody cares. It just allows for Republican control of the government, which is meaningfully worse for poor people who have to deal with welfare cuts, or lgbt people who have to deal with job discrimination.

I keep hearing this argument that a lack of voters = a Republican victory, which heavily implies that the majority of people who vote (or would vote) are not Republicans, or would not vote for a Republican; there’s no evidence for this. Republicans parrot the same talking point (that your lack of voting only allows the liberals to win). Still, I know of plenty of Republicans who abstain from voting, and in particular abstained from the 2016 election. It is a falsehood; someone has to be voting for Republicans, who spend just as much money on ‘getting out the vote’ and riling up their base as Democrats do.

I will concede that its merely an idea, simply because its never been seen, that the national media would confront the illegitimacy of an election with unprecedentedly low turnout. I am not sure Louisiana is a good example, despite the historically-frequent low turnout, due to their runoff elections which is something I actually advocate for.

ok yeah i do have one last point on the matter. even if you’re against voting the energy you’re spending urging people not to vote could be much better spent advocating for other things. Like voting doesn’t directly influence policy, true, and it’s not enough, very true! but choosing between two platforms created by elites which nevertheless have very different policies and effects is still an important harm reduction strategy. Also, constitutional amendments and referendums ARE policy. bye lol

And here you concede, unashamed, that you’re putting your lot behind a class of political elites who have better PR than the other class; that voting “doesn’t directly influence policy” (as I continue to assert) but it becomes symbolically important to effect a “harm reduction strategy.” There isn’t a single legitimate argument that a political victory at the polls reduces harm, because the harm is always and consistently pushed off onto other people. In particular, most Americans are content to vote for their candidates, despite the massive, undeniable harm both parties cause to innocent people living anywhere other than America.

Again, my energy is spent urging people to break out of the mentality that the only or best way to reduce harm is to vote. Indeed, voting perpetuates the system of harm, shifting the burden disproportionately onto those deemed undesirable by the political class. Pot calling the kettle black, look where you put your energy this morning. You’re not even trying to convince me, simply lambaste me for what you perceive as wasting time.

You want to help people? Reduce harm? Educate people “on the issues”? Give whatever time or money you can offer to a charity of your choice. There are thousands out there.

That study, by the way, besides stating that “The estimated impact of average citizens’ preferences drops precipitously, to a non-significant, near-zero level”, also concludes:

The failure of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy is all the more striking because it goes against the likely effects of the limitations of our data. The preferences of ordinary citizens were measured more directly than our other independent variables, yet they are estimated to have the least effect.

Nor do organized interest groups substitute for direct citizen influence, by embodying citizens’ will and ensuring that their wishes prevail in the fashion postulated by theories of Majoritarian Pluralism. Interest groups do have substantial independent impacts on policy, and a few groups (particularly labor unions) represent average citizens’ views reasonably well. But the interest-group system as a whole does not. Overall, net interest-group alignments are not significantly related to the preferences of average citizens. The net alignments of the most influential,business-oriented groups are negatively related to the average citizen’s wishes. So existing interest groups do not serve effectively as transmission belts for the wishes of the populace as a whole.

Furthermore, the preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of“affluent”citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do. To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor, but only because those policies happen also to be preferred by the economically-elite citizens who wield the actual influence.

In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover,because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

It is federal (not state, not local) legislation which determines the ultimate direction this country takes which, in my opinion, is hardly more than a descent into tyranny. It is painfully clear to anyone breathing in the U.S. today that the average citizen has no influence on domestic or foreign policy. It’s clear from this study, as well, that even pooling our resources as average citizens, we have a “non-significant, near-zero” impact on policy. The only preferences that matter are the preferences of the elite—there is no evidence showing otherwise.

This is why I will continue to stress the futility of voting in the national context, and will continue to encourage active participation with charities and activism.

[nobszone]

A midterm night’s dream

So as my American followers know, we have an election tomorrow. Rather exciting isn’t it? I can say I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the run up to this one, though it took a while to really get going.

Anyway, before we all go to the polls, I’d like to share a rather...interesting experience I had last week.

(Also a thousand apologies to Jonathan Pie, whose writings this story is ripping off inspired by).

The story begins last week, November the 1st. It had been a busy day. It was the day after Halloween which meant everyone was rushing to put away the pumpkins and deck the halls, gamers everywhere were getting ready for the start of Blizzcon the next day (only to be inevitably disappointed when Blizzard pulled a Konami) and the entire internet had learned what I had known for years; the most powerful Smasher was The Pink Nightmare.

But it had also been a very busy few months. The Midterm Elections had been circled on many an American’s calendar ever since January 20, 2017. A lot of things had been happening in the American political sphere this year, and there was a palpable sense of anticipation for the Midterms, and for good reason. This was, in many ways, the first major referendum on the job performance of Donald Trump. 

So as you can imagine, this particular election was being framed as “The Most Important Election Ever.” But seeing as how the same thing had been said about the last several elections, I knew that for better or worse it would most likely be back to business as usual once it was over (for what passes as “usual” these days).

So on that day I had returned home from work, and when I opened my mailbox I was delighted to see my absentee ballot inside. Truth be told, I don’t really care much for standing in line at the polls and given that my ballot this year had quite a lot of things on it to consider, I really didn’t feel like standing in a voting booth for a good 30 minutes. 

Even so, ever since I turned 18 I’ve never missed a chance to participate in our democratic process, and I wasn’t going to start now.

Now I know what you’re all thinking. How did I intend to vote? Well, this was a bit of a tricky proposition for me. I try my best to be an informed voter, reading up on the candidates and their stances on the issues and deciding for myself who’s platform I agree with more.

But this time I was going purely on instinct, and my instinct was to vote straight-ticket Democrat. Which really felt strange because, historically, my instinct has always been to do the opposite of whatever Michael Moore tells me to do.

I parked my car and opened the door to my house, with a spring in my step and my ballot in my hand. I was confident in my conviction that, despite some reservations, voting for the Dems in this election was the only sensible choice to make. And I knew it was the right choice, because my Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr feeds had been saying the same for months. Anyone who was anyone was telling me that only a racist, idiot or Russian spy would vote for the GOP in this election, so it must be true.

And besides, I had conjured up a fantasy in my head of Trump being so irate at a Democratic controlled house that he instantly resigned the Presidency out of spite.

This was going to be easy.

Well, it had been a long day at work, and it’s not a good idea to vote when your mind is fatigued. So I decided a quick nap was in order; and afterwards I would be refreshed and rejuvenated and ready to do my civic duty as a citizen of the Republic.

I set the ballot down on the counter and sprawled out on the couch and closed my eyes. I was home alone, and thus I felt no particular reservations about napping in the living room.

And then, something happened.

A voice began to speak to me. I became apprehensive and frightened. Who was it that was speaking? Was it my conscience? Was it God? Was it the first signs of schizophrenia?

Either way, I instantly knew who was addressing me. 

It was the voice...of Princess Luna.

Now, don’t be alarmed. As long time followers know, I am an OG Brony. And as such, I occasionally experience visitations from the denizens of Equestria during times of emotional distress. Whether it’s Twilight Sparkle giving me encouragement before finals, Rainbow Dash assuring me that neither the last launch of the Space Shuttle nor the 2017 Solar Eclipse will be clouded out, or Vinyl Scratch giving me some companionship on those cold Winter nights, I’ve just gotten used to it.

But this was the first time I’d been visited by Princess Luna. The lunar regent herself! The only pony who’s presence in a dream actually made sense!

Time slowed, I sat up on the couch, rubbing my eyes blearily. But Luna remained standing in front of me, having adopted a humanoid form for a variety of Freudian reasons. Once again she began to speak.

“My friend, what troubles you?”

I sighed.

“I’m confused.”

An expression of sympathy crossed her face as she put a hand on her chest.

“Of course you’re confused. How can you not be? Everyone is confused. Because the only thing the media is talking about is what this means for Donald Trump.

“But there’s something missing. Information. How can you possibly make a decision if you’re not properly informed?”

She sat down beside me, taking my hand in hers.

“You and your fellow citizens have a tough choice to make. The GOP’s stance on immigration has been reprehensible, and Trump’s wish to mobilize troops is practically a Kent State-style situation waiting to happen. But despite his overtones, those migrants are not turning around. What happens to them when they get to the border? What happens if Trump ends birthright citizenship? And what about legal immigrants?  If you sustain immigration at its current levels, what will happen to public services? Will Medicaid be able to cope?

“The economy is doing rather nice. Historically speaking, a good economy bodes well for the ruling party. But what about Trump’s trade war with China? Or the tax bill? Trump has often used the stock market as an indicator of how the economy is doing, but it lost nearly $2 trillion last month alone!

“And there’s so many other issues to consider as well. Will LGBT rights continue to be protected? Will your foreign policy change? Will gun rights be protected? There’s a lot to consider here.”

I held up a hand. “I know all these things, Luna. Why are you telling me this?”

“Because, you know the Republicans plans for these things. But, tell me my friend, have you heard anything from the Democrats about how they plan to handle issues?”

I paused. I thought about her question and realized she was right. I’ve heard how my local candidates would approach those issues, but in terms of a unified strategy from the Democrats? 

I’d heard nothing. 

Other than-

“All you’ve heard from the Democrats is that you need to vote for them so they can stop Trump. And yes, that very well could happen, but to what end?” Luna asked, finishing my thought.

She stood up and faced me.

“The real problem is nobody wants to admit that they don’t know what will happen if things stay as they are for two more years, let alone what will happen if there’s significant opposition to the President. Your country has never had a President like this before.

“The GOP says that they’ll advocate for Conservative views and values instead of constantly kissing Trump’s ring. But recent history tells us that’s not going to happen. Furthermore, the GOP has traditionally been in favor of a smaller government and a weaker executive branch, and now you’re in a position where the traditional Republican argument is being made by Democrats. And because everyone thinks that the GOP is a bunch of racists, Libertarians like yourself are scared of being labeled Pro-Trump by default!”

Luna began to pace around the room as she started to talk of fear. “This whole debate, if you can call it a debate, has been about causing fear!” she cried. And every time she said the word “fear”, she spoke in her Royal Canterlot Voice.

“The Democrats say that your democracy will be undermined by Trump’s authoritarian tendencies. Fear. 

“Trump says that America will be overrun by caravans of migrants and masses of illegal aliens if the Republicans lose. Fear.

“Barack Obama says the character of your country is on the ballot. Fear.

“The GOP is not only ramping up the threat of illegals, but that a Democratic majority would wreck the economy. Fear or fear? Would you like some fear with your fear?!”

Luna paused. I sat upright, riveted to my seat.

“The level of debate during this process has been terrifying! It has exposed everything that is wrong with modern political discourse. Jane Fonda compared Trump to Hitler, as if that comparison has never been made about any politician since 1945, yet Fox News claims that liberal donors would rather the Democrats start a nuclear war, if that was the case then why would anyone vote for a party who could potentially destroy the planet? 

“Emma Gonzalez says that the lives of high school students depend on who is elected, and Trump says a vote for Democrats is a vote for MS-13 to run wild. I always thought school shootings and MS-13′s criminal activities would happen regardless of who was in office, but no, silly me, apparently the GOP is allowing people to gun down kids, while paradoxically MS-13 supports more gun control legislation! Once again, a national political debate has descended into FARCE! ”

Luna’s voice reached a fever pitch. It felt like the entire world shook with the reverberation of each syllable.

“The right has completely abandoned its principles in favor of supporting a man with an ego the size of a planet and the intelligence of a gnat! And the left has made it all about personality over politics, emotion over logic, which is a laugh seeing as their candidate in the last election lacked both of those things!”

“This is the choice your country faces!” Luna exclaimed, her eyes burrowing into my soul and her voice shattering every molecule of air around me. “Vote for Democrats and you’re supporting Identity Politics! Vote for Republicans and you’re supporting Statism! IDENTITY POLITICS OR STATISM! FUCK ME, WHAT A CHOICE! YOU MIGHT AS WELL BE STUCK BETWEEN THE WEHRMACHT AND THE RED ARMY!”

The silence was nearly as deafening as the voice it succeeded. I sat there, looking Luna square in the eye, her face seemingly frozen in an intense glare.

And then I could look no more. I put my face into my hands and I wept.

She was correct. For all my enthusiasm and patriotism, we were at a morton’s fork yet again. My hope was that once the 2016 election was over, the polarization would die down as both parties sought to get on with the job. Instead it never ended. The GOP sold out to Trump and the Dems learned nothing from Clinton’s defeat.

“What do I do?” I managed to choke out. “What can I do?”

It was at this point that I felt Luna embrace me. Her arms wrapping around my back, gently rubbing like a mother soothing an upset child. Her head rested on my shoulder, her snout buried in the crook of my neck as she did her best to bring my emotions back to a more reasonable level.

“It’s alright, my friend.” She whispered to me. “You know what you must do...you always have.”

And then I opened my eyes. I was awake, and she was gone.

Even now, nearly a week later, I still can’t get my head around what happened. Sure enough when I woke up, I felt refreshed and in the correct mindset to cast my ballot.

But following the advice of the lunar regent, I abandoned my original plan and instead I took some time to brush up on the candidates and their platforms once more. Then I voted for the candidates that I felt would do the best job.

And I honestly can’t work out how I would’ve voted if I hadn’t taken that nap.

And now it’s your turn. Despite all the polls and predictions, we still have no idea how today is going to turn out. This time however, both sides share blame for the uncertainty. 

What it comes down to is this. We’re nearly 2 years into Donald Trump’s attempt to “Make America Great Again”, but we still don’t know what that means. Maybe I’m being factitious though, because Trump and his hardcore base seems to know what it means. It means an America with walls on the borders and divisions among the populace, an America where you can’t trust anyone (especially any TV channel that isn’t Fox News), an America where potential interference from a hostile power is not only tolerated, but perhaps encouraged.

Doesn’t sound that great to me, but of course you’re free to disagree with that.

But the Democrats aren’t much better. What the hell is their plan for America? Have they thought of anything besides “Impeach Trump?” And what if the Mueller probe comes back and it turns out that even if Russia was running an operation to harm our country and people Trump knew were involved but Trump himself wasn’t, what happens then? Hope he invites a porn star to the Oval Office and do re-enactment the Lewinsky affair?

The problem is no one knows what the Democrat’s plans are, because they have no plan after “Impeach Trump.” In a related story, no one knows what “Make America Great Again” means because no one ever knew what it meant.

And, like it or not, this all falls at the feet of Donald Trump.

We were never supposed to vote for Donald Trump.

You know it, I know it, we all know it. No one thought we would vote for Trump. Even people that voted for Trump didn’t think we’d vote for Trump. That’s why the Democrats were so eager for him to get the nomination and didn’t particularly care that they screwed over Bernie Sanders for an utterly unelectable candidate in Hillary Clinton; they assumed an election against Trump wouldn’t mean a Trump win, but it did and instead we got the single biggest embarrassment of the Democrats since 1968.

Fast forward two years later, and really nothing has changed.

For the last two years, the level of debate has been appalling from both sides of the aisle. Both sides have to take responsibility for this. There haven’t been any facts. There’s been no debate about policy, proposals, nothing. It’s all been about who can say the most alarmist thing or pull off the sneakiest trick and get away with it.

Nothing that has happened over the last two years has been reasonable political debate. It’s more like a dream you have after you’ve done a fifth of Vodka and a No Mercy run on Undertale.

One involving Princess Luna perhaps?