#maybe even consider not being a single issue voter

[iamindifferenttolamp]

vote *for whom*. there isn't a single major party in my country that opposes the ethnic cleansing of gaza

Vote for whomever gets you one step closer or, at worst, whomever's standing still while their opponent tries to drag the country down to authoritarian capitalist hell

And don't let Okay and Good pass you by while you're waiting for the Perfect that will never come. Don't look at Okay and Good and go "nah, I'll just let Really Fucking Bad Actually win because it upsets my tummy to vote for anything less than Perfect"

If you can't handle holding your nose and picking a candidate that doesn't agree with you on everything when the other candidate wants not just all Palestinians dead, but also you and me and everyone else who would never suck their dick and pay them for the privilege, then I don't believe you could ever possibly handle the revolution you want so badly

To clarify, because we all love to piss on the poor,

Genocide is not okay or good. Supporting genocide is abhorrent. But not voting doesn't stop candidates from being elected; it just stops you from having a say in the matter. And if both candidates support genocide, well that sucks but there are other issues, even if they may be less important, to you and/or objectively; and if the candidates agreed on every issue, they would not be running against each other

So get out there and vote for the fucked up piece of shit who only wants to kill Palestinian men, not the women and children, instead of the one who wants to wipe the entire middle east off the map because at least you'll be saving the women and children while you work on a better solution, and it'll take you all the effort of standing in one (1) line and filling a circle or two to do it. The other 364 days you can go back to saving Gaza through the power of mutual aid and the revolution everyone loves to talk about but nobody seems to actually be doing

Or vote for the fucked up piece of shit who wants Gaza gone (because they both do) but also wants to decriminalize drugs. Does this help Gaza? Not directly, but it keeps more people out of prison, meaning you have more people who you coalition build and collaborate with, whether on direct NGO involvement in getting aid to Gaza, or on pressuring politicians to call for a cease fire, or just building a base of voting power to back a better candidate in the next race

Oh and if your country has a primary system like the US, maybe vote then, too, so you can push whichever viable party you most agree with (or least disagree with, if it hurts your tummy too much to think of it in terms of agreement) further in the direction you want and need

These things matter. Of course you want to save everyone and you want it to happen right now. I do too! But when that's not an option on the table, the right choice isn't to sit on your hands and complain from a distance. The right choice is to do whatever will lead to a better outcome. Not perfect, not even necessarily good. Just better than the alternative

And then reach in the toolbox for the next tool, and keep going. Is a nail gun more effective at building a house than a table saw? Maybe. But I suspect it's hard to cut a 2x4 with a nail gun, and there's no harm in putting down the nail gun for just a moment and plugging in the table saw when a board that's too long comes your way. Then you can pick up the nail gun again and make sure that board knows its place

[pluckyredhead]

ur post abt the green lantern’s political leanings was so interesting!! can you do one for the bat family? (but only if u wanna!!)

Honestly, I can't, because their politics are so incoherent.

Like, take Bruce. (And again, like with the Lanterns, I'm talking about canon here, not how I wish things were.) On the one hand, you would imagine he's pretty progressive, right? He's almost certainly a single issue voter and that single issue is gun control. He believes in rehabilitating criminals and in fact a lot of Wayne Enterprises hires are formerly incarcerated people. He is an active philanthropist who pours money into schools, orphanages, hospitals, public spaces, and the arts. These are all leftist values!

And yet the modern Batman is also a completely unrestrained violent anarchic-libertarian power fantasy. Bruce has invented his own law, which he enacts and enforces completely arbitrarily, however he feels like doing so. He obeys the laws he wants to obey and ignores the ones he doesn't care about, while insisting he is law-abiding. He tortures people literally constantly and considers it righteous. He uses the profits from his publicly traded company to become a one-man military industrial complex. (The emissions from the fucking Batmobile alone...!) He illegally surveils the entire city and sometimes the entire planet (Brother Eye, anyone?) because he has decided that his moral authority overrides literally anyone's right to privacy, anywhere. He allows his defeated foes to be locked up indefinitely regardless of their mental state in an institution that would make any qualified mental health professional run screaming in the opposite direction. He's sexist. All of these things sit on the right of the political spectrum, but imagine me pointing to the right like Charlie from It's Always Sunny pointing to his murder board.

And none of the Batfamily is any better. Some of them are honestly worse in certain aspects. Dick was a cop. Jason loves guns. Babs and Tim are even more in love with surveillance than Bruce is. Remember when Tim wanted to replace the police with, like, a Bat-army??? BECAUSE I DO.

It's not really "their fault," as much as anything can be a fictional character's fault. It's the result of being written by writers who are, for the most part, consciously trying to write the Bats as good Samaritans, but are also living in a world where we have had our brains warped by all of our blockbusters being funded by the US military, in a medium where badassery is prized above everything else, and so all this really problematic shit spills out onto the comics page without being questioned. It's also kind of a boiling frog situation: i.e. Batman has always had a cool car, so as he got tougher and tougher, of course that car would eventually become a tank, and no one stopped to go "Wait, what the fuck? What the fuck? How is this billionaire driving a tank around helping anyone???" I guess god bless Zack Snyder for inadvertently highlighting how fucking stupid and counterproductive a Batman taken to his worst extremes is.

To be clear, I don't think this is what most writers are trying to do with Batman (some of them are, but fuck those guys). But it's what happens when all you care about is rule of cool, and the more I think about it the more I'm like...shit, maybe Alan Moore was right and superheroes are just stupid.

Anyway in conclusion, comic book writers should consider the ramifications of what they're writing occasionally. But Bruce Wayne probably still votes blue, at least.

[autisticsuperpower]

Autism & Voting 🇺🇸

So in case you haven’t heard, it’s mid term season.

No, I’m not going to say who and what I’m voting for in this voting season.

If you know me personally, you know, and if you don’t, well, have fun guessing.

Instead, I just want to highlight the importance of being Autistic and voting in elections.

Now I just voted a few days ago with a mail-in ballot, and I’ve been doing so since I was 18 years old.

Our voices matter in these elections.

Why?

It’s one of our nation’s most fundamental rights.

AND..

All eligible voters, Autistic or not, have the right to a full and equal opportunity to cast their ballots.

There are a few things I wish to share in terms of voting as an Autistic adult.

You might encounter a few challenges.

Let’s face it, everyone wants to vote and make their voices heard in elections.

Besides mail in voting, you can also vote in person.

It can possibly create certain challenges, such as crowded spaces, long waits in line, and sensory overload from lighting, loud noises level, and even confined spaces in the voting booth.

Just know that there are accommodations in case you need them. 

Ask your poll workers about alternative ways to vote.

Accommodations are here for us to make things an equal playing field.

You may not be ready to vote just yet.

Just because you turn 18 years old doesn’t mean you’re required to vote in every single election from now on.

For instance, some don’t pay attention to elections while others pay huge attention to the process.

Something to consider is:

Do you know how the voting process go?

Do you know how to fill in a ballot?

What issues and topics are being focused in a particular election?

Sometimes, wanting to vote in an election may take longer.

Mail in ballots are a great way to take time to think thoroughly through. 

Or maybe you don’t want to vote at all. And actually, that’s totally okay, as controversial as it sounds.

Maybe it’s too overwhelming or overloading.

Or maybe you wish to see how the process goes for the next election.

The reality is it’s up to you to decide.

Choosing to vote is your choice, just as much as choosing not to vote.

There are ways to make the voting process easy.

Know where to go. Know the nearest or best polling place that works best for you.

Take the time to understand how the voting process works. It can be a lot to understand for some Autistic people.

Now I get this question a lot:

Should I discuss my vote with others??

Honestly, that’s up to you.

Some people will share right then and there who and what they voted for, while others may not share with everyone, unless for close family and friends.

For more information on these sub topics and if you wish to vote in this election, go to:

https://www.aapd.com/advocacy/voting-2/how-to-vote/

🇺🇸❤️🤍💙

[grishaversecommunityyy]

The Grishaverse Ship Survey Results

So! After all of that, we finally have the results! What is the general opinion on the ships in the Grishaverse? Well, that’s for you to read below! It’s actually pretty interesting and, while some parts make sense, there were definitely some parts which... surprised me... Anyway, onto the results!

Everything in this post can be split into:

The Grisha Trilogy

Six Of Crows Duology

The Nikolai Series

Shadow and Bone: TV Series

Most Enjoyed Ships

Least Enjoyed Ships

Crack Ships and Shipping Discourse

Notes from the Survey 

(note from mod emily: i tried to bold all of fritz’ comments, but i might have missed a few! be aware there are two of us analysing here :))

The Grisha Trilogy

The first book series we asked about was, of course, the first chronologically: the Grisha Trilogy. The most popular ship, with 83% voters for this series selecting this, was Genya/David (Fritz was glad to hear that; Yes I am). This is likely due to the lack of alternate romantic interests in the series, which seems to be a major issue for Alina’s ships. It also seems to be one genuinely enjoyed by most fans, in contrast to Darkling/Alina and Mal/Alina (each around 30%) and Nikolai/Alina (just under 20%), for which I have definitely seen plenty of debate. The second and third most popular ships for this series were Tamar/Nadia (55%) and Nikolai/Zoya (47%). Interestingly, Genya/Alina (43%) and Zoya/Alina (30%) ranked surprisingly high, especially considering how few of my friends and associates I hear talking about them. Good for them!

Honourable mentions:

Alina/Sun (no doubt inspired by that crack fic I wrote a while back) (Still havent read that out of fear)

Alina alone (a common concept among those surveyed, though most mentioned it later)

Zoya/Genya or Alina/Zoya/Genya

Six Of Crows Duology

This series was a little less divided, I would say. Predictably, Kaz/Inej came out on top with a whopping 96% of voters (:relieved:), with Wylan/Jesper next (90%) and Nina/Matthias just after (83%). None of the others really came close, despite Nina/Inej gathering 35% of the votes and Colm/Aditi at 25% (yeah, I’m not sure why that was so popular on AO3 either, but nobody really has objections so I assume that’s why it amassed so many votes). As Six of Crows is decidedly less divisive about ships and doesn’t have such controversial ships (more on that later), it seems the fandom agrees with canon pairings and the votes are... pretty unanimous.

Honourable Mentions:

Jesper/Wylan/Kuwei

Polycrows (platonic or romantic)

Kaz/Inej/Nina

Whoever didn’t read the instruction about this being for only the book series and put Jesper/Milo. I will never escape. 

The Nikolai Series

This one is a little harder for me because I actually haven’t read this... so over to Fritz for analysis! But first, the stats. At 85%, the most popular ship is Genya/David, followed by Zoya/Nikolai at 77%. Tamar/Nadia and Nina/Hanne draw at 61.5% and Nina/Matthias has 56% voters onboard. There’s no real honourable mentions for this one, sadly. Hello Fritz here! Read the books and very glad to see Genya/David as the top ship as it damn well should. Although still a bit surprising since its more of a side-arc of the two and only ties in with the importance of the story at a specific chapter that I feel like I don’t need to elaborate about, if you read Rule of Wolves. (I believe the popularity of the ship also sky-rocketed due to ROW) Following of course Zoya/Nikolai, the high ranking makes sense, it is the main ship and lets be honest they deserve it <3

I think the only really surprising thing about this is the high votes for Nina/Matthias since [SPOILERS CROOKED KINGDOM] he’s dead so I feel like people should move on from that. Nina/“Hanne” having not as high a ranking as I would’ve thought, but with Matthias still being in the frame I guess we shouldn’t be surprised either.

Shadow and Bone: TV Series

This one is really interesting, with the exclusive show watchers now taking part! We have 89% voting for Kaz/Inej, 76% for David/Genya, 71% for Matthias/Nina, 67% for Ivan/Fedyor (that’s a thing???-->Yeah they had a few somewhat sweet interactions in the background-->nvm i watched it you’re right fritz) and 62% for Mal/Alina. What’s really surprising is how high Malina is compared to Darklina, with Darkling/Alina at 36%. Who knows, maybe Fritz’ analysis can shed some light on this?

Yes yes Fritz to the rescue: First of all we have to see their interactions a little different from what we already knew of them by the end of episode 8. I still think it is a surprising number, since the Darkling in the show isn’t as nasty as he was in the books BUT over all his actions are now seen on TV. We all thought the deer antlers were a necklace amirite? Well no apparently not, the darkling used the worst kind of small science to fit Alinas collarbone to the bone and out comes a gruesome sight: a reason why many people might have started thinking: Wow what a disgusting person he is. And on the Malina “ship”: Mal finally has personality!! jkjk :eyes: Mals and Alinas friendship has been portrayed way better in the show and I believe that the people noticed more chemistry between them especially by the end of season 1. So I’m still a little surprised Darklina has such a low ranking (what with him being all sweet and cuddly in the middle of the show) but it makes sense and the Malina ship as well. Their vibes are just *chefs kiss* and thats coming from someone who didnt even like any of these “ships” <3

Loving the quotation marks for the word ‘ships’, Fritz. Over to the honourable mentions!

Honourable Mentions:

Jesper and Milo (isn’t milo a goat? guys, why?)

Nadia/Marie (huh that didn’t appear anywhere else)

One person had several - Kaz/Inej/Jesper, Dubrov/Mikhael, Dubrov/Mikhael/Mal - and yeah, you can really see the show differences in these mentions right? (whose dubrov...and whose mikhael...)

16% actually voted for Inej/Alina which is wild to me because of book context (they did have chemistry in the show tho :cowboi_smirk:)

Another person with several! We have Nina/Inej, Genya/Alina, Zoya/Alina, Zoya/Genya/Alina. Very sapphic. Good for you.

Kaz/Jesper and Nina/Inej all in one

That’s a lot of honour and mentions but it’s so interesting to me and I think you should see too

Most Enjoyed Ships

The most enjoyed ship was Kaz/Inej. This had unparalleled support, being at 35%. Jesper/Wylan, which was next on the list (23.5%) and Nina/Matthias (18%) were also pretty popular. Most of the others were quite low, though interestingly Mal/Alina only had 1 vote (plus one for the show version). Overall, the SoC ships were a lot more popular in this section, which makes sense - this part is really about your favourite ship, and those were more unanimous in the last sections.

Least Enjoyed Ships

Most people said Darkling/Alina, which got 47% of the NOTP votes. A lot more people disliked Darkling/Alina than liked Kaz/Inej. Make of that what you will, but I take it as a somewhat general agreement among many of you guys. Mal/Alina was also strongly disliked at 22%, but around a half or more of these were clarified to be about the book version of the ship specifically. They really must’ve upgraded in the show! Jesper/Kuwei and any other Darkling ships were also voted by a few, but all of these pale in comparison to the anti-Darklina votes. Shoutout to the person who said Apparat/Anyone. I agree, though it’s not something I thought of before seeing this response. Also one person said they didn’t like the poly ships, which I hope meant just the ones mentioned earlier and not all poly relationships in general... Another shoutout to whoever said Kaz/Heleen, because why did I have to read that. A fun question, all in all!

Crack Ships and Shipping Discourse

I love talking about crack ships, so let’s start with that! This time, I really don’t want to have to count and list because... well, let me show you:

I think that sums up the sheer variety, to be honest. Then again, it would be rude not to mention that the most popular were Jesper/Milo, Darkling/Nikolai and Alina/Sun. (If you’re still confused about that last one, I take full responsibility.)

YES KAZ/KRUGE I SUPPORT!!!

Honourable mention to this:

which was a lot to take in, and:

Now for the discourse. Yep, the part you probably came for. 

Actually... maybe you didn’t? Looking at all of these responses, I see a lot of people genuinely don’t care about ship wars and so on, and often enjoyed the books regardless of the romances involved. Quite a few disapproved of the ongoing (though small) wars between Darklina and Malina, and others had a similar line of thinking, saying we should maybe stop focusing so much on it. You guys are right. I know this is a ship survey, and the conclusions should not include that shipping isn’t as important as we make it (Yes it should), but... that’s where it’s at.

And then again, a lot of you guys expressed disapproval for Darkling/Alina, discussing how it is often one-sided and manipulative and overall unhealthy, so I could be completely off with that last one. Some people mentioned that they ship this but as a slightly different version that the one given to us, recognising the flaws of the canon ship.

Someone said they headcanon Tolya as aroace (OMG YES!!). We need more aroace characters, so thank you for that headcanon :) We also have a few gay ships mentioned here, and one person telling us they love Malina. Yes, you’re right - it’s pretty unpopular, it turns out. Someone else said Alina should’ve been single, and I agree, actually!

One person rickrolled me here. Thankfully, Youtube’s ads saved me. *wipes forehead*

I leave you all with this, in the end:

Notes from the Survey

Statistics Stuff:

The top ships were taken from AO3, so some ships may be more focused on in other books and may not provide accurate statistics for an earlier series.

The main circles this was sent around may have had bias as most people are from the same discord server, which has debated these topics in the past. Hence certain ships may have lower-than-average results. In future, this could be improved upon by sending this to other servers and areas of the fandom.

Personal bias may be present in the analysis, though I have tried to minimise this in the more formal sections.

Observations and Notes from Me:

You guys really don’t like Darklina. Or you love it. Usually one or the other. Wow.

Be glad I didn’t talk about any of the cursed ships in this. The things I have seen... (:cowboi_eyes:)

I thought more people would rickroll me, ngl.

What Surprised You Guys:

Kaz/Inej/Jesper

A few of you guys saw some of those cursed ships, and that surprised you. Well, me too!

Nikolai ships being in the TV Show section at all, what with his character not being in the show (yeah what was up with that huh tztz)

Inej/Alina

The existence of The Severed Moon

Darkling/Nikolai(/Alina)

How fun the quiz was :D

Things You Sent Me:

Bee Movie copypasta

“Nobody expects The Spanish Inquisition!”, except via an AO3 link

A fun fact about enzymes! I liked this one

Fic recs for Feriku and Sarai (esp for Wylan/Jesper shippers)

Another rickroll

Nice compliments :) aww you guys

I asked everyone for some kind of placeholder name and never used it. Sorry! But hey, anonymity, right?

Closing Statements

If you got this far (I feel like ive been sitting here for hours), thanks for reading! This was fun to do and I hope you enjoyed all of this too! The survey is still open for anyone who hasn’t done it but wants to. If I get a huge amount of new responses, I might update this post! But for now, adios!

-mod emily (and mod fritz)

[thelightofthingshopedfor]

so it turns out I have gay relatives in my extended family. like, at least few of them, at least two of which are still alive--one of them married his husband relatively recently as a fairly old man (because. you know. presumably he had to wait until it was legal) but was apparently out in the 70s and my conservative grandparents still sold him their house at the time to keep it in the family. another one is closer to my dad’s age and he’s been in semi-regular contact with her on Facebook because they’re both interested in tracing and preserving info from their shared family tree (and, hilariously, her dad was also gay I guess?).

and I’m--kind of overwhelmed about this? mostly in a good way! but like...I had no idea. I mean it doesn’t seem unreasonable that there would be somebody, because my extended family is pretty big, but there wasn’t anybody I’d actually met, and I was raised super conservative/evangelical because my parents were both raised conservative because my grandparents have always been conservative, and the extended family I knew best growing up (my dad’s brother and his family) were also pretty damn conservative, so I just...sort of assumed I was either the first queer in my general family circle or the first one to be at all open about it. and I’ve also been worried that my grandparents specifically would have a problem with that, which is a big part of the reason I haven’t made any effort to visit them since 2016...and now I find out they sold a house to their out gay cousin in the 70s. I mean I have no idea if they’re still in contact with him at all or if it was a very close relationship at the time, but according to my dad, everybody knew about it and it just...wasn’t an issue, apparently?? the family was generally cool with it??

which, I mean...that does make me feel better about the chances of my grandparents deciding they can’t have anything to do with me until I stop being queer and liberal! (I’ve also discovered recently that my grandpa’s brother, and presumably a lot of other people on his side of the family, are a lot more progressive than my grandparents are, so I’m simultaneously like...cool, that also indicates my chances are better than I thought, and I’m frustrated that I just happened to be born on the fundie side of the family!)

and I’m honestly really, really touched that my dad told me this stuff, because he’s acknowledged me being ace but has basically dealt with me being otherwise queer by pretending I haven’t said anything even when I literally bring it up in conversation (which, yes, I kind of make an effort to do sometimes, because I don’t want him to be able to ignore it, and it pisses me off when he does). but then last night we went to this outdoor concert and he was like, by the way, there’s some family history tidbits it occurred to me you might not know about and might want to know, and then he told me about these gay relatives that I didn’t know I had. I mean, talking about family history and showing old pictures isn’t at all unusual, but this was...intentional and specific, telling me about my gay relatives because he thought I’d like to know, and showing me pictures from the 70s of, like, my grandparents hanging out with a gay relative or two like it was no big deal, and more recent pictures of the wedding between two old men I didn’t know I was related to. and honestly I got a little emotional about it at the time, and I’m tearing up again because the pictures are on Facebook and I’m looking at them going holy shit there was a gay wedding in my family. I have gay relatives I can maybe talk to and get to know. my own grandparents might not care, actually, that I’m queer.

but at the same time--

my grandpa was a Democrat, a long time ago--a state legislator for the party, even, before he switched parties. I don’t know why he switched. all I know is that he and my grandma have been very conservative for as long as I’ve been alive, which is why my dad’s always been so conservative, which is why I was raised in this toxic, compassionless ideology and didn’t even begin to realize I might be queer until after college. hell, it’s the reason I cringe at a lot of bigoted things I used to believe, and all I can really do to make myself feel better about that is to remind myself that I did change, drastically if gradually, once I realized it was an option--and to hope that I didn’t actually influence anyone when I parroted all the fundie stuff I was raised believing. to the best of my knowledge, my grandparents have been single-ticket Republican voters for a long time and probably still are--I know my parents were when I was growing up, too, and although I’ve gotten my mom to stop reflexively voting for particularly awful Republicans, I strongly suspect my dad still mostly votes GOP. any time political stuff comes up, he just wants to argue with me, either because he figures I don’t know what I’m talking about or because he’s the type of person who always thinks it’s fun to play devil’s advocate (which is...the same thing really, at least when he does it, because it sure seems to be based on the premise of “well you don’t really know what you’re talking about because I bet you haven’t considered this”). I’m sure my grandparents still watch Fox News. I know my dad at least used to listen to a lot of Rush Limbaugh. I know he still thinks Ronald Reagan was one of our truly great presidents. he acts like he’s enlightened or whatever but I remember the mocking shit he always said about things like multiculturalism, sensitivity training, feminism (except he talked about “women’s libbers”), liberals in general, and basically anyone who didn’t think various equal rights issues were done and dusted by the 80s at the latest.

(I have a very specific memory of a time on a family vacation at some point in the 90s when the Supreme Court, I guess, had just upheld a ruling that kept gay marriage illegal, and my dad encountered this old guy looking at a headline about it who asked him, “does that mean queers can’t get married?” my dad confirmed it did, and the old guy said, “Praise God!” and my dad told us about this later like it was a very funny joke. he even added that he was tempted to answer “no, sweetie, we can’t,” with an affected effeminate voice and a limp-wrist gesture to match, just to mess with the old guy a little, but even then it was obvious to me the old guy wasn’t the one really being mocked.)

and this whole time they had gay family members, knew they had gay family members, apparently didn’t hate them as individuals or even think they were particularly wrong for being gay, and...they still supported these hateful pundits, still voted for politicians who would make queer people’s lives materially worse, still passed this shit down to the next generation and the generation after that. and it has probably never occurred to them that there could be something wrong--or even just dissonant--about that.

I don’t know what to do with it. it’s a good thing, and I’m happy to know it, and I’m still genuinely very touched that my dad realized this was something I specifically would want to know, and...there’s all this other ugly stuff wrapped up with it too. and I don’t know what to do with it.

[thebridgechicago]

Wedge Issues and Where to Stand.

Anonymous asked:

I don’t know where to stand on the latest heartbeat bill in Texas. One part of me feels obligated to support it because I’m a Christian. The other part of me thinks abortion is not so black and white. I feel uncomfortable around the subject, because everyone I know is vehemently against it, and I understand their anger. As a Christian, where should I stand on this issue?

I answered:

Thank you so much for your question. This is obviously a big topic, or—maybe more accurately—a confluence of several very big topics. I don’t want to tell you how you should feel about the Texas bill or any other legislation for that matter. I respect you enough to want you to come to your own conclusions.

That brings us to what I think is the heart of your question, which is this statement: “One part of me feels obligated to support it because I’m a Christian.” That feeling makes sense if you were raised in certain places and environments hearing certain messages. It’s not a biblical case. Abortion is never mentioned in the Bible, even though we know from the historical record that medicines taken to end a pregnancy definitely existed in the Roman world. In fact, that message is the result of decades and millions of dollars of political communications.

The legality of abortion in America is what is known in politics as a “wedge issue”. A wedge issue is a single issue that you use to separate voters. The idea is that even if a candidate or party’s other policies on things like economics, foreign policy, healthcare, or whatever else is something that you wouldn’t like, you still vote for them because they have convinced you this one issue is the most central thing. If it works exactly as intended, you never even look at those other policies. You just say “oh, they are the good ones on X” and vote accordingly.

Restricting or eliminating legal access to abortion was chose by a group of conservative religious leaders in the late 1970s to be their wedge issue. In 1976, 3 years after the Roe V Wade decision, the Southern Baptist Convention reaffirmed its position on abortion. That position encouraged “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”

It was only after a huge effort on the part of conservative religious leaders, lobbyists, and politicians that being against legal abortion was considered “the Christian position.”

So why did they do that? Probably lots of reasons both practical and ideological. But at the heart of them was that some people need extra strict rules to the point that the state needs to be involved in their bodies. These are always women, they are often poor, and often people of color. Those are all groups that certain groups are invested in making the enemy. The question of legal abortion gives them a chance to put a pure, innocent image of a (most of the time white) baby and contrast it with a woman who made a dirty choice. To me, the message is rooted in judgment and hate. That, to me,  makes it very not Christian.

If they just were saddened by each and every abortion that they wanted to just drastically reduce the number of abortions, then they would probably do the things that are proven to do the things that do that- like instituting evidence-based sex education. Or they would look at things like healthcare and child care costs because the majority of women who choose to have an abortion say economic issues are one of the reasons. But the people who pass and support these bills don’t seem to want to do that. They seem only interested in punishing people, to the point where they are instituting a system where people get a bounty to turn in their neighbors.

You end your question by asking “where should I stand on this issue?”. Again, I have no interest in telling you what to think. But that phrasing reminded me of a scene from the Bible. In John 8:1-11, some religious leaders try to trap Jesus by setting Him up. They catch a woman in the act of adultery-probably having set her up as well-and bring her before Jesus. They were tired of all the love and forgiveness talk. They wanted to catch Him and make Him be on what they thought God’s side was. And they thought God’s side was one of punishment and violence.

Jesus ran them off by reminding them of their own shortcomings. Then He told the woman that He did not condemn her. Whenever I picture I crowd of angry men trying to shame, degrade, and judge a woman, I think about where Jesus was standing. Not in the angry crowd, but next to the woman showing love and compassion.

-Matt from The Bridge

Ask A Question

[batmansymbol]

why the mcconnell rule is invented, illogical, and inconsistent

this post has no action items. i am truly just ranting at this point, i just need to get this all down.

these days i feel like my head is spinning with misinformation. i haven’t seen a single well-cited post or article outlining every problem i have with the so-called “rules” mcconnell has invented. what i have seen are hosts of people defending him online based on scraps of unconnected, irrelevant information. even the people who have an issue with mcconnell’s actions rarely address every part of the problem.

so i’m just going to write the post myself, to feel sane again. i’m going to go through every reason that McConnell denying the Garland appointment, but pushing forward with a Trump appointment, is nakedly hypocritical and logistically contorted.

it freaks me out to see the Republican base accepting, for instance, this arbitrary idea that the Senate and presidency being of different parties should make any difference for a SCOTUS appointment—because if McConnell & co. can convince voters of this invented “rule,” what part of our (deeply flawed, but largely democratic) institutions will be next to fall at a moment’s convenience?

anyway. let’s go

The facts: after Antonin Scalia’s death in February 2016, Barack Obama nominated a replacement to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. He made the nomination in March of the same year, but Mitch McConnell and his Republican cosigners, acting in a Republican-led Senate, blockaded the nomination and refused to hold a vote, saying that “the American people should have a voice” and later referring to Obama as a “lame duck” at that point in his presidency.

McConnell’s original reasoning for the blockade cited what he named the “Biden Rule,” referring to a suggestion Biden had made during George H.W. Bush’s presidency in 1992 to delay a SCOTUS nomination until after the election. (Biden’s suggestion was hypothetical; there was no vacancy in 1992.)

Flash forward four years. After Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death on Sept. 18th, 2020, McConnell immediately stated that a Trump nominee would, unlike Garland, receive a Senate confirmation vote. In this statement, though, he declared new reasoning for the Garland blockade. He claimed that the blockade had been based in political precedent rather than on the "Biden Rule.” McConnell’s supposed precedent was that “since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.”

In other words, his claim evolved in 2020 into the idea that a Senate of one party and a President of another represents a divided American opinion. Based on that premise, a Republican-led Senate confirming a Trump nominee while blockading an Obama appointee is, apparently, consistent.

So let’s start with that idea, McConnell premise #1: “The American people’s will is unclear when the Senate and President are of different parties.”

Yes, you could make this claim. But if the American people’s “unclear will” is really the point, then the Senate should blockade any presidential nominations by an opposite-party president at any point, not just in the year leading up to an election.

The Senate has never behaved this way—19 justices of the 114 in our country’s history were nominated and confirmed by different parties—so this can’t be the point.

Then how about McConnell talking point 2, a direct quote from his statement? “Since the 1880s,” he claims, “no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.”

This is plainly false. We non-politicians might even call it a “lie.” We only need to look back to 1988, when, on February 3rd of an election year, a Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Republican Ronald Reagan’s nominee Anthony Kennedy by unanimous vote. McConnell blatantly ignoring this fact in his statement is particularly brazen.

“Yes, but Anthony Kennedy was nominated before an election year! He was nominated in 1987, only confirmed in 1988!”

OK. Let’s give McConnell the benefit of the doubt and say that he mistyped. Let’s assume he meant to say, “Since the 1880s, no President has successfully nominated a Supreme Court justice in an election year.”

McConnell is clearly namedropping the 1880s to make the practice seem shockingly out of date. Don’t buy it. SCOTUS appointments are lifelong, which means replacements are infrequent by nature. While 12,348 people have served in U.S. Congress over the course of our history, only 114 justices have served on the Supreme Court, ever. And of those 114, only 64 of those justices were confirmed after the 1880s.

Out of 64 people in 130 years, is it a real shock that none of their confirmations met the narrow criteria of McConnell’s rule? Let’s look at it mathematically. Criterion 1: their nomination would have had to arise in an election year, one of 32 such years since 1890. Criterion 2: the confirmation would have to happen under divided government (when the Senate and Presidency are led by different parties), one of 36 such years since 1890.

I’ve cross-referenced the years. There are only 13 years since 1890 that meet both of these criteria.

And then there’s Criterion 3: the vacancy would almost certainly have to be a death rather than a retirement, because Supreme Court justices often tactically retire when someone they trust to replace them is the President. I’m not at all surprised that, of the 13 election years since 1890 when the country had a divided government, there were no voluntary retirements or sudden deaths among a court of 9.

My point here is this: McConnell is implying that an opposite-party confirmation hasn’t taken place since the 1880s because it’s an out-of-date practice, a matter of principle, and a matter of representing what US citizens really want. In actuality, an opposite-party confirmation hasn’t taken place since the 1880s because of sheer statistical unlikeliness.

In saying that an opposite-party confirmation hasn’t taken place since the 1880s, McConnell also implies that parties have often obstructed each other’s nominees. In actuality, only 3 SCOTUS nominees have been voted down by opposite-party Senates since 1890: Haynsworth (Nixon nominee), Carswell (Nixon nominee), and Bork (Reagan nominee). None of these votes occurred during an election year, and crucially, Nixon and Reagan still wound up filling those vacancies with different candidates.

In essence, it’s all a totally arbitrary bit of framing. McConnell might as well say something like, “No Senate with primarily brown hair has confirmed a nominee whose birthday falls in April since the 1870s!” It’s the exact same process: picking random categories in order to winnow down the numbers, in order to make something seem more archaic and unlikely than it is.

We should also consider the fact that something “not happening since the 1880s” is hilarious as reasoning. Since when are the 1880s and before not considered as valid precedent? Does the entire Republican party not, right now, constantly refer to the second amendment, ratified 1791, as something that must be obsessively adhered to, letter for letter?

But all this is just about the reasoning McConnell gave this year. So let’s go back to his 2016 talking points, justifying their initial blockade of Garland, which Republicans everywhere are recycling faithfully. I see this one a lot:

“Blockading nominees in an election year was Biden’s tactic first! It was the Democrats’ idea!”

This is incorrect for two reasons. Firstly, there was no vacancy in 1992. Biden was speaking in hypotheticals and, unlike McConnell, had no actual power to control what would happen if a vacancy had arisen.

Secondly, Biden’s suggestion was that, should a vacancy arise, the nomination and confirmation process should take place after the election (still allowing Bush time to nominate and confirm before the inauguration), so that the process wouldn’t be tainted by campaigning and politicking.

Biden suggesting to George H.W. Bush that he should wait to name his hypothetical nominee until Nov. 4th of that year is not, in any way, the same thing as McConnell & co. refusing to vote on actual nominee Merrick Garland’s appointment for a ten-month period, destroying Garland’s nomination.

And then there’s this: “This wouldn’t have happened if Harry Reid, a Democrat, hadn’t removed the judicial appointment filibuster in 2013!”

Technically true. Harry Reid removed the appointment filibuster, dropping the number of necessary confirmation votes from 60 to 51. In my opinion, it’s true that Reid shouldn’t have changed this precedent. But it’s also true that Republican obstruction has made operating a functional government impossible since Obama’s election. Reid had few other options with a Republican Congress obsessed with stymying Barack Obama’s appointments.

This one just rubs me the wrong way: “Obama was a lame duck!”

The phrase “lame duck period” refers to the period between an election and the new president’s inauguration. In 2016, this was the time between Nov. 9th and January 20th.

Obama nominated Garland eight months before the lame duck period, in March. As little as I have faith in McConnell’s moral center, I would at least expect him to know the difference between the words “March” and “December.”

Barack Obama had nearly 1/4 of his second term left when Scalia died. The expansion of the term “lame duck” to include an entire year of the presidency is fundamentally ridiculous. You may as well call his entire second term a lame duck term, but maybe I shouldn’t type that, because they might get ideas.

And lastly, my least favorite of the McConnell talking points: “Dems would do the same thing and 1) blockade a Republican equivalent of Garland or 2) fill RBG’s seat!”

Well, a couple problems with this. Firstly, no, we haven’t ever done anything like the Garland blockade, so you can’t use this logic. In the 20th century alone, Democratic Senates voted to confirm twelve nominees by Republican presidents to the Supreme Court. A Dem Senate has never refused to consider a nominee by a sitting President, no matter the party.

Secondly, yeah, of course Dems would fill RBG’s seat if we were in power at this very instant. That wouldn’t be a hypocritical action, because we didn’t blockade Garland. The point isn’t that Presidents should be less and less frequently able to nominate justices. The point is that in 2016, McConnell changed the playbook by demanding that “the American people” get to decide—and now that he’s been asked to apply the same rules to his own team, he’s scrambling to create loopholes so that he can pack the court further.

This is the most infuriating to me because it’s truly invented. “Dems would do the same thing” - based on what? What are you even talking about? Every time a Dem Senate voted no on a Republican appointee, it was eventually followed by that same Dem Senate confirming another appointee by that same Republican. Conservatives are truly bending themselves into knots trying to feel victimized by the left wing. I don’t think I’d mind so much if they didn’t also insist on calling us precious little snowflakes with victim complexes.

The fact is this. Mitch McConnell invented a new SCOTUS appointment rule in 2016, loosely based on something Joe Biden floated but never did. He got away with it because our systems, left and right, are showing how poorly they’re equipped to handle people who are obsessed with gaining and keeping power. And now, in 2020, in order to justify going back on his own rule, McConnell added new stipulations about party and precedent that don’t hold up under even the scrutiny that I, someone with no legal or political expertise, can apply to the situation.

Mitch McConnell and his ilk are a moral black hole: spineless, shameless, power-hungry. The effects of McConnelism are obvious. Once Trump’s nominee goes through, five of the justices on the Supreme Court will be conservatives nominated by Republican presidents who lost the popular vote. In fact, Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last 28 years. This is the current state of representative democracy in the US.

[lynxmuse]

All throughout this crazy year, I have been inviting people to vote.  There are stark reminders every day of the difference between bad or absent or incompetent or self-serving “leadership”, and what’s possible under competent leaders.  And so today I’d like to extend a special invitation to those who say “My vote doesn’t matter” with these responses…

My vote doesn’t matter; TLDR version:  In short, this question:  if your vote doesn’t matter, then why are they doing all they can to violate your right to vote, both in ability and in its impact?  Whether it be by closing polling places, or implementing unnecessary and onerous voting ID and registration issues, or making information difficult to discover, or participating in extreme gerrymandering, or linking voting rights to the paying of fines and fees, or attacking mail in voting, or creating a false panic about fraud, or simply to engage in behavior that is designed to put you off voting, there is so a lot being done to decrease voter turnout. And they cement it in place by fostering that very feeling you have, that feeling that your vote doesn’t matter.  They want you to think it doesn’t matter, that it’s too hard, that you’re better off staying home and just not vote.  Because they know that the less people vote, the easier it is for them to influence the outcome.  The more people they can get to tune out, and the more roadblocks they can throw in the way, the greater the impact of their fervent base upon which they can count on to show up while at the same time making it easy for their base to vote.  Which, in turn, makes it easy to gain the power.  By doing all this they get to break the system and choose their electorate, not, as it should be, the other way around.  To that, I say no.  Please vote.

My vote doesn’t matter: I’m just one person:  Well, yes, that is true, you are just one person.  And so am I.  And so are they.  And so is everyone else.  And that’s just it… keep adding all the “one persons” and in no time you’ve got a serious mass of people.  Again, it’s falling into their wishes, that many people feel insignificant and so they don’t vote, which suddenly becomes a mass of people that aren’t voting.  But just as the single sheet of paper does not weigh much, yet a case of paper weighs a whole lot, there is power in numbers. Please vote.

My vote doesn’t matter; I’m just one person, part 2:  In addition to the above, there are dozens and dozens of recent elections where the margin of victory was decidedly small, as in the in the single digit percentages small.  The last USA presidential election itself was decided by .09% of all votes cast.  And given only 55% of people cast ballots, there were plenty of “doesn’t matters” who could have mattered and made a difference. Please vote.

My vote doesn’t matter; I’m in a place that always votes X anyway:  Well, maybe that’s the case for certain races, but it’s not likely the case for all races, especially as we drill down to the local level.  And every single race is important – most of what affects your day-to-day life isn’t what the President or Prime-Minister does, it’s what happens on your local council. Or at the county level.  Or what the local attorney general does.  Or, moving up, what happens at your State/Province level.  And even at Federal level if you live in the USA, there are three different races going on at the same time (senate/house/president) and your vote can be highly influential in one of those arenas even if the other two are ‘locked up’.  Plus, again, even in ‘sure bet’ races, when all the “don’t matters” choose to vote and make their voices known, surprises can happen. Please vote.

My vote doesn’t matter; They don’t cater to my needs or listen to my wants: So, here’s the thing about campaigns – they are just like sports.  There are plays and strategies that are known to work that have been honed through repetition and countless games.  And the winning play is to focus on those you know will show up at the polls.  If the candidates are not listening to your requests, it may be because they have little incentive to do so.  (This happened to one of the major candidates during the recent primary – they made their bid on enticing young voters who did not show up to vote, which, unfortunately, reinforced the status quo of only listening to those who are the most likely to show up at the polls.)  It may seem like a chicken and egg problem, but if you want them to listen you need to show that you are part of the game.  You need to vote and to let them see that you vote. Once you’re on the field, you have leverage.  Once in the game, you have their ear.  Then you can direct things in the direction you want.  That’s what voting is for:  to have a voice.  Please vote.

My vote doesn’t matter; It’s all rigged anyway:  For one, I’ll point to the above and say again that in the myriad of races there are some where rigging is not possible, or at least more difficult, and your vote can very much swing things.  For two, one of the reasons that they can rig things is explicitly because people tune out and not vote, which grants them the reins to game the system and control things like districting (leading to extreme gerrymandering) or to engage in corruption with no one watching or pushing back.  For three, even when things have been massaged and suppressed people showing up in big numbers can overrun the rigging and put in place candidates who can undo the mess.  Please vote.

My vote doesn’t matter; They’re all jerks or crooks anyway:  This is one of the “funny” things about how things shake out.  If no one cares to watch the henhouse, then the foxes move in and take all the positions of power.  Moreover, if everyone says only jerks or crooks take the job, then the only people who choose to go there are either already jerks/crooks or are willing to be such.  It’s drifted to this point.  It can be pushed back.  Please vote.

My vote doesn’t matter; They’re all jerks anyway, part 2:  Plus, consider that being a jerk is actually an explicit part their strategy to stay in abusive power by getting you to not vote.  They want you to think all politicians operate like them such that you get so disgusted with the whole process that you tune out.  Again, so much the better for them because they know with less turnout they can win and therefore continue their crooked and corrupt and crook ways.  Attention and sunlight kills all that.  Please vote.

My vote doesn’t matter; It’s too hard and confusing and I can’t spare the time and energy to do and really it’s simply easier for me to think I don’t matter:  Yeah, it is easier to think that, isn’t it?  They’ve put so much friction in the way that why bother, it’s just too much to deal with on top of everything else we’ve got to do. To that, two things.  The first is that, fortunately, there are dozens of resources out there to take the confusion and the “hard” out of the way. In the USA, there’s vote.org to check your registration, there’s the aptly named YouTube series titled “How To Vote In Every State”, there’s Ballotpedia.org that provides in-depth overviews about races in your area (choose “What’s On My Ballot” from the sidebar).  Or Google your city name + Sample Ballot.  All sorts of places to give you the skinny on what’s at stake, and how to ensure your voice is heard.  

The second brings us back full circle to that first TLDR point, which is that the hardness and confusion and disgust is very much a part of their strategy.  To summarize this post here:

https://elfwreck.tumblr.com/post/626732289397833729/lynati-tzikeh-daltongraham-toddreu

Voting originally belonged to a very small class of voters (primarily white male landowners) and they have fought like hell to keep it from being extended to anyone else.  Every time voting gets subjected to a constitutional test and a new group gets the voice to vote, this small class has worked tirelessly to make it difficult for that new group to actually exercise that right.  

Forget voting as our “duty.”  Think of voting as “how can I annoy those jerks?” and keep at the front of your mind those jerks are hoping you won’t show up to do it. And that they’ll outright lie and work to suppress the vote through false narratives, closing polling places, futzing up the mail, all the way down to literally removing people’s names improperly from voting records (as just came to light in GA).  

So don’t just vote to Make a Better City/State/Province/Country.  Vote to make those asses scared of you.  

Please vote. 

(And please remember that if you plan to vote absentee or by mail, please request your ballot now, do the research while it’s on its way to you, and complete and send it out (or drop it off to an approved location) as soon as you can.)

[everydayanth]

Let’s talk about talking about politics! Yay! Everyone’s favorite!

Over the past few weeks/months/years, I have had this strange insider seat to a bunch of criminal justice/poly sci professionals (as in, they get paid as professors or scientists or compliance officers, etc.) as they talk about politics and get angry at the general public for our lack of understanding, without having the patience to teach or explain. 

Two problems: 1. the ivory tower issue of watching and not actively engaging in the social part of social science, but as their friend, I will note much of this comes from burnout through negative engagement and attacks; 2. expecting others to have had an adequate education to even know many of these tools exist in order to discuss things beyond our average public school education that cuts out Fridays and makes random half days because we can’t afford teachers or textbooks. 

As an awkward observer, here are some things I never talked about in school, despite having a better political/civil/economics education included in my curriculum than many of my friends:

1. When we vote for someone, we are voting on a trend in politics. Not as a result, but a direction to move, and most voters vote for the candidate who is closest to their current values already, rather than following the trend of voting for who would move policy to match their needs. 

2. Our values change far more than we think they do and they almost always align with a problem we require a solution to or a fear we would like to stabilize or go away, such as property taxes. Because we need to trust the person to solve our problems, especially if we are projecting large fears, candidates who are most likable. We don’t like to stir the pot, we just want it to go where we want, fighting for something is exhausting for everyone.

3. We consider political agendas to be moral agendas but do not agree on obligations. Many feel powerless, others are powerless, we talk about responsibility, but without acknowledging those first two things, it sounds more like blame. We also imagine many things to be wishful thinking that are enacted successfully elsewhere and fail to understand or use logical reasoning to really discuss issues. Anything will be an experiment because the US is so huge, but it is a scalable experiment working in other places, often we don’t understand that until we’re abroad and sick.

4. We’re not sure how to translate policy, and our country was built by and for lawyers. There are very little areas where we agree as a society on black/white right/wrong, and in many ways that’s good, but when it comes to discussing policy, it can be very confusing.

To account for these aspects, people use charts and grids. Much like personality tests, these are useful for creating a foundation upon which to debate and discuss, but are ultimately made by humans in order to generalize and will have errors and discrepancies. But the political spectrum has rarely been the single line most of us were taught. Instead, it is often a grid used to navigate the direction and preference of trends. Most people are much more moderate than they think, but have problems that need cooperative solutions, like the water crisis and fires on the west coast, disaster relief in the south, crop failure in the midwest, and ticks and diseases in the northeast. We all have huge problems and some areas are insulated from them for now, but they will come. How we navigate and demand solutions for those problems is what creates policy and the policies we agree with because of our value is what dictates our vote. 

So here’s some charts that human people made to talk about these things with and they have helped ground a lot of engaging conversations with people as I watch them argue but not get angry, because there’s a visual thing to talk around. Those kinds of tools should be everywhere. 

The political compass:

via Wikipedia: political spectrum

^

^A generalization of what different areas might look like. I’ve seen so many versions of this, but I liked the way this one because it gave me a better understanding of words I’m more familiar with and where they fall within the broad concepts. I couldn’t find the source. 

^ Here is another one from Google that took me to a shady site, so I didn’t link it, but the goal is to just be familiar with the different ways people structuralize and use definitions and terms to divide them up, in the end, the general understanding is all that matters, and our goal is to be functional, for the government to be usable by the people. Hamilton, the musical, was/is so important for many reasons, but one of the big ones is that it reminded us that this fight of trends and moving around the board has been going on since the very first election of a president to America. It’s always about one group pulling another, creating a tug-of-war that keeps us near the middle, hopefully.

This is a graph showing the individual party ideologies of past presidents by a site called Fact Myth. It is showing the party split between individuals and while we could argue and speculate about accuracies and meanings, whether a president was pushed to make a decision as a person, etc. in the end, they represent the will of the people and the trends we with to follow to solve problems at the time. 

^An outline someone made of 2020 candidates on Reddit that has been going around for a while. Jake showed this to me and while he was perfectly receptive to me saying that yeah, but a person made this and they can have agendas and just put people places, he also had some really great points on how Americans often think we’re moderates, but what we perceive to be in the middle is often skewed by capitalism. That’s not to say it’s bad, simply that if we’re talking trends and problems and solutions, we have to understand where we are on the real scale, not just our own. We will also tend to vote for those who are closest to us, rather than moving in the direction of us, so, say someone sits right where Ryan is, Ryan drops out; now, despite their personal political preference being on the edge of the middle moderate square, they move to Biden rather than Warren or Sanders because Biden is closer to their original place, even if, coming from Trump, moving to Warren/Sanders would pull the political trend back toward their moderate preference. 

Not everyone does this, obviously, but I’m fascinated by how our individual personalities affect how we decide politics. Are you a “next best thing” kind of person? Are you a “obsess relentlessly until it’s done” kind of person? Are you a “don’t fix it if it ain’t broke? Or what about “out of sight out of mind, doesn’t bother me, I don’t care” kind of person? So many of the ways we solve our daily problems are reflected in the ways we move our own political affiliations during voting times. I just think that’s interesting because I’m a social science nerd though. 

A friend from Brown who is much older than us (also a social science nerd <3) pointed out that she grew up with such antagonizing propaganda during the cold war and beginnings of technological boom and peak oil, and it all said the same thing, anything outside the blue is morally wrong and heavily corrupt. I thought that was an interesting point about exposure and remembering past problems, how voting ages overlap to find new solutions or rely on old ones, and what it would cost us to see American politics on a global scale. 

^This is a global scale of values (not politics) from the wikipedia page on political spectrums, and I thought it tied into the conversation in interesting ways, especially when we look at American generation differences in individualism and social cooperation and how they are viewed by each other to both be equally negative. There’s a whole world of solutions and different ways things our done, but we’ve been taught from birth that some are bad and others are exceptions and ours is good. 

Vox has an interesting tool to figure out where abouts you would lie on the compass. I think debating it with others is a better way, since it’s a primarily relative scale (unless you prefer those structuralist ones, but keep in mind that it’s a preference, not a requirement). But I thought I’d include it for those who may not have access to that kind of conversation. 

In the end, consider your morals and how they are different from your current values, and how your current values are affected by your current problems, and how you want the world to look, how you want trends to move, and how your biases of experience or ignorance might play a role in that. I honestly didn’t really think about healthcare until I was in Ireland and saw how simple an alternative was and how freeing it felt. My parents can’t even imagine it (and they are of the class who should most desire those changes), they don’t have enough of a base knowledge to understand how it works, it’s electricity after gaslamps. 

Anyway, just thought I’d share some of those tools. As a skeptical person, I want to remind everyone that these are tools, not documented facts, and fighting about where people are on the graph and where we might be is part of how we come to conclusions about rights and wants and solutions and needs and what we actually value. Most of us, in the end, value comfort and hope, and we vote for the people we think provide that to us. The problem often lies in people misunderstanding their own comfort and relying on ignorance rather than hope. I found these graphs useful in grounding my talks with overwhelming professionals and finding some semblance of peace in what I wanted to hope for and I hope maybe for some of you they can provide that as well. ❤️

If, like me, you reached your 20s and realized a gaping hole in your education, I also recommend the Crash Course series on US Politics. It helped me understand a lot of things that were skimmed over in textbooks or left as multiple choice answers on a standardized test. Politics are a series of solutions to the problems we face as a social group, and knowing how to talk about them completely changed my own feelings of helplessness when communicating to others. 

[olivieblake]

pat here that was a great read I'm sorry I was so confusing I want to clear up that I have no issue with voting Biden he is who is needed to be president right now of the options we have I have no doubt. He's not perfect as you said but I don't understand those who say they are the same. I am going to take a couple asks to hopefully be clearer about what I was attempting to say feel free to ignore if I'm repeating myself but please know I've never even considered not voting Biden once he was it

you've made some great points so some of what I was thinking may be invalid now, I'm a fairly new voter I'm not totally familiar with the process yet. I was trying to say as someone in the christian circle I know a lot of people who know trump is a bad person yet are lining up to vote for him anyway due almost entirely to wanting to see abortion overturned. These are people who would (obviously wrongly) consider themselves loving and kind people ignoring the many of their values for 1 issue. yes, I agree this is a common source of confusion for me in terms of right-wing voters abortion is about control especially to the men in charge and many others its also about life I know lots of women and I'm sure there are men, who really believe the stories about babies fighting while being aborted. its the defining issue of the party but the people are coming out to vote for whatever benefits they think anti abortion laws will bring them at least that's the experience with the people around me, it might not be universal no, I think you’re right about that. but I also think that is generally how things tend to go; we could probably look back at history and see people choosing their stances on one “hot” issue. say, prohibition, for example.

so when I say the left is fractured I mean that we want health care we want action on climate change we want something to be done about policing but we don't agree on how it should be accomplished and I have seen many people outright refuse to vote for Biden because he doesn't offer every single thing they are looking for on every issue on these issues. Thats what I was trying to say by saying its fractured. I am refraining from trashing Biden/dems during this particular time because I don’t think it serves a purpose, especially since the GOP agenda is much more concerning, but yes, once the election is over we should continue to be critical of policy decisions because to me voting 3rd cause Biden changed some of the GND is so selfish yet they are so like my grandmother believes trump was anointed by god to stop abortion yikes (and end the world??) and so though she's conflicted cause she knows he's bad she'll ultimately vote for him due to that. My long winded point (lmao) was I think there are many like her and they don't see they are being used (they aren't victims they are very complicit in his evil but I think trump takes advances of easy targets and pandering to christians is one of those targets) “trump” aka every GOP lawmaker I don't see the right struggle so hard with the 3rd party or not voting and so I wondered if the GOP lawmakers are actively not seeing through one of the core party values in order to keep the party together and voting for them, (they are a mess but they are typically a mess that agrees I think? cause they are selfish and the inconsistent policies consistently benefit only them) only one more left I promise god I'm so sorry I'm insufferable I at least hope this all made more sense 

last one, maybe my flaw is that its just trump who has no intention of overturning abortion yes, this is a major flaw in your reasoning. we’ll discuss (there is no way he was anointed by god!!) and is using it for reelection maybe other lawmakers actually want too and he's held them up idk I think you already answered how i'm wrong anyway aha but I wanted to clear up 2 party system sucks but its not what I was mad about and I am very very clear about voting Biden and I hope I didn't make it seem like people shouldn't!!! please folks vote early & safely the conversation took a slight turn after your asks which is why I wrote my follow-up, but thanks for clarification!

I realized everything I wrote is still probably confusing just ignore it my adhd mind connects things that make like no sense cause its dumb sorry to waste your time! It was a general musing I had like wow how can a chunk of the left take their rights so for granted they'd not vote Biden cause he's not perfect. yes this is a fair source of confusion. people are astoundingly selfish, it’s wild I wonder if the GOP lawmakers see that and purposely don't pass a core issue so their base doesn't get apathetic one day too oof, I wish, but no & I like u so I shared 😂😂 thank you! it’s not a problem to ask, and I’m glad you took the time to clarify.

here is my original answer, with this portion of your question answered in this video; I went off for a bit on a tangent about how abortion politics have basically led to the alienation of women who suffer miscarriages because of recent events on the subject, so I hope you know you’re definitely not the only one who has general musings that can sometimes go on for a bit

[wadefm-blog]

           ⋆ ╰  another  year  at  hollingsworth  ,  another  year  of  the  big  six  rivalry  .  i  hear  that  AURIELLA  WADE  is  ensuring  KAPPA  KAPPA  DELTA  gets  a  solid  pledge  class  and  stays  at  the  top  of  the  ranks  . oh  ,  you’re  not  familiar  with  HER  ?  AURI  is  the  ZENDAYA   look  alike  from  PACES  ,   ATLANTA  ,  GEORGIA .  apart  of  PC  ‘16  ,  she  is  majoring  in  COMMUNICATIONS and  has  plans  to  WORK  IN  PUBLIC  RELATIONS  DEPARTMENT  AT  SEPHORA  after  undergrad  .  it  makes  sense  they  pledged  their  house  ,  their  SCINTILLATING  &  BEWITCHING attributes  make  them  perfect  matches  .  however  ,  their  INDELICATE  &  VAINGLORIOUS attributes  keep  their  name  alive  on  greek  rank .  if  you  don’t  catch  them  dancing  to  BEEF  FLOMIX  -  FLO  MILLI  at  a  fraternity  band  party  this  year  ,  you’ll  be  sure  to  catch  them  nursing  their  morning  hangover  at  THE  KAPPA  HOUSE . cheers to  another  wild  semester  !

          *  insert  feral  screeching  here  *  hello  angels  and  babes  !  my  name’s  ares ,  i  prefer  the  pronouns  she / they  and  i’m  from  the  eastern  tz  !  i’m  so ,  so  excited  to  be  here  and  i’m  EXTRA  excited  to  be  playing  my  actual  queen  miss  zendaya  !  with  that  being  said , don’t  ask  me  a  single  thing  about  euphoria  because  i  haven’t  watched  it  yet  (  since  i  have  the  brain  capacity  of  a  two  brain  cell  bitch  )  but  it’ll  happen  ....  *  spongebob  narrator  vc *  eventually .  with  that  being  said ,  i  can’t  wait  to  talk  to  and  plot  with  everyone  because  i’m  already  obsessed  !  my  discord  is  𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝐨𝐟_��𝖇𝖔𝖞𝖘#6936  if  that  makes  it  easier  for  the  plotting  process ,  but  without  further  ado ,  here’s  my  baby  auri  !

full name. auriella kyla wade. nicknames. auri. birthday / age. december 25th, 1996 / 22. zodiac. capricorn. gender. cisfemale. pronouns. she/her/hers. sexual orientation. bisexual. romantic orientation. biromantic. height. five foot ten inches ( 5′10″ ). hometown. paces, atlanta, georgia ( click ). current location. savannah, georgia. nationality. american. ethnicity. scottish, german, and african american. languages. english, conversational german and spanish.

          whitney young and tristan wade were high school sweethearts, meeting each other when they were a sophomore and junior, respectively. the couple was madly in love and remained that way, even though tristan was the talk of the town since he was the best quarterback their high school had seen in years. most expected for the couple to run into cheating and mishaps, but tristan was madly in love with whitney, so much so that he proposed to her with a small ring that he promised to replace once he made it to the nfl. whitney followed tristan to berkeley, one of the hardest schools to get into, but also one of the hardest schools to get scouted for. 

          tristan made it through to his senior year and was the #1 draft pick of 1992, and signed with the dallas cowboys. after his first year in the nfl, he proposed to whitney with the bigger ring as promised and even though tristan played for the cowboys, the couple lived in atlanta due in part to whitney getting her dream job at cnn. at that time, the job was still a bit on the entry-level side, but she was happy to have had her foot in the door.

          four years later, after the couple married in a beautiful reception in miami, whitney and tristan welcomed their daughter auriella kyla into the world. born on christmas day, auriella was considered to be their little christmas miracle. in short, whitney and tristan were the aisha and steph of the 90s, but in football instead of basketball. the couple were envied due to their success, and were even featured on an episode of mtv cribs during the first season. 

          growing up, auriella was mainly raised between atlanta and texas. she went to school and lived in atlanta, but her parents also had a home in texas that was used during the football season. auriella attended the most elite schools that money and atlanta could give her, so she grew up surrounded with people who had immense wealth and influence. by the time she reached high school, she had become a girl who knew exactly what she wanted and how she was going to get it, no matter who she had to step on in order to get it. she wanted to be student body president ? she’d bribe the voters. wanted a specific superlative in the yearbook ? be fake friends with the yearbook staff. when it came to her grades, though, auriella worked hard for those and dared anyone to challenge her on that.

          come her senior year at north atlanta high school, auriella was named prom queen and most likely to be successful, two things that she made sure to have from the moment she stepped foot into the building. auriella had applied to and been accepted into a few schools, including her parents’ alma mater uc berkeley, but it was the university of hollingsworth that called her name after taking a tour of the campus. she loved that she wasn’t too far from the beach, and she even clicked with a few people she came in contact with during the tour.

          so, auriella packed her bags and decided to major in communications at #hworth. during rush week, no one had expected for her to rush kappa, considering auriella’s air of superiority, but in a way -- it worked best for her. even though she had the cushion of her parents’ wealth, auriella wasn’t dumb by any means and she knew how to get exactly what she wanted -- was the bribing again ? probably, but she’ll never tell. and, it didn’t help that her mother was a legacy of kappa at their berkeley chapter.

          she has plans of working at sephora following graduation due in part to the fact that she did an internship with colorpop over the summer and wants to be a part of the publicity of a brand as big as sephora. it helps that she’s done various brand sponsorships over the last couple of years, and immediately fell in love with sephora after she worked with them a few times. 

          as for her personality, in regard to her positive traits scintillating and bewitching,  auriella is remarkably clever and ridiculously charismatic. she knows how to get her sisters out of sticky situations no matter the issue and she knows how to get past any issues that someone might encounter while she works as social chair with the sorority ( if that hasn’t been taken ! ) 99.9% of the time, auriella is working at her desk whether it be getting kappa’s social events prepared to also getting her own assignments done. she’s pretty much known around campus due to her crisp white tesla and the sound of her heels clicking on the sidewalk. when she’s like that, she means business. 

          as for her negative traits, auriella is indelicate and vainglorious. meaning that she shows a lack of sensitive understanding and excessively proud of oneself or one’s achievements. in short, when she wants something to be done and it doesn’t get completed, she doesn’t accept excuses and whenever she doesn’t get exactly what she wants, she uses her accomplishments in order to fix things. for instance, when she received a lower grade on her assignment when she thought she deserved higher, her immediate response was ‘ i haven’t been on the dean’s list since freshman year to get a B+, margaret. ’

          since we haven’t talked about her parents in a while, just know that whitney had her own show with cnn in new york city while tristan has since retired from football after winning four super bowls with various teams and has become a sports commentator with espn as well as an businessman/entrepreneur ( something like shaq ). with that being said, during the summers, auriella has free reign of their house in paces since her parents have made new york their permanent home for now.

          some minor things about auriella is that whenever she doesn’t have classes, she often is at the kappa house or maybe somewhere on campus. i think she’s the type to be a part of various clubs, and probably is the president of them, so she’s a busy gal. when she’s not in class though, nine times out of ten she’s wearing a face mask and walking around the kappa house in a massively over-sized shirt that she nabbed from one of her .... ~ahem, conquests. she is never seen on campus in anything less than heels with her favorite bag of the moment, which at this time is a soft pink hermes kelly bag. 

          as for connections ( and then i’ll promise to shut up because i always talk too fucking much ), i would love to have anything ! ex friends, friends to enemies, hateship, bad/good influence, childhood friends, confidants, fake friends, enemies to friends, frenemies, squad, childhood friends, exes on good/bad terms, flirtationship, one night stand(s), exes without closure ... literally anything ! if you see auri fitting in in any connections that you may have open, please let me know i’m literally down for anything !

[death-burst]

What makes a good voting system? -- Simple yet expressive

[This is part of a series on Voting systems. You can find the Masterpost with a list of all articles: here.]

There are a few important things to keep in mind if you want to design a good voting system. Among other things, it needs to be:

expressive ---> allows people to give more information about their preferences, and makes it easier to find a good consensus that fully take into account what they think

simple ---> makes it easy to explain and accept, easy to put in place, easy to use and to count, more transparent

encourages honesty ---> we don’t want people to play games with the system, or more informed/educated voters to be able to manipulate it; the best move should be to be honest about what you really think

For this post, we’ll focus on the first two points. More below the cut.

Note that simple and expressive are often antagonistic goals. A one-name ballot (like we have currently) is obviously very simple, but not expressive at all. Giving a grade over 100 to every candidate is very expressive but extremely complicated.

Expressive

The first step for a system to be expressive is easy: don’t just ask people their favorite, ask them their opinion about all candidates.

There are two different approaches for that: where you order the candidates relative to each other (Ranking Systems), versus where you grade each candidate independently (Scoring Systems). Grading is more expressive (for reasons I don’t want to detail in this already too long post), but in practice, if you allow tied ranks in an ordering system, it’s almost equivalent to grading.

So that’s the first important takeaway: for a good system, you have to allow equality/indifference. You have to let people say, for instance, “I don’t care between A and B, but I prefer any of them to C”.

Simple

So you need people to give their opinion about more than just one candidate, and you must allow them to say “I don’t care” between certain options. Beyond that, it’s a trade-off between expressive and simple.

(Here this is my personal opinion, but I believe you should aim for a minimum threshold of expressiveness and optimize for simplicity, not the other way around: as long as you’re within some acceptable threshold, the marginal utility of simplicity is better than the marginal utility of expressiveness.)

Also, remember that a voting system is two parts: 1) what you say on a ballot, and 2) how to count the ballots. While the issue of expressiveness only concerns point 1, for complexity you have to consider both points 1 and 2.

The ballot: again you have two big families: scores versus ranks. -- For scores, since it’s independent for each candidate, the complexity is just how many different grades you allow. In general, you have to choose between four and ten options. More than that only helps confuse people without much gain in expressiveness. (Personally, I like five.) -- An “extreme” possibility is to have just two grades, 0 and 1, “disapprove” and “approve”, and this is called “Approval voting” and generally considered as a system of its own, but it’s just the simplest form of scoring system. -- For ranking systems, the complexity comes from many small questions like “do you have to rank everyone”, “are you allowed ‘No Opinion’”, “can you rank two candidates as equal”, etc. In practice, I don’t know anyone pushing for a ranking system that would allow for equality (and this is a big issue), and most of the time you’re allowed ‘No Opinion’, which is equivalent to rank that candidate last.

Here you can see how an improved ballot would look like for various methods (in order: Ranked, Approval, Score). Note that there is an art to it, even small details can change how easy it is for people to fill them correctly, and the exact words you choose may have a big influence on how people vote. These are just quick examples I threw down in 10 minutes.

The counting: -- For Approval Voting, just count the number of approval for each candidate, candidate with the most approval wins. You can’t do simpler. -- For Score Voting, you can take the mean score or the median score, and in that second case, there are numerous variants to break a tie. Mean is simpler and is usually called  “Range Voting” and median is more complex (notably because of the tie-breaker, and also for logistics), and it’s usually called “Majority Judgment”. -- For Rank Voting... this is a mess. Remember the “Condorcet winner” and the “Borda winner” from the example in the very first post? Well, there are literally a dozen methods to count, each with its own pros and cons. Among the most well-known, we’ll mention Borda count (modified or not), Instant-Runoff/Single Transferable Vote, and a slew of “Condorcet methods” variants (which all give the Condorcet winner if one exists, but use different approaches to break the tie(s) when there isn’t one).

(Note that IR and STV are equivalent for single-winner elections, but STV is a more generic method that can be used for multi-member constituencies.)

In terms of simplicity, STV is probably the best one, but since it doesn’t allow for equal ranking between candidates, that’s a big strike against it, in my book. And most others are probably too complex to have a real shot at being adopted.

Overall:

Approval is the simplest, and most likely expressive enough.

STV is pretty simple too but maybe not expressive enough with the lack of equality.

Range Voting is most likely the best trade-off.

We’ll stop there and talk about Strategy in the next post.

[This is part of a series on Voting systems. You can find the Masterpost with a full list of articles: here. Previous part. Next Part.]

[mashitandsmashit]

America’s Got Talent: Season 14 - Quarter-Finals 1

Tonight, Terry Crews finally got a chance to host a live show, and he is already making an impression as strong as his muscles!

As for the acts, well, while I suppose I would have liked just a LITTLE more variety between all the singers, I think everyone had something enjoyable to offer...So to me, this was a pretty good show all things considered!

And now for the tricky part: Weighing each act’s pros, cons and overall experience...

12: Ansley Burns. I left a critical yet constructive comment on her video. Honestly, all of the problems she’s faced before still appear to be on full display: Her voice got drowned out by the band, and she still isn’t up to par with pretty much any of the other singers that made the lives (except maybe GFORCE, but I’ll get to them in a bit...) But hey, if there’s one thing that’s kept me from COMPLETELY hating her, it’s her energy and stage presence, and she has shown plenty of both of those things tonight! While the judges seemed to consider her one of the best of the night, she’s getting a much less warm reception on Youtube, so it’s hard to know where she’ll place tomorrow...

11: Carmen Carter. Indeed, this wasn’t the best song choice for her, but I guess it was a slightly different take on the song...She still sounded quite good, and there was plenty of energy like before...But I would still say she put on a better show in the previous round!

10: Luke Islam. I do like this kid, and have no issue with him advancing...Buuuuuut, this was a little forgettable...His voice is still very much there (though he might have had a shaky start), but this performance won’t really stick with me...And did anyone else feel a little seasick seeing him stand behind that slanted light? It looked like he was on the sinking Titanic and had some magic shoes that prevented him from tumbling off into the icy sea!

9: GFORCE. And here’s the theme song to their TV show...COMING TO THE DISNEY CHANNEL! ...Or Nickelodeon? I still had fun with them, but each song they perform gets a little weaker than the last, so I understand if not everyone’s feeling the girl power...

8: Voices of Service. Pretty solid performance, and the choir added to it...But you could just FEEL the obnoxious patriotism oozing from them! Also, it feels like a crime not to let the lady lead more in the vocals...

7: Bir Khalsa. I usually prefer my sideshow acts with a little more tossing, flipping, etc. But the tricks were pretty intense, and the Bollywood music playing in the background (I can hear the singer singing their name, so is it their theme song?) had me adding a little dance to my cringing! That said, the new guy’s constant screaming got a little annoying...

6: Messoudi Brothers. Throughout the previous round, I’ve been thinking to myself, “Man, Simon is actually coming off more like the tough judge he was always known as...I almost can’t remember why I hated him so much over the last few seasons...” And then when he made his comment after this performance (as well as Alex Dowis’, and ooohhh, we’ll get to that REAL soon!), I was like, “Oh, yeah! That’s why!” Like, does he even have a single clue what he’s talking about!? Is he trying to sabotage these acts with his little nitpicks!? Probably...Either way, while this didn’t quite live up to the CRAZINESS that was their Judge Cuts performance, there were still a few formations in there that impressed me! But honestly, they don’t need to keep taking their shirts off; Kinda slows the act down...If they REALLY have to woo the ladies, they can just have the shirts off from the start...Though maybe they’ll take their pants off partway through, I dunno...

5: Emerald Belles. Looks like they averted Howie’s nitpicks! And what’s more, they stepped up the moves quite a bit! I think they just gave their odds a 180 with this performance!

4: Sophie Pecora. I can see that not everyone’s a fan of this girl, but she has been slowly growing on me. This was probably her best song so far, and we even got a little bonus song with the opening package!

3: Greg Morton. Looks like he still has more movies to reenact, instead of the cartoon-themed set I was hoping for...But no matter, it’s all very entertaining, and I’d say this set flowed the best between all of the voices he did! Best performance from him so far! Of course, the REAL winner of the night was his “Pac-Man” suit!

2: Alex Dowis. Seriously, what is Simon talking about!? “It felt like something at a museum”!? And...the last one DIDN’T!? No, I disagree with him completely! Everything flowed together seamlessly, the artwork, the transitions, the effects, the narrative, it was all breathtaking! I really hope the voters are willing to look past his nitpicks and vote for this guy, because this was everything I could ask for from an act like this!

1: Kodi Lee. Okay, Kodi...You got me! This is why you’re gonna win this season!

So yeah, for a night with more than half of the acts being singers, I’d say it went relatively well! I guess I can’t expect tomorrow to be TOO rage-inducing if there’s at least a case to be made for everyone...Still, maybe just a COUPLE non-singing acts advancing tomorrow? ...Pretty please?

My Votes: So it looks like they did away with voting via phone number...Either that, or something’s wrong with the line...But if the former is true, than it probably is for the best since I do get pretty sick of hearing “Thanks for voting for Talent [#], only your first ten votes blah, blah, blah...” ten to twenty times every Tuesday night...(Though maybe they’re still recording Terry saying those lines...) Also, with the other methods, it does feel redundant, other than to give voters more room to abuse the system...So whatever, I voted with the other three things (TV, online and phone app), and gave a total of thirty votes each to Greg Morton, Alex Dowis, Bir Khalsa and Messoudi Brothers...Gotta try to get SOME non-singing acts in there, right?

Result Predictions: If Kodi was any more of a lock, he would be Fort Knox! Luke and VoS look safe as well...And I might even say that Emerald Belles has a shot, what with all of those factors I brought up in my predictions last week, plus the fact that Howie DIDN’T hate them this time! Then we have acts that are tough to call, like Greg, Ansley, Sophie, Alex and Messoudi...Either way, I’m thinking Carmen, GFORCE and Bir Khalsa will probably be the bottom three...

Tomorrow, a WHOLE bunch of old friends return, including last year’s winner and my personal favorite act of that season!

[hope-for-olicity]

I have been thinking, like so many people this week, about rage. Who I’m mad at, what that anger’s good for, how what makes me maddest is the way the madness has long gone unrespected, even by those who have relied on it for their gains.

For as long as I have been a cogent adult, and actually before that, I have watched people devote their lives, their furious energies, to fighting against the steady, merciless, punitive erosion of reproductive rights. And I have watched as politicians — not just on the right, but members of my own party — and the writers and pundits who cover them, treat reproductive rights and justice advocates as if they were fantasists enacting dystopian fiction.

This week, the most aggressive abortion bans since Roe v. Wade swept through states, explicitly designed to challenge and ultimately reverse Roe at the Supreme Court level. With them has come the dawning of a broad realization — a clear, bright, detailed vision of what’s at stake, and what’s ahead. (If not, yet, full comprehension of the harm that has already been done).

As it comes into view, I am of course livid at the Republican Party that has been working toward this for decades. These right-wing ghouls — who fulminate idiotically about how women could still be allowed to get abortions before they know they are pregnant (Alabama’s Clyde Chambliss) or try to legislate the medically impossible removal of ectopic pregnancy and reimplantation into the uterus (Ohio’s John Becker) — are the stuff of unimaginably gothic horror. Ever since Roe was decided in 1973, conservatives have been laboring to roll back abortion access, with absolutely zero knowlege of or interest in how reproduction works. And all the while, those who have been trying to sound the alarm have been shooed off as silly hysterics.

Which is why I am almost as mad at many on the left, theoretically on the side of reproductive rights and justice, who have refused, somehow, to see this coming or act aggressively to forestall it. I have no small amount of rage stored for those in the Democratic Party who have relied on the engaged fury of voters committed to reproductive autonomy to elect them, at the same time that they have treated the efforts of activists trying to stave off this future as inconvenient irritants.

This includes, of course, the Democrats (notably Joe Biden) who long supported the Hyde Amendment, the legislative rider that has barred the use of federal insurance programs from paying for abortion, making reproductive health care inaccessible to poor women since 1976. During health-care reform, Barack Obama referred to Hyde as a “tradition” and questions of abortion access as “a distraction.” I’ve spent my life listening to Democrats call abortion a niche issue — and worse, one that is somehow repellent to voters, even though support for Roe is in fact among the most broadly popular positions of the Democratic Party; seven in ten Americans want abortion to remain legal, even in conservative states.

You can try to tell these Democrats this — lots of people have been trying to tell them for a while now — but it won’t matter; they will only explain to you (a furious person) that they (calm, wise, knowledgeable about politics) understand that we need a big tent and can’t have a litmus test and please be reasonable: we shouldn’t shut anyone out because of a difference on one issue. (That one issue that we shouldn’t shut people out because of is always abortion). Every single time Democrats come up with a new strategy to win purple and red areas, it is the same strategy: hey, let’s jettison abortion! (If you object to this, you will be told you are standing in the way of the greater progressive project).

I grew up in Pennsylvania, governed by anti-abortion Democrat Bob Casey Sr.; his son Bob Jr. is Pennsylvania’s senior senator now, and though he’s getting better on abortion, Jr. voted, in 2015 and 2018, for 20-week abortion bans. Maybe my rage stems from being raised with this particularly grim perspective on Democratic politics: dynasties of white men united in their dedication to restricting women’s bodily autonomy, but they’re Democrats so who else are you going to vote for? Which reminds me of Dan Lipinski, the virulently anti-abortion Democratic congressman — whose anti-abortion dad held his seat before him. The current DCCC leader, Cheri Bustos, is holding a big-dollar fundraiser for Lipinski’s reelection campaign, even though it’s 2019 and abortion is being banned and providers threatened with more jail time than rapists and there is someone else to vote for: Lipinski is being challenged in a primary by pro-choice progressive Democrat Marie Newman. And still, Bustos, a powerful woman and Democratic leader, is helping anti-choice Lipinski keep his seat for an eighth term. So I’ve been thinking about that part of my anger too.

Also about how, for years, I’ve listened to Democratic politicians distance themselves from abortion by calling it tragic and insisting it should be rare, instead of simply acknowledging it to be a crucial, legal cornerstone of comprehensive health care for women, people with uteruses, and their families. I have seethed as generations of Democrats have argued that if we could just get past abortion and focus instead on economic issues, we’d be better off. They never seem to get that abortion is an economic issue, and that what they think of as economic issues — from wages and health care to housing and education policy — are at the very heart of the reproductive justice movement, which understands access to abortion to be one (pivotal!) part of a far broader set of circumstances that determine if, when, under what circumstances, and with what resources human beings might have and raise children.

And no, of course it’s not just Democrats I’m mad at. It’s the pundits who approach abortion law as armchair coaches. I can’t do better in my fury on this front than the legal writer Scott Lemieux, who in 2007 wrote ablistering rundown of all the legal and political wags, including Ben Wittes and Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Cohen and William Saletan, then making arguments, some too cute by half, about how Roe was ultimately bad for abortion rights and for Democrats. Some like to cite an oft-distorted opinion put forth by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has said that she wished the basis on which Roe was decided had included a more robust defense of women’s equality. Retroactive strategic chin-stroking about Roe is mostly moot, given the decades of intervening cases and that the fight against abortion is not about process but about the conviction that women should not control their own reproduction. It is also true that Ginsburg has been doing the work of aggressively defending reproductive rights for decades, while these pundits have treated them as a parlor game. As Lemieux put it then, it was unsurprising, “given the extent to which affluent men safely ensconced in liberal urban centers dominate the liberal pundit class,” that the arguments put forth, “greatly understate or ignore the stark class and geographic inequites in abortion access that would inevitably manifest themselves in a post-Roe world.”

Or, for that matter, that had already manifested themselves in a Roe world.

Because long before these new bans — which will meet years of legal challenge before they are enacted — abortion had grown ever less accessible to segments of America, though not the segments that the affluent men (and women) who write about and practice politics tend to emerge from. But yes, thanks to Hyde and the TRAP laws and the closed clinics and the long travel distances and paucity of providers and the economically untenable waiting periods, legions of women have already suffered, died, had children against their will, while columnists and political consultants have bantered about the necessity of Roe, and litmus tests and big tents. In vast portions of this country, Roe might as well not exist already.

And still those who are mad about, have been driven mad by, these injustices have been told that their fury is baseless, fictional, made of chewing gum and recycled copies of Our Bodies Ourselves. Last summer, the day before Anthony Kennedy announced his resignation from the Supreme Court, CNN host Brian Stelter tweeted, in response to a liberal activist, “We are not ‘a few steps from The Handmaids’ Tale.’ I don’t think this kind of fear-mongering helps anybody.” When protesters shouted at Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings a few weeks later, knowing full well what was about to happen and what it portended for Roe, Senator Ben Sasse condescended and lied to them, claiming that there have been “screaming protesters saying ‘women are going to die’ at every hearing for decades” and suggesting that this response was a form of “hysteria.”

It was the kind of dishonesty — issued from on high, from one of those Republicans who has inexplicably earned a reputation for being “reasonable” and “smart,” and who has enormous power over our future — that makes you want to pull the hair from your head and go screaming through the streets except someone would just tell you you were being hysterical.

And so here we are, the thing is happening and no one can pretend otherwise; it is not a game or a drill and those for whom the consequences — long real for millions whose warnings and peril have gone unheeded — are only now coming into focus want to know: what can be done?

First, never again let anyone tell you that the fury or determination to fight on this account is invalid, inappropriate, or inconvenient to a broader message. Consider that this is also what women and marginalized people are told all the time about their anger in general: that they should not express it, not let it out, because to give voice to their rage will distract from their aims, undermine them; that it will ultimately be bad for them. This messaging is strategic. It is designed to get angry people to keep their mouths shut. Because if they are successfully stifled, they will remain at the margins, isolated, alone in their fury. It is only if they start letting it out and acting on it and working in tandem with others who share their outrage that they might begin to form networks, coalitions, the building blocks of movements; it is when the anger is let loose that the organizing happens in earnest.

Second, seek the organizing that is already underway. In the days since this new round of state abortion bans have begun to pass and make headlines, secret Facebook groups have begun to form, in which freshly furious women have begun to talk of forming networks that would help patients evade barriers to access. Yet these organizations already exist, are founded and run by women of color, have long been transporting those in need of reproductive care to the facilities where they can get it; they are woefully underfunded. The trick is not to start something new, but to join forces with those who have long been angry about reproductive injustice.

“Abortion funds have been sounding the alarm for decades,” said Yamani Hernandez, who runs the National Network or Abortion Funds, which includes 76 local funds in 41 states, each of them helping women who face barriers getting the abortion care they need, offering money, transportation, housing, and help with logistics. Only 29 of the funds have paid staff; the rest are volunteer-run and led with average budget sizes of $75,000, according to Hernandez, who said that in 2017, 150,000 people called abortion funds for help — a number up from 100,000 in 2015, thanks to the barrage of restrictions that have made it so much harder for so many more people. With just $4 million to work with, the funds were able to help 29,000 of them last year: giving abortion funds money and time will directly help people who need it. Distinguishing the work of abortion funds from the policy fights in state houses and at the capitols, Hernandez said, “whatever happens in Washington, and changes in the future, women need to get care today.”

And whatever comes next, she said, it’s the people who have been doing this work for years who are likely to be best prepared to deal with the harm inflicted, which is a good place for the newly enraged to start. “If and when Roe is abolished,” said Hernandez, “the people who are going to be getting people to the care they need are those who have largely been navigating this already and are already well suited for the logistical challenges.”

The fights on the ground might be the most current and urgent in human terms, but there is also energy to be put into policy fights. In 2015, California Congresswoman Barbara Lee authored the EACH Woman Act, the first serious congressional challenge to the Hyde Amendment, which came after years of agitation and activism, especially by All Above All, a grassroots organization led by women of color and determined to make abortion accessible to everyone. Those who are looking for policy fights to lean into can call and write your representatives and candidates and demand that they support the EACH Woman Act.

Rage works. It takes time and numbers and a willingness to express it, but it is among the most reliable catalysts of social and political change. That’s the story of how grassroots activism can compel Barbara Lee to compel her caucus to take on Hyde. Her willingness to tackle it, and the righteous outrage of those who are driven to end the harm it does to poor women and women of color, in turn helped to compel Hillary Clinton to come out against Hyde in her 2016 primary campaign; opposition to Hyde is now — for the first time since it was passed in 1976 — a part of the Democratic Party’s platform.

In these past two years, fury at a Trump administration and at the Republican Party has driven electoral activism. And at the end of 2018, the Guttmacher Institute reported that 2018 was the first year since at least 2000 in which the number of state policies enacted to expand or protectabortion rights and access, and contraceptive access, outnumbered the number of state restrictions. Why? Because growing realization of what was at stake — and resulting anger and activism, pressure applied to state legislatures — led representatives to act.

Of course: vote.

Vote, as they say, as if your life depended on it, because it does, but more importantly: other people’s lives depend on it. And between voting, consider where to aim your anger in ways that will influence election outcomes: educate yourself about local races and policy proposals, as well as the history of the reproductive rights and reproductive-justice movements. Get engaged not just on a presidential level — please God, not just at a presidential level — but with the fights for state legislative power, in congressional and senate elections, all of which shape abortion policy and the judiciary, and the voting rights on which every other kind of freedom hinges. Knock doors, register voters, give to and volunteer with the organizations that are working to fightvoter suppression and redistricting and expand the electorate; as well as to those recruiting and training progressive candidates, especially women and women of color, especially young and first-time candidates, to run for elected office.

You can also protest, go to rallies. Join a local political group where your rage will likely be shared with others.

Above all, do not let defeat or despair take you, and do not let anyone tell you that your anger is misplaced or silly or in vain, or that it is anything other than urgent and motivating. It may be terrifying — it is terrifying. But this — the fury and the fight it must fuel — is going to last the rest of our lives and we must get comfortable using our rage as central to the work ahead.

[berniesrevolution]

2020 is only 18 months away, and will be here before we know it. And in 2020, it is absolutely critical that the Democratic Party is fully prepared to oust Donald Trump from the presidency. It should be quite clear by now that anyone keeping their fingers crossed for impeachment or indictment is thinking wishfully. There is one way to get rid of Donald Trump, and it is through voting him out of office, which means that there cannot be the kind of colossal screw-up that there was in 2016. This time, Democrats need to be ready with a plan, and there is only one clear one that I can see. Barring the emergence of some heroic unforeseen alternative, everyone on the left should ready themselves for it. Every single Democrat needs to come to terms with the fact that the most sensible plan for getting rid of Donald Trump is to unify behind a Bernie Sanders candidacy.

I realize that it’s still considered too early to talk about this, that there are midterm elections before then, and that A Lot Of Things Could Happen In The Meantime. Fine, we can put off seriously thinking about it for another six months, maybe even another year. But time goes by incredibly quickly, and since getting rid of Trump is important for ensuring human well-being and justice, it’s worth at least keeping the various possible scenarios for 2020 in mind. (After all, people like this guy are readying themselves for it.) I have this horrible fear that the Democratic Party, still out of touch, still having learned almost nothing about Donald Trump or the United States, will somehow manage to “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.”

It should now be obvious, almost beyond dispute, that the Democrats should have nominated Bernie Sanders in 2016. During the primary, he polled better in match-ups against Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton did. The argument made by Clinton supporters was that this was only because America did not yet fully know Bernie Sanders. This argument turned out to be false. The more America gets to know Bernie Sanders, the more it likes him: Since Trump’s election, Sanders has been the most popular politician in the country, and a poll from last year showed he “would defeat Trump by 13 percentage points if a general presidential election was held at that time.” Suggestions that only white people like Bernie Sanders are also false: In fact, his favorability rating is far higher among people of color than white people and “is highest among hispanics (66 percent) and African-Americans (77 percent).” The phrase “Bernie Would Have Won” can be a bit of a nasty, unhelpful taunt, but it seems to be the case. That’s especially true considering how important turnout was in deciding the 2016 outcome. If Democrats are to win in 2020, they don’t just need someone with high favorability ratings, they need someone people will show up for, because they care enough about that person’s victory to actually go to the polls. As with Obama, it helps a lot of you can actually produce not just approval but “energy.” People may prefer Generic Democrat over Donald Trump, but are they willing to knock on doors for Generic Democrat? Are they willing to take time off work? Perhaps, but it’s obviously far better to have voters who like your candidate and the things the candidate says and promises to do.

Needless to say, if your party contains a wildly popular politician, with an enthusiastic fan base of young activists, who is adept at speaking to the concerns of the “Rust Belt” states that lost you the election the last time around, it would seem criminally foolish not to nominate that person as your presidential candidate. (And he’s definitely running, by the way.) But I also think the Democrats have almost no other good options. Every other candidate put forward is either uninspiring, deeply flawed, or both. Look, for instance, at Joe Biden. Biden has a terrible record on racial issues, a creepy history with women, and has said he has “no empathy” for millennials suffering with debt and economic precariousness. Doesn’t exactly seem like the right person to energize the Democratic base. Or look at Kamala Harris, who oversaw and defendedan “epidemic” of prosecutorial misconduct while serving as California’s attorney general, and accepted a donation from Steve Mnuchin after inexplicably failing to prosecute his former company for illegal mortgage foreclosures. When two of the most important issues to millennials are criminal justice reform and the unaccountable predation of the 1%, why would you nominate such a candidate?

In February 2016, I argued that unless the Democrats nominated Sanders, “a Trump nomination means a Trump presidency.” It did, although I don’t think I was quite right, because the election was fully winnable even for Hillary Clinton. The argument I gave there was that Trump thrives on a particular kind of politics: the politics of the television spectacle. Hillary Clinton was a perfect opponent for him because she gave him plenty of “material” for his show: the FBI investigation, Bill Clinton, Iraq, Libya, Wall Street. To defeat Donald Trump, you need an opponent who won’t get mired in these kinds of debates, who will be able to draw Trump back to discussing the issues. This is why I think Elizabeth Warren would not do well against Donald Trump. Trump would love Warren as an opponent. First, she’s not actually a very good campaigner; she’s more of an academic, and she had a hard time beating a Republican even in deep-blue Massachusetts. But second, the Native American thing is the sort of scandal that Trump thrives on. Don’t underestimate how bad it is for her; she has repeatedly waffled on the question, and has ticked off Native advocates with her bad answers. With anyone other than Trump on the other side, one might be able to get past it. Against Trump, however, it’s disqualifying, because of the way he practices politics and the use to which he will put something like this.

(Continue Reading)

[timeclonemike]

Just In Case.

So the CRA is coming down to the wire. While I don’t think it’s impossible that somebody will cross the aisle at this point, I wouldn’t put money on it. Of course, after the CRA come the lawsuits, and of course all the states trying to pass legislation to protect net neutrality. The battle is far from over.

But we could still be looking at some unsavory stuff in the future, if not outright Bad Shit Going Down.

So I’ve compiled a list of resources here. I would advise everyone who sees this post to go to the links, if they still work at the time of reading, and save the content locally. Bookmarks might not be enough at some point, you want to have this information on a drive or USB stick somewhere. Maybe even print it out, just have it some place where somebody else can’t keep you from seeing it or hold it hostage.

1. IP Addresses

It’s possible that an ISP censoring content might only think to mess with the Domain Name stuff and not actually block IP Addresses, or there may be technical or legal problems with blocking IPs themselves, so it might be a good idea to know what address a particular site or service uses. You can find some advice on how to do that here.

In case the links no longer work, for whatever reason, there are several methods that get listed. The online version involves this website:

https://ipinfo.info/html/ip_checker.php.

The windows OS version involves using the Command Prompt to send a ping command to a given website. A lot of people who do computer and network troubleshooting will be familiar with this already, because pinging google is a quick benchmark for connectivity and speed issues. Macs use the same ping command, inside of an app called Network Utility, which can be found using the Spotlight. iPhones an Android phones have a specific app for this kind of thing called, surprise surprise, Ping and PingTools respectively, but if you can’t access the app store anymore than you probably have bigger problems than simply navigating a censored and divided internet.

2. VPN Software

Virtual Private Networks have previously been used as a means of staying anonymous online, among other things, but they may be useful as a way to bypass content restrictions imposed by ISPs, acting as a middleman and allowing access to sites and services that the ISP itself may have blocked outright. Of course, whether or not they will work depends on exactly how the ISP is monitoring and restricting content, and whether the VPN itself is hosted in a region where an ISP is blocking and throttling with abandon. Some information on the subject can be found here. There are some obvious concerns about free versus paid VPN services, though I imagine if ISP censoring becomes common enough they’re going to basically “grow” a market of companies and software designed specifically to get around restrictions. Whether or not you can trust a particular type of software, well, if I could predict the future I’d be picking lottery numbers and using the winnings to start funding municipal broadband all over the country like some sort of Guerilla Philanthropist. Keep your antivirus software as up to date as possible, go with your gut, and do not write anybody a blank check.

3. Mesh Networks

This is both a hardware and last mile issue that is not directly connected to the problems of ISP censorship and throttling, but worth mentioning. Simply put, a mesh network is a more redundant system than a single line line of cable. Transmitters and receivers connect to each other on an ad-hoc basis in order to hand off information requests from one device to another to another until they reach a portal to the internet at large, and the process works in reverse to deliver that information to the person who requested it. These have been built in a lot of regions where investment in broadband has not happened, and they have their drawbacks such as requiring a critical size threshold to stay healthy and functional. But the advantage is that no one person can control what goes on over the network, and it can survive a loss of some of the transceivers as long as the minimum size is maintained. A community based organization could use a mesh network to get around restriction on landline communications that are filtered by an ISP, and such an organization might plant the seeds of an actual cooperative broadband arrangement in the future. An article that goes into more technical details can be found here, although it is not entirely technical and there’s more complete sources out there. Keep in mind that this article was written back in 2013, so not only has the technology improved, but the conditions that resulted in it becoming necessary back then pretty much knocks the legs out from under the claims that the internet was doing absolutely fine before the 2015 Open Internet Order.

4. Cut The Cable

I mentioned this in my last big net neutrality post about what to do if push came to shove, but I think it’s worth repeating. The essential idea behind paying for internet is that you get information and communication resources in exchange for money. If your local company is not providing you with the videos and fanfic and news and games and chatting with friends that you want, then do not provide them with your money. Cancel your account, and make sure that they know why, and then use that money on anything else. They did all of this so they could make more money, so starve them out of necessity and / or spite. Being separated from friends, well, that’s going to be traumatic, but if your company won’t let you communicate with them anyway then you might as well spend that money on something else, even if it’s just a box of envelopes and a book of stamps. (On that note, consider exchanging mailing addresses, or rented PO boxes / General Delivery in a nearby municipality, with people you absolutely want or need to keep in contact with, and do that while you can still talk online. Not over open channels, obviously.) As for the rest of it... heck. Maybe a lack of constant bad news from various websites will put us all in a better mood and frame of mind so we can actually come up with plans of action to fix this mess, without struggling under a constant psychological drain.

5. Get Your Voting Stuff In Order

Come November of this year, we all need to go into the polls and kick out all the cowardly, craven shills that sold our world, our futures, and everything that makes our lives tolerable to a bunch of greedy corporations. Make sure you are registered, make sure you have everything you need to bring to the polls if your state has a voter ID requirement like mine (thanks for nothing, Kobach) and mark the date on your calendar. And when the day comes, vote. Find the time to get away from whatever you’re doing, be it classes or work or whatever. If you know, or just suspect, that you won’t be able to vote on the appointed day, look into getting an advance ballot and use that instead.

Good luck, everybody.